|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Except it has gotten better results, it created the scientific method.
It's also resulted in a whole host of other cultural advancements.
Of course, none of that matters to you, as you don't care and refuse to acknowledge anything that runs counter to your firmly held BELIEFS.
Seriously, can we stop going around in circles, like a wolf chasing it's tail?
Philosophy is how we think about thinking. It has informed every aspect of this discussion from start to finish, because the discussion is about how we think about things.
Science is fundamentally informed by philosophy, because as advances in thinking are made, they are applied to science.
Are all philosophers scientists? No. But not even all scientists are really scientists.
Have philosophers said stupid things? Yes. But if you take any grouping of people greater than 0, at least one of them has said something stupid.
BNW, in your attempts to disprove the value of philosophy, you've been using aspects of philosophy. You don't seem to want to see this, but it's true. Part of the reason it's hard to see this is that these advances were made decades, if centuries, prior to you being born, so they seem like normal, "duh" things, but they weren't always because for much of human history they existed only in isolated pockets and were not general knowledge.
You sound like a man calling me from his cellphone while riding on an airplane telling me that all technology is bad.
Kobold Commando wrote:
As a tangentially related question, what systems CAN handle 12 players? The only one I know is Dread, though that many people means you'll have a relatively high mortality game.
Dread is supposed to be a high mortality game.
The Heist is a Burning Wheel scenario for up to 20 people. I've never played this scenario though, and Burning Wheel isn't exactly a game I'd recommend for a GM to learn in a week or two.
Really, the simpler the system the better. Any game with just a couple of mechanics is going to be faster and let everyone participate more often. This was nearly 20 years ago, but I played a game of Mechwarrior in highschool and we had some 18 people participating in the game, but not everyone showed up every session. Except for one night. It was awful. I took PART of my turn then I went to the kitchen and made myself pancakes. I finished eating them. It still wasn't the second PART of my turn (that game split movement/actions into two phases).
A lot of LARPs are designed for very large groups (20+) but can work just fine as tabletop games for semi-large groups (10+).
Mind's Eye Theater
3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars would work. It would be chaos, but that game is awesome with chaos and it's kind of the point.
I currently play in:
Epyllion (Powered by the Apocalypse rules or PbtA)
Pathfinder (currently on hiatus until next year)
I think for me, because I switch so much, I don't have a problem with it. I've never had an issue differentiating rules. I know some people who do though.
The one thing I do recommend is making the games feel as different as possible. Give them a different tone, make one gritty, while the other is more fantasical and the third more action packed. This helps people switch from one game other other, plus helps each game feel like it holds a different place to make it worthwhile.
I'm little to no help, since I love the briney hints/notes/statements/screams.
I would recommend Springbank (which is a Campbeltown), I have a bottle of the cask strength 12 year. It's very good IMO, but it does have that earthy/brine taste to it, but it's a very balanced earthy/brine taste. It's not as smooth or as nuanced as an expensive Laphroaig or Lagavulin, but it's much better balanced in its flavors. If that makes sense. I've shared it with people who don't normally like the Islay's and they've enjoyed it. I'd try it before you buy it though.
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works. You don't mention a 4 legged dog, or a furred bear, or apples with seeds. Yes, that comes with the implication that cis is normal and everything else isn't, but why does not normal have to be not good? Have you met normal people? They're boring.
Because we live in a world where we denigrate people who aren't "normal".
The words we use and how we talk about things is important and matters.
1) In cultures where there are no words for right/left, they use the words north/south/east/west to denote differences. If you're facing east and your "right" shoe were untied, someone pointing this out to you would instead say your "south" shoe is untied. If you were facing West, they would say your "north" shoe is untied.
People raised in these cultures have nearly perfect direction sense. They always know which was is North, largely because they think in terms of North (or whichever direction they happen to be thinking in at that time).
2) In a Latin American country (I forget which, I can look it up if absolutely necessary) a dictator took power. His wife had a family member with a congenital mental disorder. The country had not previously had a school for people like this to attend, so the dictator made one to make his wife happy.
A by product of this was that deaf children were included in the school. They had grown up with a few crude signs for basic necessities, but no one had taught them any form of sign language. At the school, they still didn't any form of sign. Now that dozens of deaf kids were congregating daily, they started to develop their own language. As the years have gone on, the language has gotten more and more developed.
