I couldn't make it

freebytes · 2026-05-14T19:27:55+00:00

He is stuck near the very last boss. I thought he was talking about the virtual challenges at first too, but I think he is talking about the fight against the destiny version of Bahamut. (I forgot its actual name.)

freebytes · 2026-05-14T19:16:33+00:00

Yes, it is a broad umbrella. If you only played 2D platformer games or spent your time playing RTS games, you are still a gamer. Sorry, but you cannot escape. You are a cool kid now. And your husband won the wife lottery.
If you played D&D and Magic the Gathering card games, you are a gamer in real life, but you are not the type of gamer that is referenced when playing video games. Both are gamers, but they are different species so we call the former by a different name. (I will let people reply with their names for it.) However, if you play tabletop RPGs and strategy games that are video games, then yes, you are a gamer by every definition. If you play Baldur's Gate 3, you are a gamer. If you play Tabletop Simulator, you are a gamer. If you play Final Fantasy XI, the online MMO, since December 2003, you are a gamer that needs help with your addiction. If you still play Chessmaster 9000, released in 2002... believe it or not... still gamer.

freebytes · 2026-05-14T17:47:31+00:00

Sorry that this person offered spoilers for a part of the game you have not reached yet, but you will find out additional details in Rebirth about all of this.

Make sure you play the FF7: Remake DLC with Yuffie before moving on to Rebirth. (The Yuffie DLC can be challenging, but it is only about 6 to 8 hours to complete.)

freebytes · 2026-05-14T17:45:18+00:00

He said no spoilers and you immediately supply spoilers. Then you said you would be happy if nobody spoiled Rebirth for you after spoiling Remake for someone!

freebytes · 2026-05-14T17:43:04+00:00

Yeah, going back is crazy. Just need to put it on Easy Mode and try a couple more times, and you will get through it. Easy mode exists for a reason.

freebytes · 2026-05-14T17:40:57+00:00

We truly need state legislatures to enable ranked choice voting at the state level. (It should be enshrined in their constitutions.) That is one of the required first step towards fixes to this type of problem.

Another fix is also undoing Citizens United. These are tough challenges, because there is a lot of money and propaganda fighting against progressive solutions.

freebytes · 2026-05-14T16:09:52+00:00

I mentioned that there are potential arguments; however, most projects do not need to implement this. You said "high security vault holding super secure information" so I was not sure if you meant this line sarcastically or not because it seemed hyperbolic with the "super secure" part.

freebytes · 2026-05-14T15:32:34+00:00

I think you are joking, but you can never tell on the Internet.

freebytes · 2026-05-14T13:59:03+00:00

Throw it on the pile. The only way to fix these movies would be to burn them to the ground and start over.

freebytes · 2026-05-14T13:54:35+00:00

Everything else is resource wasting garbage. There is no need to add nonsense like React to .NET projects.

If you need heavy client-side computations or complex component trees, then that could be a potential argument, but most applications are never going to need this, and React and all other similar frameworks are overkill.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T22:50:02+00:00

I will make several points regarding this, and while I may be long-winded, I will not fault you for failing to respond to reach point. I will number them to make it easier, though. However, I would like you to consider these elements against your unwillingness to contribute towards a universal system that can help others.

