Bay 12 Games Forum

So, uh. It turns out if you're willing to be absolutely incredibly silly. Drones are actually pretty hilariously deadly.

What you have to do.

Is box the opposing ship in. With your blocks. Like. Surround them entirely.

If you build "arms" out far enough, they will actually extend past the AI starting point. And then you can close it off.

... and then you fill the inside of the box with drone launchers. Drone's biggest problem -- being outran or dodged -- completely mitigated.

Also causes the AI to basically flip the hell out. It seems to have absolutely no idea how to operate inside a closed arena made of enemy. Pretty great watching them pinball around slamming into the walls, though. Also makes them just start spewing attacks everywhere right from the get-go. Good way to haywire charge weapons, ha.

---

So yeah. Future build, proooobably want to start ships a particular distance from each other. Preferably measured from the front of the ships, heh. Otherwise the mighty boxbot might actually be capable of winning tournaments

What distinguishes a photo taken for sexual gratification versus any other photo of the same area? Well to do that, you would have to delve into a person's mind wouldn't you?

Pretty much, yah. Absolutely nothing external is capable of distinguishing if a photo is taken for purposes of sexual gratification or for some other reason. Even pics of folks outright fornicating may be taken for other reasons -- anatomy/etc. study, aesthetic or emotional appreciation instead of sexual, almost certainly even more beyond those.

And nah, GO, it's just something made a ways back. Hard to think through paradigm shifts and outside context problems, and often a bad idea besides. Is why laws can change, yes.

Well. What if someone, god forbid,

likes

math?

Well, that's absolutely and perfectly fine, and they're quite welcome to study all they want. Independently. Without the aid of calculators. Abacuses only. hahaha, I'm just kidding those people get sent to the reeducation center
there's only one, because that's all that's needed to service the entire world's population of such blighted minds _{^{this is a joke}}

... between that and wolfram, why do we bother teaching mathematics nowadays, again?

... strange to hear praise of south carolina coming out of you two.

Er, not really. God is in everything, but also transcends everything. I explained it very poorly, I'm afraid. I am unfamiliar with "Christian Materialism" but I can assure you that is not what I'm talking about at all.

Nah, it's got some other name (well, probably a good half dozen or whatev', but that's how it goes) -- christian materialism is just what I call it. What I'm talking about is exactly what you're talking about, just stripped of some of the religious language

Iirc, the tradition ultimately defines god as "the most fundamental good" -- that good which enables all other goods (and, in being enabled thusly, said goods become of god). Which is, as noted, bare faced raw existence -- material existence. That which defines all other things, which they cannot exist without. That which is not, is not, et al, and that which is, is of god (existence). I AM that I AM, etc., etc. Reality is of god, and god is of reality, but god is also beyond reality (transcendent) because more can (conceptually, anyway) exist than what does. More or less, both the manifestation and non-manifestation of the platonic ideal of existence. It ends up boiling down to materialism, though, because only what is, is :3

That's why it's a hoot, heh.

Hrm. Just noticed we're three hours out from Ulm stalling. Maybe a short push back, just in case?

A is actually sin as an absence (of god), if you want to be particular (it becomes nothingness when you consider god to == existence, since there is no existent thing that does not exist, i.e. is of god ), and I want to say (one of) the earliest manifestation(s) of that came from one of the early Big As in Christian theology. Aquinas or Augustine, iirc, but somewhere way back in that direction. It's an old attempt to explain the problem of evil.

Either of those two can be pretty fun to read regardless, honestly. They wrote some neat stuff.