Some researchers have made some observations and done some testing with these kids. One test was a simple cognitive test. You're shown a comic strip with two kids. The older brother is playing with a train set. He finishes and puts it in the toy chest, then tells his brother not to play with it. The younger brother takes it out, plays with it, but then puts it back under the bed. The question is: where does the older brother look for the train set?
Very young children always get this wrong. They can't separate their knowledge from the older brother's knowledge. Their brain can't imagine the possibility being otherwise.
The earliest deaf graduates from this school, some well into their 20's also failed this test. They didn't have a development disorder though. 5 years later when the test was re-administered, they started to pass.
What is thought to have happened is that the language at the school now had words to talk about thinking. It had developed enough to deal with abstract thought. Then as the kids continued to graduate, the new developments in the language would filter into the broader deaf community. Once the previous generation had the new words they also gained the ability to engage in abstract thought.
The words we use and how we shape our language is very important. Changing the words we use is simpler, and more effective, than trying to adjust the behavior alone. Changing the words will change behavior.
Basically if the bottle doesn't say "distilled by" it means they're just a bottler and the whiskey comes from somewhere else.
I don't begrudge people who do this though. For example, I like some of the High West distillery products. I think they taste pretty good, though are a little over priced. Starting up an aged distillery is an expensive prospect. You have to make thousands and thousands of gallons of whiskey and then just sit on it for 5-10 years. From what I understand, High West's strategy is to make money rebottling whiskey for a while, in the meantime they build up their infrastructure and start aging their own whiskeys. The rebottling pays the bills until they can make their own.
You always lose my interest whenever you try and turn it into a pissing contest of who is discriminated against more. Seriously, just stop trying to prove who has it worse. It helps no one.
Take the opening paragraph of the thread:
I have stated many times that Asians are the most discriminated in the US. I have also stated that unlike many others, it is even acceptable by many to discriminate against Asians (Especially SW Asians) and most of the time that discrimination is blatantly ignored by everyone else.
If it were instead more like this:
I have stated many times that Asians are discriminated against in the US. I have stated many times how it can even be acceptable to discriminate against Asians and most of the time that discrimination is blatantly ignored.
The difference might seem subtle, but it's huge. Instead of making it a comparison of who has it worse, you just talk about how bad the problem is. I'd be willing to have that conversation, read up on it and learn about it.
I am not willing to listen you tell us why we should ignore discrimination against other groups and only focus on what you want to us to focus on. Because that's how you continuously come across.
The biggest take-away I want to emphasize:
Use a meat thermometer to judge how done the meat is.
The temps I listed above are for a pre-sear temp, bump them all up about 20-30 degrees for final cook. Always err on the side of 5-10 degrees below your target temp as the interior will continue to rise in temp for a few minutes after you take it away from the heat.
Use a thermometer.
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
I cooked a New York strip steak last night. I way overcooked it.
A fairly simple method to cooking steak perfectly. You'll want a decently thick cut steak for this, 1.5" is an excellent thickness, though you can certainly go thicker. I don't recommend this for thin steaks.
1. preheat oven to ~225. Without seasoning, put the steak in the oven for about 20 minutes.
2. Check with a meat thermometer, pull the steak out when it reaches your desired temp:
Numbers can vary depending on your thermometer and how much sear you like on the outside (and how hot your heat source is), but play around with them and find what you like. Using a thermometer will help you learn much faster than trying to rely on touch/sight.
3. Liberally season your steak with your favorite seasoning. This will only be on the exterior so don't be shy. You can always scrape a little off if it's too much. I like a nice crust though. If the steak has a fat cap, remove it at this time. My favorite blend:
4. Using the highest heat source you have sear the steaks.
4a. Stovetop - use a cast iron skillet. The iron retains more heat giving you a better sear.
4b. Gas grill - turn it all the way up, turn on all the burners. Try to keep the lid close as much as possible.
4c. Charcoal - don't even use the grill, instead just use the chimney starter. Light the coals and once they're white, use metal skewers to position the steaks directly over the coals. It's so hot that you don't want to use a grate, as the metal of the grate will leave very deep burn marks. You can't use wood skewers, they'll burn in seconds.
Charcoal is my favorite method because it's the hottest. Takes about 45 seconds to a side.