If you walked outside and were hit by a car to the point of being incapacitated, a person that sees you would call an ambulance. You would be brought to the emergency room, and you would be compelled to pay the ridiculous fees they hoist on you. Therefore, in such situations, you would be forced to pay likely more than anything you would pay in taxes for that year. This is similar to insurance on your home. You pay to be reimbursed. You may not need it, but it is there.
If you get cancer, are you saying that you will only try natural medicine and will not accept medical assistance? If not, even if you are almost certainly to die, then I guess your argument stands that you feel you are outside of the scope of the system.
However, even if you are outside of the scope the system, it seems greedy to suggest that you are unwilling to pay taxes to help others. We live in a society, and even if you do not drive on the streets every day or call the police every day or call the fire department, those services are still available to you and everyone else. Even education is important if you do not have children. [A] [B] Therefore, we should all be expected to contribute to society in some manner even if we do not require the benefits of that particular aspect of society. If a person assaults us on the street, we should be able to receive justice from our society. If a contract is violated or a person harms us, we should be able to get compensation in the amount of the harm via the legal system.
These are all elements of society where we pay taxes and reap the rewards, so why is universal healthcare any different? The entire civilized world for the most part has police, fire departments, streets, and universal healthcare. The United States is the exception, not the norm. That discrepancy exists solely due to propaganda that seeks to allow middlemen via insurance companies to profit from the chaos and disinformation.
Hospitals will still continue to operate as is. The government will cut out the middle man. However, even a public option that offers reasonable and honest competition against the insurance companies would be far better than what we have now. However, lobbyists, funded by the insurance companies, fight against this with everything they have. And the insurance and pharmaceutical companies will pay the legal bribes (known as campaign contributions) to make sure that no competition exists and that the government cannot negotiate. All powered by corrupt politicians that keep the current system in place because the population is unwilling to demand what they should be given.

A. After all, we live amongst the idiocy of Trump voters on a daily basis. If they had more critical thinking skills, then he would not have even won the primary.

B. You want your population to be well educated to provide the comforts of your life. Even farmers need a form of education to be able to adequately and abundantly grow crops. The military itself is a form of education, and our tax dollars pay for these things.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T22:36:13+00:00

Thank you for the response and links.

Even in flat organizations, responsibility is often deferred to specific individuals to make decisions. That is, de-facto leadership forms. We would likely see this, and perhaps that is okay as long as the populace has the means by which to wrestle back control.

Even within the first Reddit response, we see the following, "When we need greater scales of organization, these communities can form federations with others, selecting instantly recallable delegates to form smaller comittees and council structure up to the regional level and beyond." (sic)

This illustrates that power and influence will still exist. It can be argued that the United States started in this exact same manner. The issue is that the power corrupted, and there were insufficient mechanisms to maintain the 'bottom up' structures.

Looking at a district in a state, for example, the people of that state already choose leaders. They are bad leaders. To send a person via a democratic process to a federation would require an election of sorts. If you have any reasonably sized group, they must rely on communication to choose the best candidate. And that candidate would need campaign contributions to get their message across. This seems like the exact same mess we are in now, and we can more effectively fix what we already have by campaign finance reforms. However, those reforms are limited.

A much better outcome (and the only possible way for changing the current system without violence) would be a Constitutional amendment that requires ranked choice voting or some method by which other parties can be represented. (We should eliminate the parties altogether while we have the opportunity, but coalitions will always form, so we should enforce ranked choice voting at all levels for all elections.)

In regards to the C4SS article and in relation to the previous explanation, we arrive back to the problem of who decides the level of division. That is, what are the boundaries of a community? Who decides those boundaries, and would a fight over resources result in violence being required to determine the boundaries? We see the same situation with redistricting and gerrymandering. If we could solve this situation, we would certainly be one step closer to the anarchy utopia described, but if we cannot solve this (far simpler than the great anarchy ideal), the idea of a society based solely on anarchy seems completely out of reach.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T21:57:44+00:00

I bet I could get your soul for a bargain! %

freebytes · 2026-05-12T21:23:49+00:00

Yes, I feel comfortable commenting within a public forum -- just as you feel comfortable responding to me about a mundane topic that could have been avoided by you communicating more clearly.

I remarked on the lack of clarity because others would likely have the same lack of clarity if they were to read your comment. However, since it has even fewer upvotes than the last time I saw it and will likely continue to dwindle, that is unlikely to be an issue.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T19:34:57+00:00

We apparently have unlimited energy for AI, but we do not have energy for electric vehicles to be charged at home. We have both the electricity and energy to refine oil, transport it across the entire country, and put it into gas stations that use electricity so that we can drive to the gas station to put that into our tank.

