Lurker > Mackorov

DarkAssassin89 posted...

The only real reason is optics. It doesnt look great on the world stage to just carpet bomb areas full of civilians. Israel doesnt seem to care about the optics though.

They could either send in group troops without the air bombing and risk losing thosands of Israeli lives, and cause massive uproar over this in their country. Or just yknow, send the jets, bomb the hell out of everyone regardless Hamas or civilian, and spare your country any further losses esp. after their experience from Oct 7th. Sure, they'll lose international credibility, but to the Israeli government, winning the Israeli's vote is what matters more

I mean, lots of young men join the military thinking they're gonna go on an exciting CoD campaign in real-life.

Instead what they get are boring treks through ruined cities to admire the carnage already caused by jets and drones

If anything about the Israeli-Palestine war has showed, it's that the best way to conduct a war is to just exploit your air superiority. Israeli has only about 14 or so of their soldiers killed last I heard, as compared to hundreds of Hamas militants decimated. (and of course this is ignoring the thousands more civilian deaths)

This spam use of airstrikes isn't new. The US has also spammed airstrikes like mad to win wars like the Gulf War and Iraq/Afghan invasion.

It seems common tactic is to just blow up enemy territory to shreds from the air till almost nothing could still be surviving before finally sending in group troops who just march in, set up camp, celebrate and drink booze. All without them shooting a bullet themselves to kill the enemy. After all, why fight directly when you can just kill your enemies while remaining UNTOUCHABLE from the skies!!

CableZL posted...

"Something is definitely going to happen. Just wait until [indefinite time period]"

1 year, bro. The US election decides everything. Putin is just waiting for his propagandists to twist the election finally in his favor again

Nok_Su_Kow posted...

Its useless if Ukraine is nuked, plus they really don't want the US to get involved by doing such a thing.

Just wait till Trump or some other Republican looney is elected then Russia will drop the nuke.
The Republicans will do nothing about it since they have so much cash in their pockets from Russian oligarchs

LordRazziel posted...

That's why I'm asking where he's getting his info. Sound like he's reading some fringe sources.

Can you not even click the link? Does your entire internet and source of news just revolve around Gamefaqs or something?

Sephiroth_C_Ryu posted...

A convenient bluff.
If a major nuclear war happens, we won't be able to access those screenshots.

Again so much paranoia here... a nuke being used doesnt mean it's the end of the world. If nuclear war DOES break out, it's not like all countries will be affected either. The ones to be obliterated first will be the belligerents of the war, so if US happens to nuke back, US is doomed.

US and Russia take each other out. China wins and becomes new world superpower. Crazy right. But who knows it might happen. Maybe Putin already told Xi Jinping this is his present.

LordRazziel posted...

There's more than the mainstream media. Do you have any agencies or officials that are concerned? Where are you hearing about all this?

uhh... just google it yourself?

Irony posted...

With only 1400 karma which means you dusted off this account because another one can't post here.

Bro I just posted here a few months ago. CE deletes active posts after just a while and secondly, I dont like coming here often cos of all the toxic s*** people here as you can see

You guys can screenshot my post. I'm betting 100% it WILL happen very soon.

Putin would rather launch a nuke first before he drops dead

Trelve posted...

Russia's aim is to conquer Ukraine, nuking it would make it uninhabitable leaving a massive mess that they'd have to clear up. Not to mention they would become a pariah on the world stage causing their closest ally (China) to abandon them, as China does have a no first-use policy. Nukes being used so close to a NATO country could end up provoking NATO into the war as well.

You guys need to know the diff between a tactical nuke and a strategic nuke...
The former was also used at Japan to scare them into defeat.

Jeez not all nukes are complete obliteration bam bam crap you think they are from movies.

Irony posted...

Also TC is a 1 AMP sigless alt account

That's been here on this since 12 years ago but hey, continue your ad hominem that has nothing to do with the topic at hand

ironman2009 posted...

Because destroying infrastructure and contanimating a place you are trying to expand into is not that smart of a plan.

They dont need to destroy all of Ukraine, just a portion of it. That's what tactical nukes are for. Strategic nukes are the ones used to kill a nation entirely.

The whole point is to scare Ukraine into submission. Some allies may also withdrawal out of fear of being nuclear targets

Zikten posted...

