RenOS
something is wrong
No bio...
User ID: 2051
I was raised christian (though I'm not anymore) and traditional teaching is very clear that avoiding sin is a communal project, i.e. you're supposed neither to directly sin, nor to make someone else sin. See the literal Enemy, Satan, whos' most dangerous attribute is making humans sin, not the fact that he himself sins.
Starmer did a lot of work in, and seems to respect a great deal, international law in particular. The thing about international law is that it often has virtually no enforcement mechanism. The kind of lawyer who looks for technicalities to let their client get off scot-free does not go into international law, since their clients are already usually getting off scot-free if you do nothing at all. You need to have some moral belief in the righteousness of international law and need to use the weapons of activism as well to get anything done.
So the technically correct terminus for Starmer is international-law-brained.
I'm in a somewhat similar position as you. Currently employed as a postdoc at the local university, but not interested in becoming a professor, so I'm pretty much on borrowed time. I just want to avoid a career change while the kids are still small, and my prof is very relaxed so I earn well in comparison to the actual work I'm doing while having lots of free time to spend with family.
Teaching is definitely a good option if you enjoy it. I'm also looking into insurances since it's well-paid, quite safe and I studied math anyway so it's comparatively easy for me, but dunno how much of an option that is for you. Just general large local employers are usually always looking for many different positions as well.
In my experience, for the great majority of women, they don't. They prioritize either fun, free time, self-actualization, etc., on the one hand, or they prioritize safety, stability, morality etc. when making job decisions. The former for the young and attractive, the latter when older and settled down. Money is a concern insofar as it is necessary to guarantee a certain minimum living standard, and is preferably gained through parents, partners or the state.
Going for an actual career is, by and large, a thing men do. If this post may read too anti-women for some, there is also plenty of dysfunction in male life decision making, mostly centered around taking unnecessary high risks that are believed to plausibly have high returns but really don't, and/or playing competitive negative sum games on the mistaken believe that one is surely far above average.
I'll grant you Switzerland. Netherlands and Belgium are still too recent imo. Marriage developments also took decades, as well as multiple specific law changes, to fully take effect.
And as I said, it's not that I want to outlaw it; But I just want to make the slope a little bit less slippery. It's notable that in Switzerland, it's merely legal by omission, it's illegal for organizations or people to earn any money or get any other benefits through it, and the substance can only be provided, but it has to be administered by the person themselves. All of these seem like sensible limitations to me. And there have been almost no changes to either practice or law since then. Contrast Canada, where it has only become legal recently, is explicitly legalized as a service by the health care industry, it already got extended significantly only a few years in, and is in the process of getting extended yet again. At least to me, it seems like it's reasonable to worry about a slippery slope being possible if it's done the wrong way; That doesn't mean it's impossible to find a correct way, though.
You don't even need the if here. You can already get guns provided you're sufficiently functional, patient and have the right connections. AFAIK the easiest way is generally getting your hands on old soviet stock from eastern Europe.
But these conditionals matter, because the average terrorist and hard criminal does not have these properties. People still get caught before they can do anything because they fell for obvious honeypots on silk-road equivalents. This is also why the large-scale entry of organized crimes into Europe is so dangerous; Not only do at least some of the members have these properties and so can organize guns for the rest of the members, while there at it they can also buy more stock that they can sell further locally, making it much easier to get a gun.
I mostly agree with you, but the trajectory of the things like the dissolution of marriage certainly makes me worried. If you looked 10 years after any one legal or social change, it would have looked like the conservatives were unnecessarily worried, but nevertheless when I nowadays bluntly state that modern marriage is entirely meaningless in varied company, most people agree with me (after an initial slightly scandalized look). This is a category change compared to the past, when marriage was both considered sacred and had a clear purpose (the creation of family). While most still say it was worth it for individual liberty, few disagree that we have lost something that we won't get back. And I suspect that there is at least some social desirability bias in what people say, but that part is obviously hard to prove.
