Congrats!

The trick is to redirect the conversation into something you’re happy to rant about for hours. “Why?” “Because mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell, much like Horus was the powerhouse of the campaign to reunify the galaxy.” “Why?” “So in ancient Anatolia, an immortal man was born…”

To me it feels more about consistency. The world aligns with your expressed ideology.

If you’re using the sneaking and non-lethal tools the world becomes a place that believes in the value of life, if you murder indiscriminately the world becomes a place of punishment, where nobody is innocent and the only way forward is to let a plague descend on the land.

Plus, arguably, the parts that get harder when you go lethal are balanced by the inherently more difficult nature of the non-lethal approach.

Interesting, I’ve never considered choices and gameplay as separate things. Isn’t it more, I don’t know, immersive if gameplay and story are unified?

Non-lethal also means avoidance rather than conflict. But ultimately, “bad ending” is subjective. You still save the princess, it’s just a more murdery vibe.

Also you get to kill the baddies yourself, it’s the good ending where most are killed for you right?

Careful research.

You can’t really call it slop just because you disagree with their views and representations of things.

Their stuff is carefully researched and sourced, human crafted and open to critique. Whether they’re correct in their assessments or not is of course up for debate, but it’s good craftsmanship and they show their work.

For sure, the above was just my experience.

Feels like a deep urge, short circuiting your brain to satisfy it. Like hunger or thirst. The longer I go without sexual attention, the more my brain starts to interpret everything as an opportunity for sex. When I satisfy it, it brings joy and release and calm. It’s fun, intimate and satisfy needs for closeness and touch.

It also feels deeply connected to a bunch of psychological stuff like the need for approval, gender affirmation, power dynamics, competitiveness and more.

I can definitely see it being more exciting than exhausting, but to each their own.

I guess that’s the joke - this is so stupid and obviously won’t work, but that perspective is subverted when it turns out to actually work, causing humour.

I quite like it.

An artsy short (Vimeo?) about some girl hanging out her very stylish, beige apartment while a voiceover talsk very intimimately to her. In the end the voiceover talks about being eaten up, and the girl kinda swallows some pudding thing?

It had a slightly french vibe I think, though not as overtly erotic as it sounds.

Also double slit experiment is not so much a thought experiment as it’s an experimental phenomenon that is hard to explain. Also Einsteins thought experiments are actual science, based on reality with actual results…

The double slit experiment was first invented as a thought experiment, and later was built as an actual experiment. It’s the same with relativity, first it was thought up, now it’s experimentally verified. So the examples from relativity you bring up are also more experimental phenomena than a thought experiments at this point.

I have, I studied these ideas at university. I’m just curious what makes these thought experiments harder than e.g. the double slit experiment, Plato’s cave analogy or Rawls’ veil of ignorance?

What makes relativity the hardest thought experiment?

Cool! What’s your take on the empirical method then, considering the relationship between reality and the subject?

Yes, it’s pretty important to me for mental hygiene and self-control.

But what do you mean it’s “a bigger deal than science”? Do you do science as well?

We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments

This is not true. For example, we don’t know why [ice is slippery].(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.03.002).

Furthermore

There are no extreme environments on Earth…

Yes, there is. Ice. And superconductors. And so on… And even if all the other stuff is exotic, it’s important to know all the other underlying principles to comprehend what’s actually going on.

But we have no evidence that we’re anywhere close to being able to accurately simulate physics, even with planet sizes computers.

I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware…

Then what? We have no reason to believe that would cause parts of the simulation to be conscious and think they exist in reality.