I wonder if Hamas even is aware they got used

Hamas was always a puppet and most of them are uneducated Palestinians too caught up in their idealistic battle for 'freedom' that they forgot they're puppets of Iran and indirectly Russia

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Russia is using this Palestine War to entice more hate for the west whilst also drawing away US resources and media attention from Ukraine.

Then they just need for the right moment after Israel and US have gained notable hate worldwide after their Gaza massacre to conduct their nuclear bombing on Ukraine. Then they deploy their thousands of internet propaganda bots to spread more whataboutism deflection soon after. So when the news reports about Ukraine being nuked, the propagandists will be like, ""BUT DONT YOU GUYS REMEMBER GAZA??"

ironman2009 posted...

That wouldn't make any sense but alright.

Why not???
Why would NOT Russia use their nukes?

Everyone thinks the Ukraine War will be a stalemate but are completely forgetting Russia has nukes at their disposal that could easily end the war instantly and Putin is a megalomaniac who doesnt care about human lives

Russia just withdrew from the nuclear testing treaty and conducted tactical nuke strikes just recently.

Also just recently, Putin was spotted with a nuclear briefcase during his visit to China.

It's crazy how the mainstream media is hardly reporting about this. All eyes are just on Palestine right now, and it's exactly what Russia wants. Just think about it... Putin can nuke Ukraine tomorrow for all he care and what would any country in the world even do anymore? Nothing. Nothing.

US and EU have already sanctioned all it can on Russia. Other countries are either allied with Russia or too afraid to condemn them and prefer to stay neutral.
There's practically no reason for Russia not to do it aside from risking some reputation damage but at this point I'm pretty the masses are so brainwashed by anti-US propaganda they dont care anyway

IfGodCouldDie posted...

We don't know this. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it cannot be proven, just that it hasn't been proven yet.

That itself is the god-of-gaps fallacy. Ironic.

ai123 posted...

There are many ways to resolve it, yes. Some have been posted in this thread and you have ignored them.

Speculation isn't resolution. There's a reason why it's still a paradox.

Again, evidence has been posted and you have ignored it. 'Programming code'? Fanciful analogy. Not an argument.

There's none. Show it to me in detail then.

Learn that your rhetoric isn't as smart or as plausibly deniable as you think it is.

You should be telling that to yourself

COVxy posted...

That's not the part you were confused about two seconds ago. Your unwillingness to address how the analogy makes it extremely clear to pretty much anybody how order arises, and your choice to jump to an unrelated argument leads me to assume this is not in good faith.

I did address it. You seem to be the one avoiding the problem at hand. Also funny considering you're the one that called it a 'magical random item generator'

COVxy posted...

Let's say you are in front of a magical random item generator that generates a new item completely at random once per minute, and you as the onlooker get to choose which items you keep, and which items you send away to the rubbish pile.

You spend one whole day doing this, and at the start of the next day your friend walks by and notices that you have 14 items, all of which you have talked about wanting for ages.

He asks "Hey, how you manage to get it to give you what you want? Can't be completely random if you just happened to get 14 items you really wanted."

But it turns out that the item generation was indeed really random. But the process wasn't random since you were there, selecting what you wanted. And while it looks like you made out like a bandit, you actually sent away 99% of the items that were generated.

Try as you might to convince him, he just cannot see how a random process would yield such order.

Except you left out the most important aspect: How could the generator be designed to keep generating 'random' items in the first place?

Kimberly posted...

So if I were to search, say, 'alternatives to abiogenesis' there wouldn't be any results?

There would be but like I said, the generic principle remains the same. It's either people claiming it's from abiogenesis or from intelligent design. The latter can pretty much be anything else so long as it posits life wasn't created on its own without intelligent intervention

Mackorov posted...

sure, explain more then how DNA is more likely formed out of pure inorganic randomness since you have a 'degree in cellular molecular biology'

And while you're at it, also please explain how DNA not only formed that way but formed in such a matter that allowed itself to quickly adapt and replicate to any environmental condition so as to continue surviving. Please, do tell.

Do explain how this very design of our genes is just out of pure utter plain randomness.

ssjevot posted...