These changes can take multiple generations to fully take effects. The first generation grew up under the old system and will often replicate it through simple inertia, especially if the change was explicitly sold as a emergency measure only reserved for extreme cases and there is a clear moral framework on why it should be so. The second already grows up with the measure existing, albeit rare enough that not everyone has had direct contact with it, and they will often extend the application of the measure in incremental ways for what they think is personal benefit (which they aren't always correct on). By the time of the third generation it is fully normalized so that it can be extended to large swathes of the population.
For this reason, I'd like a strict criterion of using MAID exclusively for cases where death is foreseeable in the near future (called Track 1 in Canada). It's still somewhat slippery - what is "foreseeable"? what is "near future"? - but it's imo much less slippery than estimating some nebulous quality of life cutoff that is sufficient for the state to help you kill yourself. I know Track 2 is still only a small percentage, but that needn't stay so.
I don't think that follows. Terrorists clearly choose to copy based on a combination of lethality and availability, as seen by the proliferation of car-based attacks since the Nice truck attack. Easier gun availability would mean more initial gun-based attacks, and a higher transmission likelihood for following copycats.
In europe it's quite common even for terrorists and other hard criminals to use knifes simply bc guns are just too hard to get for them. And that's despite hunting licences being available!
Has this actually been done? I'm aware of people talking about it, but not of it actually happening.
See Colossal Biosciences and their Dire Wolf project. Regardless at which point you consider it "true de-extinction", they have demonstrated how you can modify key genome locations of a related species to the original of the species you want to de-extinct, and that these modifications do indeed generate the desired traits that species is known for. At the moment it's, as said, quite limited (they only made 20 edits with large phenotypic impact), but from here it's mostly just a question of doing this repeatedly to get arbitrarily close to the original species. And dire wolfs have gone extinct in ancient times; It should be much easier with contemporary animals due to the better availability of varied genomic information and more closely related species you can start from. That approach is probably not viable for every extinct animal, though.
To the second paragraph, I guess my opinion is probably close enough; I'd be lying if I claimed that I consider every human life more valuable than every extinction imaginable.
You wrote:
I'd consider it worse to kill a critically endangered species than to kill a random human. Because killing the endangered species gets closer to robbing and harming every human forever (leaving aside scifi Jurassic park stuff) while the death of any individual human probably doesn't.
That's quite general about critically endangered animals, you don't make it clear that you only mean specific ones. So it seemed relevant to me to point out that in many cases you're not really robbing anyone of anything since it's just a variation of a common, non-endangered animal.
Likewise, the "scifi jurassic park stuff" isn't really scifi anymore, we're already doing it in a limited capacity.
If you don't distribute the aid in an orderly manner, and make sure that it does not get horded by a small number of people, you will also get starvation quite reliably though. I'm pretty confident that if the IDF didn't enforce order, they'd be harangued by international media that obviously they wanted to cause starvation - they just let bandits get away with all the food, how is that supposed to help anyone? Of course they will just eat some part themselves, hord another, and then sell only a sliver at excessive rates! Probably there would be some conspiracy theory how the IDF is secretly sponsoring and working together with these bandits, too, and/or even profiting off of them.
Israel always gets this super-agency where even if they help distribute aid among an hostile populace they need to make sure that everything goes perfect and if not it's obviously their fault, while palestinians get zero agency assigned, where even if roving bands actively try to steal aid it's just desperate people who can't be expected to behave any other way. The only thing which seems to be allowed is to stand by while hamas-sympathizing groups get to distribute god-knows-what (including aid) to hamas centers, which then distribute it further to their own supporters.
And it's not even that I particular like or trust the IDF or the Israelis. Settlers getting away with blatantly illegal conduct is really shitty. But no, obviously, if you try to steal while enemy military distribute aid to your own civilians you're gonna get shot. That's just common sense. Hell, you're probably also getting shot if your own military is distributing aid to its own population and you try to steal.
Eh. Species have been dying out (and splitting off) since forever, and our technology to re-breed them gets ever better, especially for those we have non-ancient samples. Especially since the majority of endangered species are just small variations of very similar, non-endangered species that is simply more competitive, sometimes even so closely that they can crossbreed.
Why? No matter how successful a company has been in the past, any dip can be a long-term re-evaluation or even the start of the way to bankruptcy. Especially if you consider the average person asking for investing advice, thinking they can reliably tell apart an irrational panic that will soon be corrected, or a genuine problem that will have long-term impact seems foolish to me.
