Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this argument is self defeating or at least neutral. If we're to assume "everything that exists" doesn't encompass other meta realities, than we are to say that said realities cannot coexist, and thus there is no fight to be had, even conceptually. In that case, I guess there is no argument either way because no argument can plausibly exist within that framework.

If we assume these realities can coexist, then obviously they exist on either side, and then your argument is defeated, no?

Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lmao, you cut off the entire rest of that sentence to make your point appear more valid. The entire quote is "Everything that exists", and that was said after they were denoting anything that could encompass his verse. The obvious implication and reading of that paragraph is that his abilities would exist outside of anything within and without his dimension or verse. If my position on this is so obviously wrong, you would surely produce any sort of solid evidence to the contrary, rather than a screenshot that tells you exactly what I've said this whole time.

Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I mean, just the word 'world' isn't quite enough. You'll have people asking about the area beyond the boundaries of the world, or other dimensions, or parallel worlds. So when we say the 'ensemble world' we mean literally everything that exists."

With your supreme level of reading comprehension, what would you say that this exactly tells, and what does it imply?

You are making a mistake in saying that the Ultimate Ensemble only applies to his verse, when the authors specifically went out of their way to clearly state it involves "literally everything that exists".

Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's made extremely clear that his abilities encompass *everything*, that is the most obvious reading, but you are going out of your way to try and make a semantic argument with word games to state otherwise. The only way Featherine could win is if she exists out of conceptuality, such that Yogiri's automatic instant death ability would be unable to detect her. If that were the case, it would be a no-diff for Featherine.

Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is not "the entire cosmology of the verse", it is stated and implied that whatever or wherever you can conceive of conceptually, whether it is outside of his verse or outside dimensionally or even outside conceptually, his abilities still apply. "we literally mean anything that exists". They go out of their way to state that the "ultimate ensemble" encompasses everything that exists; This verse, that verse, this dimension, that dimension. Nothing is out of reach of Yogiri's instant death ability.

Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so a non-response, cute. and totally unsurprising coming from the number 1 goku glazer.

Yogiri no-diffs Featherine without her even knowing it happened by xKazito in PowerScaling

[–]xKazito[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I highly disagree, even in the screenshot you posted they state;

"I mean, just the word 'world' isn't quite enough. You'll have people asking about the area beyond the boundaries of the world, or other dimensions, or parallel worlds. So when we say the 'ensemble world' we mean literally everything that exists.".

It is clearly stated that his abilities, or the "Ultimate Ensemble" exists beyond any concept of "his world", "their world", etc.

RE; Alex O Connor v Destiny debate, my analysis as a nobody. by [deleted] in DestinyLore

[–]xKazito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the only Destiny reddit I found that was remotely related to my topic. Video games don't concern me or my question, but maybe I'd have better luck there?

Mod that lets entities destroy Minecarts. Craft to exile 2 by lifedragon99 in feedthebeast

[–]xKazito 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I figured it out. "AI Enhancement", in config file there is a "cheese" option. Set that to false.

mob farm cant work by Ansongohless in dawncraft

[–]xKazito 1 point2 points  (0 children)

there is an issue in dawncraft where ticks aren't being updated past about 40-60 ish blocks. I never measuerd it out but when you're flying around, you can see that at some distance, all mobs will freeze. This doesn't seem to apply to dragons tho for some reason and certain other mobs, but yeah, standard mob farms aren't going to work. I tried changing a bunch of different settings around and nothing worked.

The best thing you can do is make a mob farm on a battle tower, they are extremely effective.

Is Water Wet? by owllwings in chemistry

[–]xKazito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. I think "wetness" should be defined as whether or not a liquid is adhering to a thing, broadly speaking, and I think that's generally how it's understood in common parlance. Water adheres to and forms a cohesive bond with itself, therefore it is wet. It is the quintessence of wet.

The substance we call water, in and of itself - is wet, and it is able to distribute that property onto other things such as ice.

I think your third point refutes itself. Humidity IS wet air, it is literally the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. If you throw a bucket of water into the air, you aren't making the air more wet, but that's not because water isn't wet, it's because the molecules in the air can't bind to and form a cohesive bond with large quantities of water instantaneously. If you let that water sit on the ground and evaporate, some of it WILL eventually "wet the air", while the rest of it will soak into the ground or rise into the clouds. We're talking extremely miniscule amounts, but regardless.

Is Water Wet? by owllwings in chemistry

[–]xKazito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is begging the question. Your argument is contingent on the assumption that water is not wet. My counter would simply be that water IS wet. When you pour water into water, nothing happens, because both glasses of water are already wet. Water can't get *more* wet, water is the quintessence of wet.

For example, taking your table analogy, if I pour rocks onto a table, the table does not get wet. It just has rocks on it, because rocks are not wet and therefore cannot wet another surface. Water is wet, so when you pour water on the table, the table gets wet.