Okay, as a guy with a degree in cellular in molecular biology that's weird because DNA is neither complex nor well engineered. That's a really weird take. Never heard such a thing before. Usually creationists talk about the human eye or something, which also isn't well engineered, but is at least complex.

sure, explain more then how DNA is more likely formed out of pure inorganic randomness since you have a 'degree in cellular molecular biology'

DnDer posted...

Sure. There can be agnostics.

The things you're saying, though, aren't said by agnostics. They're said by very specific, very small group of protestant fundamentalist evangelicals. Very specific. Very small.

You don't sound like an agnostic or a deist. Because they don't posit intelligent design in place of science.

That's because most people (prob 99.99%) arent self-aware agnostic. The idea that you can only be thiest or athiest is sadly, one of the most fundamental flaws of the human bias.

ai123 posted...

Asked and answered multiple times.

Since when was the Fermi Paradox ever solved??

It is the most likely explanation.

Tell me how it is any more reliable than intelligent design by refuting my basis provided for the latter. Tell me how is it DNA can be formed purely out of randomness when it's practically made up of 'programming code', a.k.a. information that needs come intelligence of some kind?

The fact that you find the idea of a meaningful universe more attractive, has no bearing on whether it is or not.

I never once mentioned the need for the universe to be meaningful. Learn to read and differentiate. It's this jumping to conclusions that is clear why you may lack some critical thinking on your part

ssjevot posted...

Uh, I posted a bunch of options of varying levels of absurdity to present why lack of evidence isn't a good argument. Maybe it's all a dream like in the GB Zelda game. Maybe an alien didn't even intend to make life but just left some cells behind here when they were on vacation and it became life. If we say no evidence everything becomes possible. You already want to say a creator, specifically the Christian God, did it because you have faith in a religion and want that to be true. So you aren't actually open to all possibilities, you are feigning to be in order to support what you believe.

It's amazing after all this and you still have to associate intelligent design only with religion, and a very specific religion at that. It's clear you can't delve any deeper so have a nice day.

Please read this again, word by word, in case you missed it.

Creationism is NOT intelligent design. Stop mixing the two together, thanks

Mackorov posted...

I presented the basis for why intelligent design has just a strong case to consider and y'know what's the funniest thing? No one can refute it at all. Even the staunchest nihilistic believers in abiogenesis.

HOW are our DNA so insanely intricate, complex and so well-engineered??

This is most definitely NOT something that could just arise by some totally random, lucky freaking inorganic 'accident'. And it's extremely frustrating the mainstream community and media purposely don't cover much on this since encouraging 'intelligent design' means supporting some religious nutjobs.
Why can't we freaking separate 'intelligent design' from religion? How long will it take for humans to finally see past this stupid bias?

Intelligent design is NOT creationism.

I presented the basis for why intelligent design has just a strong case to consider and y'know what's the funniest thing? No one can refute it at all. Even the staunchest nihilistic believers in abiogenesis.

HOW are our DNA so insanely intricate, complex and so well-engineered??

This is most definitely NOT something that could just arise by some totally random, lucky freaking inorganic 'accident'. And it's extremely frustrating the mainstream community and media purposely don't cover much on this since encouraging 'intelligent design' means supporting some religious nutjobs.
Why can't we freaking separate 'intelligent design' from religion? How long will it take for humans to finally see past this stupid bias?

Intelligent design is NOT creationism.

ssjevot posted...

Well you only present God as an alternative and until recently explicitly the Christian idea of God. So my question is why was that presented as the only alternative?

Because what else is there? This IS the only other alternative.

You only suggested the third alternative, some matrix-computer-simulation, but that one is actually pointing back to intelligent design as well, isn't it? LOL.
Someone has to be running the matrix.

That's what it is all about. Either life formed completely out of random, and out of meaninglessness and this whole universe exists purely out of nihilism.... or life formed out of an intelligent creator's intention.

ssjevot posted...

Equiprobability isn't a good argument because there are way more options than God did it or abiogenesis. There's everything is a computer simulation, aliens did it, extra dimensional beings did it, some other religion's god or gods did it, everyone is dead and this is a test and if you believe in God you failed the test and the demon that is running the test will torture you forever because he's evil, etc.