On the other hand, index funds can't really go bankcrupt. At most, it just stays lower than expected for an extended period of time before going up again. The risk/reward for buying into the dip seems much better here for the average low-knowledge investor.
Great! Sounds like you're getting a handle on things. With clawmark you don't need so much FTH, especially if you two-hand. Prioritizing STR first while only going for FTH min reqs is perfectly viable. But more FTH will of course help.
Don't equip two short ranged weapons at once. Too much wasted weight. At most a dagger with a useful skill.
I know that it's hard, but this imo really needs to be changed. It's bad enough for progressives to be regularly downvoted (even if I may disagree as well) but probably unavoidable, but longtime posters constantly getting filtered without mod action has to be supremely frustrating and I probably would also leave eventually.
Ah yes forgot about that! That's a great skill as well. It also gives a lingering buff which can be quite substantial. Best on weapons with fast attack speed, since the buff is a static 90 holy dmg.
There is a reason people call Limgrave the longest tutorial in any game. Your options open up a lot once you leave.
But the heavy crossbow can drop from the crossbow wielding mobs in Limgrave, there is a short bow for sale in southwest Limgrave, and there is the light crossbow for sale on the weeping peninsula, which is also reachable quite early.
I can also give you directions on how to get the clawmark seal, which can also be done early. But that might be considered a spoiler.
Prioritizing vigor is a good idea for a beginner, but that doesn't mean you need to put everything into it. With 18 dex, I don't see why you can't use a bow? Otherwise crossbows are a good beginner ranged choice. The early game is always the most limited phase, and even full mages can't really cast all that much then.
Btw, don't put too much points into mind until your flask is substantially upgraded. You usually want just enough FP to take full advantage of the flask regen, not more.
Golden Vow is great! Early on 40 FP might be a lot so spirits are a better use if you don't have enough, but later it's not much and it will stay strong since it's a % dmg/def buff.
The scaling changes are also what you want if you play an hybrid build anyway.
- Do you take advantage of buffing and utility spells? That's one of the major advantages of FTH vs INT. FTH direct dmg spells being a bit more clumsy is just evening the playing field. Imo it is FTH that has much more variety. Just golden vow + health regen spell before every boss as a default is great, and there is so much more
- You use the wrong seal or have insufficient FTH, however you want to look at it. Godslayer has the best scaling at that lvl, or the gravel stone seal for lightning spells specifically
- for bosses the black flame incants are great since they have a % based DoT that can burn through a boss quite fast. Otherwise you could go for high dmg variants of spells, but those generally need better timing
- Do you mean the winged scythe? If yes, I also switched away from that for lack of dmg.
- Spirit ashes? The right ones are quite useful for spellcasters to cast some of the more involved spells
- talisman setup? Though generally better for def than offense
Edit: Also, be mindful of boss resists, -40% dmg matters! FTH has lots of possible dmg types, so take advantage of that. So, good that you are starting to use breath spells
Yeah, that's what I meant with the first paragraph. But he indicated wanting to actually use sorceries, so I didn't expand further on that.
There's probably some way to play a high INT+secondary stat with an appropriate weapon that scales with both.
Edit: Just looked it up since I didn't quite remember it, there are INT+FTH and INT+ARC staffs, so these are technically hybrid, but not really relevant for you. No +STR or +DEX or others sadly.
Edit edit: The demihuman queens staff has high base scaling and low INT scaling, so that would be the correct staff for a hybrid physical build I think.
But generally FTH is easier for hybrid builds in two different ways: First, there are more explicit hybrid seals that make your incantations scale with another stat, and second there are much more utility incantations that have no or very little scaling. Golden Vow for example is a great generalist dmg/def % buff that has no scaling whatsoever, anyway.
You need a catalyst to use spells. For sorceries that would be glintstone staffs or that one sword. But afaik sorceries always scale only with INT, so it's a difficult choice for mixed builds.
- Prev
- Next
In general I rarely watch things multiple times. Even on this list, nothing has probably hit double digits. But these are just very relaxing for me, and I come back to them when I just want something comforting.
For me:
For my wife:
More options
Context Copy link