5. Let sit for about 3-5 minutes before serving.
I've never had a dry steak using this method. Sometimes they're overcooked (I like rare) but because it's very even on the inside and still moist I never care. I've had people who normally like Rare eat a Medium Well and be very happy with it. I'm more likely to get the temps wrong when I cook at someone else's house.
This analysis brought to you by lack of history.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Go is extremely difficult to program for. Using the standard 19x19 board and the average length of a professional game (limit of 400 moves), there are approximately 1.0x10^1023 possible games.
There are about 10^80 atoms in the universe.
The biggest problem for programming a Go AI is that as the game progresses it becomes more complex. In Chess, as pieces are removed the game's possibilities become narrower, there are fewer possible moves to make. With Go, each move makes the pattern more complex increasing possible interactions between different sections of the board.
Another thing used in AI's is pruning branches. In Chess, sacrificing can be a big deal, but there are limits to what you want to sacrifice. For example it's easy to prune any branch that leads to the king being threatened in a move or two. In Go, large sacrifices can still win you the game, so almost nothing can be pruned from the decision tree.
I'm not here to debate this. He asked for things he might have missed, so I added something. He's free to incorporate/not incorporate it into his work as he sees fit.
When someone else is asking for ideas/suggestions, I'm not sure why you feel the need to come in and play "guardian".
I was driving through northern Indiana a couple weeks ago, so I picked up 4 cases of Three Floyds, their Gumballhead, Alpha King and Yum Yum. They're normally hoppier than what I generally prefer, but they're very well balanced that I still enjoy them.
Combined with all the whiskey we had bought in Kentucky, my dad was slightly worried about being pulled over and getting dinged for transporting alcohol across state lines.
Grey Lensman wrote:
He can eat one more wafer thin mint.
To me, modern game means things like Dogs in the Vineyard, anything "Powered by the Apocalypse", Fiasco or Burning Wheel.
5E definitely has modern influences, but it's roots and modus operandi is still firmly set in an older style of gaming. I'd say similar things about 3.X and 4E as well, just to different degrees.
For an archer/mage (my favorite combo) Conjuration is a crucial skill. Use it often and liberally. Put perks into it.
Eventually you can summon two things. Two Dremora Lords will provide you with a very stout frontline, though at very high levels I find I sometimes have to always keep that spell equipped because they still die very fast against certain enemies. They also hit extremely hard and can easily deal with ice trolls and bears.
The other excellent thing to summon are Storm Atronachs. Dremora Lords are great, but they only attack melee. Storm Atronachs have a ranged attack, so they can deal with archers in hard to reach places or dragons. They won't kill a dragon, but they can divert it's attention long enough for you to heal up and ready your next attack.
Conjuring levels off your summoned creatures engaging in a fight. You can't just sit and spam it alone, they have to engage something. They don't have to kill it though. If your creature survives, consider summoning a new one after the fight is over, so you get credit for advancing again on the next fight.
As others have said, start developing your thief skills. Archer/mage/thief is a very natural pairing. Thief/archery combines for very high sneak attack damage and mage/thief combines great for sneaking.
Basic dungeon strategy: sneak around and 1-hit kill enemies until you find a group too large to do this with. Then summon your monsters, let the enemies aggro on them and then proceed to pick them off with your bow.
If you're leveling a new skill (from 10 or whatever), consider going back to the starting region and going through a mine/cave/tomb or two. You'll get some easy points in the new skill and can get used to it without as much risk.
The downside of archer/mage/thief is that you tend to not wear heavy armor. This makes you vulnerable to one-shot kills at high levels. Things like Forsworn Ravagers tend to cause loading screens.
In today's dollars, slaves represented about $10 trillion of the South's wealth, out of a total of $21.1 trillion.
Freehold DM wrote:
Kentucky was home to numerous abolition and antislavery newspapers and periodicals.
Importation of slaves was restricted in 1815 and latter banned in 1833. Of any slave state, Kentucky had the strictest laws concerning slavery.
Numerous Baptist denominations within the state preached either antislavery or abolition.
In 1849 antislavery proponents were confident enough of their position that they convened the third constitutional convention in hopes to prohibit slavery in the state altogether. Pro-slavery groups rallied and managed to take over the convention though, creating one of the most pro-slavery state constitutions in the country.
Abolitionism definitely lost a lot of ground during the 1850's, but while the state was largely pro-slavery by the time of the Civil War, the legislature was also pro-Union. The governor was sympathetic to the Confederacy, but the legislature had a veto-proof majority that opposed him. Unionists held 76 (out of 100) seats in the house and 27 (out of 38) seats in the senate.