Saying there's no evidence doesn't just allow only one other no evidence explanation. It allows all of them.

Yet we all seem to only lean toward abiogenesis. Why? That's my question.

a-c-a-b posted...

I don't want character creation in a Witcher game.

Geralt is a badass and I like playing as him.

We ain't playing as Geralt no more in Witcher 4, dude. This is pretty much confirmed

Might as well have character creation but the character obviously has a pre-set story, like in Cyberpunk. Like... what's the point in NOT having it?? It's not like the new character CDPR introduces is someone anyone would know. Having customisation is just an option to have players get to choose how the character looks like. CDPR can still tell whatever main story they want with the character.

Not everyone likes playing as a grey-beard rusty voiced man all the time, yknow?

DnDer posted...

But the rub is that the things you're saying are only said by a very small and very specific subset of Christian fundamentalists. Now it looks like you're scrambling for damage control after being called out about it.

Because we can only be theists or athiests? How narrow-minded you are.

Never heard of agnostics before, have you? Here's a banger for you... most people who claim they're athiests are actually agnostics. They don't dismiss the possibility of a god any more than they do of one.

FYI Darwin himself was agnostic

K181 posted...

A) It's incorrect to say that abiogenesis cannot be proven. Don't conflate that fact that it hasn't been proven with permanent inprovability.

You yourself are committing the god of gaps fallacy right here. "Just because it can't be proven yet doesn't mean it isn't real." Well, duh? Unicorns could very well exist too then.

B) Even if we're too dumb to prove it, or the conditions for life are too narrow and specific to prove, thay doesn't remotely preclude life from forming elsewhere. Even if the mere formation of life is a one in a billion thing, that means there are likely dozens of circumstances of life in the Milky Way alone and untold trillions of circumstances in the universe.

Again, Fermi Paradox.

C) Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution, which is extremely well-documented and understood, is what happened after life formed in the first place. There's admittedly a gap in our knowledge one what existed that caused the catalyst from before life to life, but science is about unraveling our ignorances with further study. Even if the root cause of life is ultimately some out of left field thing that hasn't dawned on us, that'd still be abiogensis as the term is really nothing more than a blanket term for studying how life formed.

Evolution has absolutely zero connection and basis to abiogenesis. Evolution is about life after it's already formed. It explains absolutely nothing about HOW life came to be in the first place.

NO2_Fiend posted...

What makes more sense?

All life must come from some intelligent creator... who we can't explain the existance of since that creator would also have to been created by another creator who also is created by another creator on a loop off into infinity.

Or

Life just sparks up every now and then naturally without the need for a creator.

Which is a less messy theory, honestly?

No it doesn't work that way. Time is a dimension. And if a creator made the universe, it made time as well. Thus, the creator could have existed and still exists today infinitely.

Our passage of time is probably a blink of an eye to the creator's perspective

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


If they did, then where's these "others" then? Wouldn't the 'creator' have left life on our nearest planets too like Mars, Saturn etc.?

NASA has discovered and scanned thousands of planets as of today and not a single.one.of.them... has ever been found to have life. Not even tiny miniscule molecular life.

Nope. Absolutely nothing.

npiguitar posted...

Are they equally unproven? Yes. Are they equally likely? No. If we were to assume for a moment that there is some intelligent creator of life out there, we're basically talking about a deity at this point. Something supernatural, at least.

Is abiogenesis proven? No. Not yet, at least. But matter and energy do exist. We can observe them. We know they're real. Where is a deity? Something supernatural? We've never found good evidence to support the supernatural. Saying that intelligent design is a possibility requires you to make another entire illogical leap into accepting the existence of the supernatural and then assuming it acted a certain way. Abiogenesis only requires you to think that things we know to exist (matter and energy) may act in certain ways we haven't yet observed.

The level of evidence for abiogenesis is about as absurd as the level of evidence for intelligent design. None is better than the other. We need look no further of evidence for intelligent design than ourselves. Go see how DNA is coded in and the core mechanism of genetics. Our cells are literally cities perfectly designed to govern, regulate and replicate themselves.

Such a well-engineered thing is likely no damn result of sheer inorganic randomness.

Also, you've set up a false dichotomy. It's not abiogenesis vs intelligent design. It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design vs any number of other possibilities we may not have even thought of yet. Imagine, 600 years ago, two people discussing sickness.

