Search results for query: *

Positively suprised. Some technical and UI issues, the mute mc and soloinstances can be dumb, but playing it is actually fun. Says a lot when I have 15fps max and horribly long load times due to crap PC. Looking forward to seeing more, it has amazing potential.

Love the dark areas and investigations, need more of those. Apart from the satellite laptop quest in Egypt, they've been really awesome.

Gatekeeper golf clapped for me. I'm still disappointed I had to level other weapons to pass it.

Click to expand...

I'd be disappointed if you didn't have to.

EDIT: The link in the OP sums it up great. It's all very true.

Pharaoh Llandy said:

I think, therefore I am.

The rest of you are irrelevant and/or figments of my over-active imagination.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what a person I made up would say!

Amagic said:

Holy hell, why are ranked players so much worse than normal game players? In normal I have to break a sweat more often than not and every 5 man premade game is a merciless battle. In soloqueue ranked, half the lot can only play one role (which they will violently demand with the classic "gief or I troll") and the rest are trying a champion for the first time, while in team ranked my team can nab a landslide of victories, only losing to some stupid circumstance or other.

**** logic.

Click to expand...

Cause if you tryhard single role you get higher Elo in relative to your overall skill than you'd if you play everything evenly. When you get around 1.7k or so, the amount you can actually affect matches positively sharply decreases, and only at that point will it actually incentivize you to actually play several roles.

Rifleman said:

Let's start with Schrodinger's cat. The whole point of the hypothetical is to make a point. The situation: A cat is in a box with a capsule of poison gas that may break open at any random time. There is no way to see into the box or determine the state of the gas or the cat. Therefore, until we open the box and examine the cat, we cannot know whether or not it is alive or dead; there are two possible situations, but only one can exist. The cat can be said to be both alive and dead; it is only by looking into the box that we can know whether it is or not.

It has nothing to do with a god tossing dice or whatever. It's simply a fancy way to make the point that there are situations in which something has no defined values until you measure it. Think about a double-slit light experiment. Depending on what values you measure, the photon that you fire at the wall with the double slit will either go through both slits (experimentally confirmed by interference patterns) or one slit (experimentally confirmed as well by lack of any interference patterns). Now then.

Click to expand...

Shrödinger's Cat tought experiment's point was to make a point that it is silly cat can be considered both dead and alive at same time. While on quantum level, probabilities make sense, when applied on newtonian scale, it's extremely counterintuitive, and the whole thought experiment was made to point out exaclty that.

And yeah, it does have to do with God/universe/etc tossing dice. When you measure a wave funtion, what determines the state it will "collapse to"? It follows probability, but if the probability is caused by something, the process is deterministic. If the probability is just flat out non-deterministic mathematical probability, what decides the outcome? It implies God throwing dice, as we pull out number from nothing, and apply it to real world.

As for what I assume you're referencing with regards to stuff not needing to be in contact with other stuff, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, their conclusion was based on an incomplete understanding of causality from several decades ago, and furthermore, classical physics concepts do not necessarily correspond to reality. Perhaps quantum mechanics does not either, but in all situations, QM approximates reality better than classical physics. In addition, Bell's theorem is not the only way to solve that paradox.

Click to expand...

The authors' preferred explanation for EPR-paradox was that the result of wave function collapsing was "encoded" in the particles. Which would be totally in line with relativity. But Bell's Theorem didn't solve this paradox, it simply made the preferred explanation impossible. Bell's theorem came to conclusion that no physical theory of local hidden variables can be used to explain the predictions made by Quantum Mechanics. Either the locality or the reality of the explanation would have to be false. Non-locality would allow for FTL transmission, and so violate special relativity(as going faster than light would violate causality according to it). 
Non-reality would mean that objects do not exist or have definite states independently of the observer. This would be the idea Shrödinger found ridiculous, and then he deviced this whole cat killing thing to point it out. Wigner's Friend thought experiment is similar and shows how two people can perceive the same wave function differently. Also the whole thing lead to another famous Einstein quote, “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”.
So yes, it would certainly seem that classical physics concepts do not in fact correspond to reality. Especially considering the whole "reality being screwed up if we actually believe in predictions of QM" was resolved in favour of QM.

Einstein was brilliant, but brilliant minds aren't always right. Einstein himself said that in general relativity, his greatest mistake was creating a cosmological constant, and Einstein was also rather convinced in a static universe; a universe that does not change, which we now know to be untrue.

Click to expand...

First time I brought up Einstein was due to Mage very intrestingly thinking me as a man who thought that for sure hidden variable had to exist, and then smelled Nobel in my future. The second time, as I don't believe anything can be 100% pure mathematical probability, unless it really is the God itself throwing dice, generating pure, non-deterministic numbers out of thin nothingness and applying them to our reality. And then it was as a reply to rebelsquirrell to further emphasise how Einstein would've much liked local realist universe, which is in odds with Bell's Theorem.


