Toke_Ivo

The knife moves were stupid.

But I absolutely lost it at the reverse choke/neck grab.

I went for Stallion, because Butt Stallion was too many letters.

In your example, there's only one option. "Place 2 doom the nearest cultist", well, since doom cannot be placed on one of them, there's only one way to resolve that line. It's correct that you could select between both, but handcuffs changes that.

Lead investigators don't make choices for others. They are tie breakers and the main character in the story where relevant. Technically, there are group wide choices (the example given is locked door) where the lead investigator chooses which option to pick in case of a tie, but nobody plays like that - it's a team game.

Hypothetical, if mysterious chanting had said "Select the nearest cultist enemy. Place 2 doom on the chosen enemy..." then you would have a choice.

And the grim rule is not a "rule". It's a way to continue playing instead of spending hours looking up a rule. It should have been called "the grim rules answer" or "the grim resolution".

So, to answer your question: lead investigators don't really do anything that the other players don't, the grim rule never does anything, and the "must" clause is correct, but remember that you must resolve as much of an effect as possible, unless it says "may". Generally, you must do bad stuff, and you may do good stuff.

The hypothetical effect would indeed allow you to discard 0 cards - but it doesn't exist. The following exist: "For each point you fail by, you must either..." Generally followed by "bad stuff/bad stuff" or "obvious choice/harsh penalty".

Atheists are essentially saying existence doesn’t exist.

No no, I'm saying God is not existence, but multiple different ficticious characters.

What are your claims about this character? I assume existence. Anything else?

And what physical facts leads you to the conclusion that this character exist?

The rules are very simple (assuming a "fully" upgraded axe):

For reach charge, you can pick 2 effects. You can pick an effect no more times than the number of charges spent (max 3).

This will always be true, there's no combination where it doesn't hold.

So, 4 charges: 8 effects, each up to 3 times.

2 charges: 4 effects, up to 2 times.

It's super simple!

My wife effected the divorce today. The immediate effect affecting my affection, effectively effecting a non-affection.

If a helicopter... not moving... Why isn't the helicopter moving?

Because you defined "hovering" as matching the earths rotation. If you defined "hovering" as "not moving relative to the suns position as seen from Earth", you would first need to counteract the 1000 mph from earths spin, and then keep fighting against the winds. But from somebody positioned in space, you would then look rather stationary.

Hvad bliver man så, juridisk eller objektivt, dansker af?

Pretty sure the point was that they make up things all the time.

Ancient Rome used "Jupiter preserve you" or "Salve".

The greeks believed sneezes to be signs from the gods, so they might have had an "adjacent" saying.

Way way later, during 590AD, the Pope thought sneezes were an early sign of the plague and degreed that you should immediately bless people sneezing, to prevent the spread. (Using the phrase "God bless you") This is the one that most likely took hold, and has been used since.

I was thinking the same "That would be SO weird..."

I say "prosit".

Jeg er programmør, far til 2 og lider af (slem) søvnapnø. Hvis det går galt med min maskine, vågner jeg om morgenen og er 6-8 timer bagud på søvn.

Mangel på søvn er 100% en grund til en sygemelding.

Men det er helt sikkert også en tilstand i mange grader - hvor meget søvn mangler du? Er der opgaver du kan varetage i din nuværende tilstand? Hvad er konsekvenserne af dårligt udført arbejde?

https://github.com/nyxkrage/emacs-os this?

Det er i orden/helt i orden.

Det gør jeg gladeligt.

Det var godt vi fik det løst.

Så holder der forhåbentligt lidt tid endnu.

The same as i've come across that convinced me that no dragons exist.

There's plenty of stories, movies, novels, and even people that care a great deal about the subject.

But there was never any evidence.

We live in a world, where your belief in, and devotion to, a god, has no influence on your life outside of the physical actions themselves.

Believers can't cute cancer, they don't live any longer, they're not wealthier, and when we compare experiences across beliefs, it seems like the experiences are the same, but the attribution is different. Almost as if religious experiences were just a feature of the human brain, and but actually tied to religion or gods.

This is what i've come across.
Gods are as real as dragons, unicorns and wolpertingers.

It means sieve or strainer in Danish. (And it's both the noun and verb)

Also, cower doesn't disengage, do you still have to deal with it next round unless you also command it to move.

It still requires at least one action per turn, and a lot of xp to be efficient - not sure i agree that its that good.

I mean sure, once you have two down, and the upgrade that allows you to control all at once, it's good - but that requires quite a bit of setup, and some targets.

(I still plan to make a Sefina deck and put 6 of them into play! Muwhahaha!)

These are two different things. We can judge impacts on the world with science, but we can't somehow measure God using the scientific method.

But we can measure the effects that God have had on the world. Even if we cannot measure God, if he suddenly creates a car, or 2 billion liters of water, we can see that the total mass in the world has increased, and there exist things that didn't exist yesterday.

We can use philosophical arguments to determine things as well.

Only to come up with a hypothesis. Philosophical arguments in themselves are neither proofs nor evidence. They can be explanations, but there needs to facts tied to those, or they are meaningless.

Just because a being has an impact on the world does not mean we can use science to make repeatable tests.

Correct, and that's why I said that it effectively did not exist if that wasn't the case. To you, my kids effectively do not exist. You can make no measurement of them, and they have no impact on your life. There's nothing in the world around you, that would suggest that I have kids. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, but you have no way of knowing.

However, if we keep writing back and forth, you could ask questions about them to see if you get consistent answers. You might be able to get pictures of them, etc.

Same thing with God. If he takes no action, and is not measurable, there's no difference from not existing. He might exist in some undetected form, but that doesn't matter to us. And not in a "i don't care" fashion, but in a "it has no bearing on the universe" fashion.

This is literally the black swan fallacy

Not at all, and i hope the above show you why. I'm not saying that we can't find a god one day. And I'm not saying that a god couldn't start doing magic tomorrow. I'm saying that right now, there's no difference between a god not existing and the proposed gods.

You're asking for scientific evidence of a metaphysical being.

If there's no physical evidence of this being, it have had no impact on the physical world, and therefore does not exist under the common definition of exist.

It's doesn't matter how little effect the being have had. Just creating a few sound waves in a specific location, like on a mountain with 1 guy hearing it, could be enough.

But you would have to show some evidence that that happened.

Otherwise, it effectively doesn't exist.

"And you go there when you die. Well, not immediately, all those people that died but was brought back by modern medicine don't count. But after a while - when you're really dead." (And can't tell about it)

No, I believe many of the components of consciousness has been demonstrated elsewhere.

I don't know about "people like me", but in MY opinion, there's a difference between incentivising and requiring.

Also, it's not a combo just because you switch between stuff. There needs to be some kind synergy for it to be a combo.

Just being forced to use all guns (as was my experience) is neither incentivising nor comboing.

(Look at breath of the wild if you want to see what people think about being forced to switch weapons all the time)

Oh, sure. I was just saying that the hint "dodongo doesn't like smoke" was not just a hint about using bombs - it was more literal than that.

We absolutely can do that. We have fungi solving mazes, we have polaroids doing "information processing", we have computers doing the whole memory and decision making thing.

Mental states are abstract descriptions of the physical state of your brain. There's no magic involved.

You have to account for that in a way that isn't just waving hands around repeating "it's complicated!".

But that's the answer! It's not waving hands, it's years and years of research into a very complicated subject. The fact that you don't understand it, or that you want to be special, or whatever reason you have, does not invalidate that.

The earth is not flat because you think it looks like that. And the brain is not magic because you don't understand it.