Except as I said, any other possibility has no basis to them at all to begin with, unlike how abiogensis and intelligent design do.

DnDer posted...

Didn't expect to find creationist nonsense on this board. I thought that's what the religion board was for.

Having to associate intelligent design with religion is exactly the kind of ignorance i'd expect. And exactly why the scientific community fail to see their own bias.

You can believe in a 'creator' without believing in any religion. Never thought of that did you???

Kloe_Rinz posted...

its a statistical improbability

is it hard for you to accept that the chance of the sun going supernova tomorrow is quite low as well?

Go read up the Fermi Paradox.

Scientists realized they were contradicting themselves because given the vast scale and age of the universe, Earth likewise would've encountered intelligent life by now

pegusus123456 posted...

I don't know how you've managed it through text, but you give off an intense vibe of smelling like cat piss.

still waiting for you to give a coherent argument back. Oh wait, yeah you cant

And this means humans could really be the only living beings in the entire universe.

Is it that hard to accept?

I was never a believer in alien life out there and it's so incredibly stupid the scientific community and the general public alike are so harped on believing this possibility when the ENTIRE possibility actually rests solely on given presumption of abiogenesis in the first place.

For those that dont know, abiogenesis is basically the totally unproven, untested and unverified hypothesis that life can be formed from inorganic matter. This is the main basis scientists rest their case on the beginning of life because if it's true, that means life could be formed in the same way in other planets.

Well, except for one fact they are conveniently choosing to ignore:

Abiogensis CANNOT be proven at all.

This means there's the very much equal possibility that life does NOT arise from inorganic matter. So then, you may ask... wouldn't that mean the only other alternative is intelligent design, that some 'creator' created living beings? Yes, but why not?? Given both cases are equally unproven, why does the scientific community shun the intelligent design possibility and choose to succumb to their bias on abiogenesis only?

Witcher 3 has tons of mods too.

There's virtually no advantage Bethesda has anymore in RPG market with their outdated engine. Loading screens in 2023, engine that can't include any functionable vehicles, animations where NPCs need slide into place and the player cant even pick up objects with their hands...

All these plus 30+ fps lag.

Good luck to anyone looking forward to TES6. It'd be just a re-skin of Skyrim with more fun loading screens as you enter into copy+paste dungeons

All 3 universes are actually connected

TES is set in maybe like 10th-15th century during medieval times of Bethesda's universe. Then blahblahblah atomic bombs and boom, Fallout. Then blahblahblah Earth destroyed, humanity moves to space and boom,.Starfield

Smashingpmkns posted...

Is this vid of the game running at the lowest specs cuz those graphics are fucking bad lmao

probably the xbox series s

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

Literally just have the door close before despawning them

Or just play an animation of NPCs opening the door, entering some dark (fake) interior and closing the door behind them.

Is it that hard, Bethesda?

https://youtu.be/5Y3CHpJLqgY

Seriously, Bethesda?? Totally fine for Oblivion. Forgivable for Skyrim. OK for FO4. NOT OKAY anymore for next-gen gaming today.

Please ditch your crapfest Gamebryo already. Please

America is getting slowly screwed over by its own democratic system. Celebrities with no freaking grip on reality or economics like Trump and Reagan are somehow able to become presidents simply by tapping on their popularity among brain-dead supporters.

Kanye West had indicated he wanted to run for president. And I dont see what's stopping Elon Musk, another bighead egoist, from doign so in the future.
I swear everyday America turns more and more into the America in Idiocracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sCWf2VGdfc&ab_channel=TmarTn2

The game is already out for download
https://www.replicastudios.com/blog/smart-npc-plugin-release

BRB... gonna get a random pedestrian to be my girlfriend now

Godbe-Bryant posted...

the entirety of it was filmed on large format 65mm film stock and will be projected to 70mm
also extremely star studded cast
also the plot isn't boring

how is it not boring? It's a WWII to Cold War drama. I dont recall the last time any such drama got so much limelight. But suddenly Nolan makes it and it becomes every media's wet dream?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a Christopher Nolan movie. He tends to make good movies.

That doesn't change the fact that the movie's premise looks boring AF.