ANYWAYS -  The point was, there are several different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Some of the interpretations, such as many worlds intepretation(which is one of the most popular QM interpretation with actual theoretical physicists) and pilot wave theories are deterministic.
Of the other interpretations, "shut up and just calculate" is the one that is probably the easiest to apply to pratical problems.

Mage246 said:

Well then feel free to determine/prove what that variable is, if you're so sure. I smell a Nobel in your future.

Click to expand...

...

How do you suppose I prove this? I just wanted to point out that QM isn't nessessarily non-deterministic. As in the first post, I stated I am not 100% sure. Causality just seems pretty fundamental to me(and so it did to Einstein btw). And yeah, causality can be thought of in many ways, but here I am mostly referring to the whole "God throwing dice"-thing. Cannot imagine "seedless" RNG - and something has to cause the seed - so universe pulling random quantum probabilities out of nowhere would be right up there with killing yourself before you are born in effort to prevent you from killing yourself before being born.

Papa Lazarou said:

Pjoo said:

I specifically meant, there are theories of QM only seeming probabilistic, but there actually being hidden variable that makes it look like that.

Click to expand...

I've heard this idea before - do you know if there's much evidence for it or if it's fairly speculative?

Click to expand...

All the interpretations of QM are speculative, including deterministic and non-deterministic ones, and those involving hidden variables and ones that do not, etc. Copenhagen interpretation, which is the one most often taught, would be non-deterministic, but the reason it is taught is not so much the evidence, but because these are interpretations so it doesn't really matter(Apart from it helping those evil non-deterministists trying to advance their random agenda!).

All of them would explain all the observations - it's just all of them have to give up important fundamentals, like Locality, Objectiveness, Causality, Counterfactual Definiteness, or just some other thing that is neccessary for science to make sense. It's rather hard to actually explain the predictions of QM without dropping out some REALLY important that was classically held fundamental to universe, due to Bell's Theorem.

rebelsquirrell said:

Papa Lazarou said:

Pjoo said:

I specifically meant, there are theories of QM only seeming probabilistic, but there actually being hidden variable that makes it look like that.

Click to expand...

I've heard this idea before - do you know if there's much evidence for it or if it's fairly speculative?

Click to expand...

If memory serves me correctly Einstein went of a man hunt for this variable on the grounds of everything else is determined surely this must be to. (Induction)

Click to expand...

Yep, but it's not so much the hunt for the variable, as it is a hunt for alternative that doesn't require the science to go "Oh but well I guess stuff doesn't need to actually be in contact with anything else by any means to actually affect it" or "oh I guess cats can be killed by apparently a god throwing a dice" or so. Einstein didn't really like the idea of that. For some reason.


But yeah, Quantum Mechanics, so take everything you read with enough salt to kill a horse. Preferably through machine that has 50% chance, obtained by measuring spin of protons, of feeding you the salt every 10 seconds. Unless you are Jesus.

Mage246 said:

I also said "or probability-based factors". If something happens 98/100 times, it's not random but it's also not deterministic.

Click to expand...

That is random.

I specifically meant, there are theories of QM only seeming probabilistic, but there actually being hidden variable that makes it look like that.

Mage246 said:

Ambalon said:

rebelsquirrell said:

So what do you people believe? Do we have free will? Or are all events the products of necessity with no other outcomes possible?

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ0BP9JCz_I

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it doesn't account for certain random or probability-based factors. You can run an identical experiment 1 trillion times and have it be identical in every way and you would still sometimes get a different result. Quantum indeterminancy, in other words.

Click to expand...

Can you really show they are truly random? Afaik the argument against hidden variables would be Bell's theorem, and that just rules out local hidden variables assuming ftl is impossible and that counterfactual definiteness holds.

Hard Determinist. Universe that isn't subject to causality simply doesn't make sense to me. I can't say it really needs to or that I am 100% sure, just don't see much point in assuming otherwise. Can't really apply sense to universe I think makes none.

I've went from Count of Gotland into the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, Lombardy, Sweden, Denmark, Burgundy, Finland, Venice, Croatia and maybe some other kingdom titles I dont remember right now, in around 150 years.

I've used forge claim exactly once, and that was on Venice, cause getting valid claim on it is kind of hard

Elective Succession is really OP for playing around with claims, as you can just claim a title for member of your dynasty, vote for that person, shuffle around electors so they vote for that person too -> your new heir has +1 title. After you get an Emperor title, you can just press claims of your dynasty members on kingdoms and they become your vassals. Then the only problem will be actually having enough dynasty members with claims to press.

Harkon Haakonson said:

Pimple_of_Pixels said:

Just started playing this game, very fun, though I still greatly prefer EU3.