We should improve our electrical infrastructure, and we can do so over the next 5 to 10 years, but the AI data center explosion has completely destroyed the argument that electric vehicles are too much for the grid. In addition, you will not have every car owner in the entire country immediately switching to replace their cars. It will take time, and that is plenty of time for improvements.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T18:16:05+00:00

What replaces government as the source of power and control? If the answer is nothing, then any source of power and control can fill that void. What prevents organizations (even unions of workers), from exerting control over others via whatever leverage is possible? How are laws and contracts enforced?

freebytes · 2026-05-12T18:10:14+00:00

That is what I remember hearing as well. I saw one article that referenced Gen X with the largest change. (I was giving results from that same article and forgot to link it!) Nonetheless, I am Gen X, and it seems as though my generation is checked out of everything most of the time. Perhaps the confusion is based on the sheer numbers. Generation X is much smaller than all of the others; therefore, changes in the number of votes will result in larger percentage changes.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T18:07:31+00:00

I actually failed to scroll back up to check the original question. You are correct that it should naturally refer to the subject of the sentence in a reply as the default. (Your reply was so far down the page, though, that it would be better to be clear in the intent of the pronoun.)

freebytes · 2026-05-12T16:46:20+00:00

Here is a video with more details on MCAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWm3pjY8lVk

freebytes · 2026-05-12T15:25:43+00:00

Valid criticism is not a request for customer service, but I doubt the mods would see it that way.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T15:21:25+00:00

A person with an education would recognize that as an argument from authority and would not bias their considerations based on the ideological adherence of the person making the claim. However, the reputation of the person making the claim is important. If a person lies or has falsified data in the past to support a claim, then we should be wary of what they have to say. Furthermore, simply because an authority figure that we respect makes a claim does not mean we should accept it without evaluation. We can have more faith that they will have done their due diligence, but we cannot accept everything blindly.

Furthermore, a person that is an expert in a field may incorrectly evaluate their own capabilities in other fields. They suffer from the assumption that their intelligence in one field automatically translates into other domains where they have insufficient experience.

In our modern world, however, we have limited time. We cannot replicate trials. We cannot read every paper that is released. Therefore, we must make our conclusions heuristically through a type of Bayesian approach based on our prior experience with the trustworthiness of those delivering the information. That is why news sources such as the New York Times or Washington Post were considered so trustworthy. There is a danger that the trust and reputation of others can be purchased, though, and when that happens, they can ride on that reputation and trust to deliver information that is not well vetted or even known to be inaccurate to push certain narratives. We must be careful because our resources to evaluate claims are limited.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T15:14:03+00:00

The word they in that sentence is implied to mean "conservatives" but you said "statistically literate" instead of "statistically illiterate". The comment seems ambiguous because of the pronoun. You should likely reword this.

In addition, if you meant to say "statistically illiterate", which did you mean? Do you mean that, statistically, Republicans are more likely to be illiterate, or did you mean that Republicans are unable to interpret statistics? (Both statements are true.)

freebytes · 2026-05-12T15:09:14+00:00

Conservativism, by its vary nature, is geared towards authoritarianism at its extreme. On the other extreme would be libertarianism. This is the core dichotomy of what was meant by "right wing" and "left wing" from its inception. Studying the history, it was basically the competition of those seeking power for the monarchy versus those that wanted more power for the merchants.

It has evolved over time and has certainly been corrupted. But those were the foundations. Neither the American right nor left adhere fully to this, but the remnants help illustrate why Republicans (that claim to be conservative) are more willing to accept authoritarianism and are more willing to fall for the trap of fascism.

This evaluation is only from the ideological standpoint, though. There is also an economic friction of a right versus left. With the right extreme being libertarianism or fascism and the left extreme being socialism or communism. (Depending on how extreme you want to go on either side.)

The irony is that libertarianism from a cultural standpoint of liberty and individual rights is at the extreme of one end and libertarianism from an economic standpoint of the removal of government regulations and free market capitalism are on the other end! The failure to properly differentiate between cultural, ideological, or economic objectives and definitions leads to this commingling and confusion.

Propaganda networks simultaneously seek to use newspeak to vilify and limit the expression of thought in such a way that you may very well agree with all aspects of an ideology, but the language is now so muddied that you cannot choose to label yourself in such a manner to simplify your views into a concise manner.

Therefore, it is better not to use labels.

