sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
If we suppose that the universe hadn't existed at some point, what makes us think that only one universe could have ever existed?
I recall playing EDH at a local game store once. I don't recall if it was advertised as a competitive session. I brought a store-bought EDH deck. Another guy brought some Teferi blink deck that exiled all of my permanents (including lands) by turn 4-5 or so. I didn't get to actually play a whole lot.
In a duel game, you lose and move on, but getting knocked out (or effectively knocked out) of an EDH game that is supposed to last much longer appears to be much less interesting. If you watched a football game where one guy with super-long arms herds the entire opponent team in the corner while his teammates walk the ball through the goal repeatedly, you probably wouldn't want to watch that, let alone play.
but it doesn’t explain why a life-permitting one exists.
If it's possible at all for it to exist, why wouldn't it exist at some point in nonspace-nontime? It is infinitely improbable to choose a random point on an infinite plane and hit the point (0; 0) exactly, yet that point exists.
Your taste in prompts grows even more inexplicable, Executor.
I guess there is always someone grognardier - last time I checked (before playing), people were saying that about 2e in comparison to 3e.
I know pretty much nothing about 1e and it's hardly discussed in the discord. Did it have the paranoia combat feature/issue that allegedly plagued pre-errata 2e?
I just took a premade adventure and kind of raw dogged it. Perhaps you're approaching this with a mindset of being prepared for anything?
The 90 IQ Hamas recruit I'm imagining is not going to be moved by a dog rape story noticeably more than a regular rape story. They are both beyond the pale.
The explanation that best fits what I observe is that this story is intended for credulous Westerners primed to see Israel as a country uniquely evil even among the rest of warmongering nationalist states.
"It's a real outcome" != "a modal recruit's priority".
"Alright, there are approximately 0.1% odds I'll get captured, per year... They might sodomize me with a chair leg, but I can risk that if it's to defend my homeland. ... wait, what's that? They using DOGS now?! Absolutely no chance then!"
It works much better as atrocity porn to rile them up than to deter them.
"What the enemy does to prisoners" as a significant negative factor for enrollment is not how I model a typical recruit's mind at all. You don't enroll to get captured.
Much less the dog rape story is unlikely to marginally affect enrollment when compared to all the regular nightstick rape stories that are already there.
The way it's usually explained is that being outside the concept of linear time, there is no real "before the creation of the Universe".
waving the brush would be analogous to the movements for the fingers when we're talking about typing out a poem or essay or somesuch
I disagree, it applies just as well to typing the prompt. Why wouldn't it be? Both are processes that aren't really legible if you watch them without witnessing the result, with the result as its output.
Ultimately, what the AI outputs based on that result just doesn't interest me, empirically. It works as pure visual illustration/stimulation, sure. Art isn't really about that for me.
The prompt is where the creative decisionmaking is, as the poster above said. And no, the waving of the brush would be the analogy for the movements of fingers on the keyboard while typing the prompt.
Storytelling Exalted 2e for a bunch of friends for a few sessions now. (Not exactly a video game, but TTRPGs don't appear to be a common enough topic to warrant a subthread).
I can recommend jumping into a new setting as a DM. Even with pretty much no experience, it's been pretty fun so far, although I bungled a few things about the way a pre-written adventure should be ran, and will probably bungle more. The first thing one of my players did was to stuff a demon inside of a random peasant mook who was guarding him on behalf of the treacherous rich evil guy.
In this case the prompt is the real human creation and should ideally be posted before the picture.
I don't see how your example follows from labor theory of value. The man with the shovel had done the same work, faster. The man with an excavator would have done the same work even faster. But if he'd rented the excavator out instead, how is it obvious that he'd been the one to do the work, rather than the hired worker?
Is there an example of an acceptable insurrection that a host country wouldn't have every reason to shut down?
Is it only for English, or does transforming "желание" into "желанье" disqualify a poet in your eyes as well?
If they didn't work, people wouldn't use them or pay for them, obviously.
This is not obvious. You can sell something that does not work at all, not even as a placebo, as long as your buyers are uninformed enough.
Suppose I know that a certail illness passes on its own in about a week in most cases, but my target audience doesn't. I could sell them a treatment that doesn't hasten or lighten the course of the illness in any way, then claim credit when after a week, the illness does indeed pass.
Being a valid placebo requires that there is a measurable benefit from the sugar pill compared to no treatment.
In real life, you say, as you quote fiction.
Ironically, you've done what the critic from Scott's article has done, only in the opposite direction. From your commentary, I expected something monumentally blasphemous, a new Piss Christ. Instead, what I saw was some unremarkable picassoesque scribble.
I can immediately see how this picture could benefit a group of random teenage students. First, you tell them they're about to see an example of evil, horrible anti-human degeneracy. Then, you show them this. They'll be walking out of the gallery with a much better calibrated sense of what evil is, as opposed to what people say it is. And also that if that is what degeneracy is, it is in the end unremarkable and boring, not worth engaging in even for rebellion.
You would have a hospital full of witnesses that you were indeed the mother to fall back on. That doesn't really go away even if you're completely assured it doesn't matter and that you would never check.
It'd be a sign that your wife is currently seething in jealousy! Your relationship is forever changed whether the test happens or not.
Not really. It could be a phase for her. A momentary lapse in unconditional trust is not a thing that must ruin relationships, and I don't believe in unconditional trust anyway. What, if your husband one day starts giving off every single sign that he's cheating on you, basically everything other than straight up you catching him in the act, you wouldn't be jealous? As the other poster said, in today's world the man's unconditional trust risks him much more than the woman's, besides.
Possibilities:
- Wife suspects, for some reason, that I am unfaithful. I have no way to prove otherwise, she might eventually crank herself up into full seething mode, relationship is changed forever at that point, probably fatally.
- Wife suspects, for some reason, that I am unfaithful. I present her with the fidelity test, at which point she decides her suspicion was baseless. We move on.
- Wife suspects, for some reason, that I am unfaithful. I present her with the fidelity test, but it was never about proof anyway and she continues to disbelieve her lying eyes. Continue as in world 1.
I think most men would love that as an alternative to the wife seething in jealousy for months because she suspects he cheated but neither can prove their side of the argument. I don't think I'd mind at all, and would be delighted to establish the norm of wives periodically demanding such tests in exchange for the norm of husbands demanding paternity tests.
In short: trade offer accepted. Trust but verify, etc etc.
I don't think men who are better than women at what vtubers do exist in sufficient numbers to make it economically viable instead of just hiring women.
- Prev
- Next

Do you apply that kind of thinking to all areas of life, including yours? That your enemies are blameless if they carry out the threats you did not submit to?
More options
Context Copy link