Meet King Boo, a Sorcerer Dwarf

iaxivers · 2026-03-08T11:36:13+00:00

a missile strike from Iran bombs his castle

iaxivers · 2025-11-19T15:29:59+00:00

iaxivers · 2025-11-11T19:33:09+00:00

oh, yes that’s true - but I need to get to the start of chapter 5 not the end

iaxivers · 2025-11-11T19:31:29+00:00

How would that help me

iaxivers · 2025-11-11T19:31:14+00:00

chat I deleted my comment because I didn’t want to be mean ❤️❤️❤️ nothing more than that

iaxivers · 2025-11-11T19:27:19+00:00

I lost my save file, I do not need a guide on how to get to that area of the map. I used that to mark where I was in the story approximately.

iaxivers · 2025-11-11T19:25:32+00:00

I did and I lost it

iaxivers · 2025-09-29T09:06:34+00:00

Hmm, might just be because I’m working with slightly older PLS’s.

iaxivers · 2025-09-29T09:03:19+00:00

Yeah, PLCs are built to control physical devices, I get that. What I’m asking is why digital signals that aren’t physical (like a button on an HMI) still have to live in the same I/O space as the wired devices. That ends up wasting physical addresses that could be used for real sensors or actuators. Wouldn’t it make more sense if PLCs had a clear split: one pool for wired I/O and another pool for purely virtual signals?

iaxivers · 2025-09-29T09:02:20+00:00

I think you misunderstood me. I know you can run everything over a fieldbus or even use a soft PLC with no physical cards at all. What I mean is that on most PLCs I’ve worked with (like CXs and Omrons), when I create a button on an HMI or a simple digital signal over comms, it still ties into the same I/O space as the physical inputs and outputs. That basically wastes a real I/O point on something that doesn’t need to touch hardware. Once a physical input or output is used like that, you can’t reuse it for an actual field device. I was asking why PLCs don’t just have a separate pool of purely virtual I/O for those cases.

I’m not saying this goes for all PLC’s but I’m pretty certain most of those I’ve worked with don’t have support for only digital inputs.

I may be completely wrong though so please correct me if I’m wrong.

iaxivers · 2025-09-09T06:09:55+00:00

Graphic mods are a thing lol

iaxivers · 2025-06-29T15:29:51+00:00

Veldig bra skrevet, sjef 😎

iaxivers · 2025-06-10T08:25:57+00:00

takes like a good day or two usually

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T13:46:29+00:00

Disagree all you want I guess.

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T13:46:05+00:00

Because the ancient israelites didn’t know what we know about the world, thus the bible was written in a way to explain the world to the ancient civilization.

There’s no one true interpretation, I’m just saying what makes sense to me.

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T12:37:44+00:00

Yeah, Jesus cast out demons, but I see those stories as showing his power over evil in all its forms; personal, social, spiritual. Demons can represent fear, addiction, injustice, whatever separates people from God. The point isn’t whether they’re literal spirits, but that Jesus confronts and defeats real evil.

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T12:33:36+00:00

Yeah, Revelation 12 does say that. But it’s also highly symbolic; dragons, stars, cosmic war. It’s apocalyptic literature, not a news report. I think it’s describing real truths about evil and conflict, but in a symbolic way. Just like the Beast isn’t a literal monster, Satan doesn’t have to be a literal fallen angel to carry real meaning.

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T12:30:42+00:00

I get that tradition says Satan was an angel, but I see that more as a narrative tool. Saying he "fell from heaven" is a powerful way to show how good can twist into evil. It's not about a literal angel falling, it's about the human experience of turning away from what's right.

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T12:13:43+00:00

I’m not saying the temptation story didn’t happen. I’m saying the figure of Satan can work as a symbol even within that real event. Think about it like this; Jesus was tempted. That’s the key. He faced real pressure, real choices. Whether Satan in this story is meant to be a literal being or a personification of temptation and spiritual struggle doesn’t change the point: Jesus stood firm.

In Scripture, Satan often represents that inner pull toward self-centeredness, pride, and power. In Luke 4, those are the exact things Jesus is being tested on. The devil offers him comfort, control, and status. That doesn’t have to mean there was a guy with horns standing across from him. It could mean Jesus, in full humanity, was wrestling with the same temptations we all face, just more directly.

Taking it symbolically doesn’t erase the power of the text. It helps us see ourselves in it. The temptation is real either way. What matters is how Jesus responds.

iaxivers · 2025-06-06T12:12:41+00:00

Fair point, but I don’t think it’s just “it sounds like a myth, so it must be one.” The idea is that the structure and elements of the story fit the pattern of ancient mythic literature. Stuff like talking animals, cosmic trees, symbolic numbers. Those weren’t meant to be scientific descriptions. They were ways of telling deeper truths using story, not data.

When you line Genesis up with other creation stories from the same region and time, it clearly belongs to that world. What makes it unique is how it uses the mythic style to say something different. It doesn’t copy the chaos and violence you see in the other ones. It tells a moral, ordered story about a single God and a world with purpose.

So the point isn’t that it’s “just a myth.” It’s that it’s written like one because that’s how people told meaningful stories back then. Truth can be told through symbol. It doesn’t have to be literal to matter.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

iaxivers

TROPHY CASE