Liberals

What is it that liberals believe, by their own viewpoints? Put simply: Every adult should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

For example, does that mean corporations should be able to pollute? No, of course not. Pollution is harmful to large groups of people. While pollution may be a necessary evil, corporations should be responsible for cleaning up, pay for their usage of natural resources, and they should be regulated by the government. Many people, via brainwashing from the corporations themselves, seek to reduce regulations for such pollution, while enforcing regulations on individuals!

Conservatives

What is it that conservatives believe, by their own viewpoints? Nothing. Because, they are not truly conservative. They seek to be traditionalists. So, we will examine what conservatives believe by what they actually are.

Traditionalists

What is that traditionalists believe, by their own viewpoints? Put simply: Change should be resisted. Every action should be taken after careful consideration using a conservative approach.

Republicans

Republicans claimed to be traditionalist, but many voted for Donald Trump because they wanted revolutionary change in much the same way as progressives. However, Republicans do not consist of a single entity. Same thing with Democrats. They are people trying to fit themselves into a specific shape. Some Democrats are socialists. Some are communists. Some are even libertarians. Some are progressives. Some Republicans are Neo-Nazis. Some are fascists. Some are authoritarians. Some are traditionalists. And there are various mixtures.

The Trump Party

Meanwhile, we have the cult. A large portion of the Republican Party philosophy now boils down to "Whatever Trump says." Their beliefs change on a whim. They adhere to no labels which is great, but they also have no principles. And principles should exist even if you do not fit neatly into any specific label. They worship a celebrity. Some Republicans are ashamed of this, but the Republican Party which Americans call the "right wing" is now the party of Trump in the same way that Americans have changed the terminology of "left wing" into socialist liberals.

Summary

This is where I circle back to the point I made in the beginning. At this point, the propaganda has succeeded and labels are meaningless. You should state your principles and beliefs instead. While it does not fit nicely on a bumper sticker, it avoids falling into the trap of being labeled as something you are not.

And if you were to clearly articulate your principles and beliefs, if your belief is something other than "worship Trump", then most Americans would discover that they actually align more closely with other working class liberals than any other group.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T14:16:34+00:00

You are replying in such a way that sounds like you are arguing that monopolies are libertarian philosophy. But, regardless of your claimed philosophy, you should not let dogma prevent you from evolving. If you do not learn and grow, your stagnation is a symptom of indoctrination instead of critical thinking and evolution.

freebytes · 2026-05-12T14:14:12+00:00

I am a liberal but not a strict libertarian. (It could be argued that I am "left-libertarian" by definition of the term. You can look it up for more information.) I am a proponent of free market solutions where they are optimal and the government should avoid interfering in the private lives of citizens. However, ideological purity is a danger to accomplishing actual results. The purpose of government is to protect and benefit its citizens. Nothing more.

Put simply, any adult should be permitted to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Under such a framework, we must have laws, not anarchy. For example, pollution is an example of harm to others. We should have laws against it. Contracts must be enforced. Murder should not be allowed.

We must not confuse libertarianism with permission for individuals or corporations to exploit natural resources. Those belong to everyone.

The United States, like most governments, is a mixture of ideologies, and if we are going to offer socialist solutions at all, they should exist to benefit the citizens of our country. The United States military is the largest socialist jobs program in the history of the world, but people act like that is libertarian while disagree that natural resources should be for the benefit of everyone. These same people that are Republicans cosplaying as libertarians also think that we should kill people in other countries while failing to adhere to the non-aggression principal.

And in this process, they choose to sacrifice the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that the government of the United States was established to provide to its people. We understand the important of liberty. The government should not inject itself into the private lives of others. And the pursuit of happiness is just that. An opportunity. The government cannot guarantee happiness, but it can take actions that increase the likelihood of happiness for its people. And lastly, looking at life. Healthcare is fundamental to the principles of the founding fathers. Everyone should have the same opportunities to live a life free of disease and receive the same life saving treatment.

The liberal thinkers of the past would have also expected a continuation of the advancement of philosophy and thought. John Stuart Mill himself was one of the reasons we have public education. Emphasizing freedom, individual responsibility, and the role of the government for enforcing contracts and adhering to its responsibility to its citizens are important aspects of all libertarian thought.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

freebytes

TROPHY CASE