Instead the state adopted a neutral stance. Both the Union and Confederacy avoided sending troops to or through the state to avoid pushing them to the other side. That is until faulty reports led a Confederate general to think that Union troops were already in the state.
While many men went to both sides to volunteer, Kentucky never officially organized any units. Multiple times Confederate generals assumed that volunteers from Kentucky would rise up and join them, but it never happened en masse. Kentuckians joined the Union army at a rate roughly 20:3 over the Confederacy, though most of the men who went to cavalry units joined the Confederacy.
Edit: To add, traditionally Kentucky had a lot of ties with Virginia and North Carolina, many of it's settlers came from those states. By the 1850's though, railroad connections were increasing and linking Kentucky to states in the North. Many people who emigrated from Kentucky went North, creating many family ties that were newer and pointed to the Union.
The fact that slavery existed in Kentucky, perhaps was even common, does not make it the single defining factor as to the state's allegiance in the war.
The state always had a problem with runaway slaves, largely due to the physical location of the state. Free states were just a river's swim away.
TLDR: Kentucky was both pro-Union and pro-slavery.
To completely avoid the metaphor, the problem is that more actors doesn't solve the issue of boom/bust cycles, it actually exacerbates them. The more actors with fewer limits, the higher the highs and lower the lows. More regulation is a stifling force on both those directions.
The trick is finding the middle ground where we can have highs and lows to allow the market to sort itself out, but avoid the bubble/bust cycle that is very destructive.
A pure free market does not solve it.
Lately he's been regaling me with conspiracy theories about how the Pope isn't actually visiting the US, but rather, it's a clone that's coming and it will be assassinated and trigger all these global events.
He was convinced the Earth was flat, but I was able to use the physics of light to convince him that wasn't true. He was a little sad.
D. C. Stephenson is one of my favorites. He was the Grand Dragon of the Indiana KKK (early 1920's). He also kidnapped a woman, raped her and caused her death. The cause of death was a staph infection from numerous bite wounds. He was sentenced to life in prison, but later paroled.
While on parole, he skipped town. Sentenced to another 10 years, he was paroled after 5.
At the age of 70 he was accused of assaulting a young girl. He got off with a $300 fine.
The KKK actually saw a very large growth of influence in the early 20's (it declined after Stephenson's trial, which revealed lots of sex and alcoholism). They were major players in cities like Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia, though often in secret.
Harry Truman paid a $10 membership fee to the KKK in 1924 in an attempt to garner their endorsement. There's no evidence he was an active member though.
John Clinton Porter, mayor of Los Angeles in 1928 was once a member of the KKK.
(I excluded mentioning prominent southern politicians, to highlight that it wasn't something exclusive to the South)
Woodrow Wilson pushed for laws banning interracial marriage in Washington, DC. His administration was also responsible for segregating federal offices (they had been integrated prior to his presidency).
Birth of a Nation quotes Woodrow Wilson several times in it's characterization of Reconstruction.
The problem I have with a Keynes vs Hayek debate is that elements of both are correct and trying to establish one as correct and the other incorrect is to miss the truth of the problem entirely.
The problem I have with all "pure free market" philosophies is that the market isn't rational, which is a fundamental requirement for a successful free market. The reason it isn't rational is because humans aren't rational. Behavioral experiments show us that humans don't think rationally when it comes to money. Numerous experiments show us that humans routinely make bad decisions that are not in their best interest. Not just regularly, but predictably and reliably.
That of course means that government control isn't ideal either, because you still have irrational humans in control. It's the same problem, but with fewer actors.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I said I'd drop it.
I always liked the Carouse move from Dungeon World.
You responded to a post about US slavery and the hypothetical effect it would have on industrialization if it hadn't been abolished. Yes, your comment didn't mention the hypothetical, but you were responding to it.
You can take the venom out of post BTW. Notice how I've been trying to ascertain what your point is, I've even told you as much.
To be honest, I'm still confused a bit, but I'll drop it. It's like you tried to make a point, but then backed off it extremely hard and are now angry that someone might have recognized what your point was. Without the context of the post you responded to, your post doesn't actually make much sense, like I don't know why it's there.
Feel free to jump down my throat more though, even though I'm just trying to have a conversation.