Click to expand...

Same here man. Don't know if it's the same with you, but for me this whole paying attention to other relevant courts in search for opportunity of strategic marriages and, rather extraordinarily if I may say so, inherit dozens of counties over a few years is a major headache to me and a huge frustration as I am TERRIBLE at such diplomacy. I predict I'd sooner lose land with these marriages than gain some.

So I play mostly like a warmonger with as strong an economy as possible. AKA, a EU3 with a twist. I do have fun managing my own vassals and that sort of thing, even forging claims on neighbouring land and get interesting pretexts for war, but none of the vile weddings with other big dukes that apparently 95% of people rather focus on...

Click to expand...

Forging claims by marriage or forging claims with Chancellor? If you aren't already doing the first bit, getting the hang of it will really help you in expanding.

The largest problem I had with in trying to get land by using the dynasty mechanics, is that I simply didn't know the rules. Increasing the size of your realm by inheriting or claiming titles of same or higher tier than the your highest is hard, only really doable if it's your personal inheritance/claim or someone who will eventually hold both the titles(like your heir or heir's heir).

So people to look out for easy land:
a) People you can marry to your heir for good inheritance or claims for your heir's son.
b) People with multiple claims on lower tier titles, or multiple lower tier claims to inherit.
c) People with claims who have you or your son as their heir. Marry some old woman from your court to them. Press their claim and let them go independent. You'll be inheriting their lands soon enough.
d) People who already have titles and would favour you(or your heir)as their heir if something unfortunate happened to their current heir.

Yeah Ilex. Those are pretty large numbers...


Hello Cho'Gath with capcloser.

Mage246 said:

At that point you probably should stop farming. Or do you think that you're just going to farm for gear and levels and then jump out of the jungle and score a double kill that totally turns the game around? Not when your team has fallen behind and the enemy is getting fed. Then it's all hands on deck.

Click to expand...

No, but you gank when you have vision, and countergank if there are strong opportunities for it. When you got neither, and no oracle, have to assume they got vision and will countergank, cause that's what they'll do if they know how to play...

Farming gear, jumping out of the jungle and giving the team chance at getting past mid-game turns games around. Its just a bad gank when there is huge risk and succesful gank wont change anything. Waste of time to lose farm just to reset gold given by 0/6 lane.

Most annoying really is people calling for ganks when the enemy team has 8/0 Nocturne and there are no wards on the map. Especially when the lane itself is fed. 10% chance off kill, 100% chance of doublekill for them if they countergank. --> "Noob jungle stop farming and gank more"

Ilex said:

Why is it that people always, without error, blame the jungler? Today I played two 4 games 3 of which we lost. In each one the jungler was blamed (in one of them it was me).

Click to expand...

I've been duoqing with AD carry 500 rating above me and nobody blames me cause I am support. I am not expected to have any effect on their game before 20min, so blaming me wouldn't absolve them of failing. They are just trying to find external reasons for losing the lane, and blaming the jungler just happens to be always an option.

While I was playing jungler, getting blamed every time lane loses didn't really bother me that much, but now that I've played support a lot I don't really think I'll be going back to jungle. It just gets really stressful.

Jhessail said:

Pjoo said:

That's the system we have in Finland. Same-sex religious marriage currently considered, but at the moment we have option for civil union(that is also an alternative to marriage for different-sex couples) that gives pretty much the same rights and priviledges as marriage.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Civil union couples cannot adopt and cannot take the surname of their partner. Otherwise they have the same rights.

And there are plenty of religious people advocating for homosexual marriage. Claiming that all religious people are against it is a falsehood. Only narrow minded bigots are against it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you are right, and it's a big thing, don't know why I ignored it. Probably cause I kind of feel it's a different issue(adoption vs marriage). And just to point out, step-child adoption is allowed.

Sir Alekzandr said:

While is is false to say that all religious people are against it, a large majority of the devote Muslims/Christians/Jews are opposed to it. Many people who are not "narrow minded bigots" are against it, it's hardly something where only Fundamentalists are not for it.

Click to expand...

Not if we define narrowminded biggot by that

AWdeV said:

@Pjoo:

Well, I'm generally of the opinion that religious freedom can go suck on it.

Over here at least it's pretty much also covered by freedoms of speech (expressing opinion literally) and freedom to gather where you want.
And the religious freedom would contradict with the right to be free from discrimination for those who want to get married.

Click to expand...

But if religious marriage had no legal status, it wouldn't really be discrimination, it would simply be excluding some minorities from a rite due to what the rite is to the church. If the church holds stance that men can't marry men, should they be forced to bless such union? Similarly with individual priests.

AWdeV said:

Then again, I don't see why marriage has to be religious and I don't think every church would refuse to marry gay folk so it shouldn't even be an issue.

Click to expand...

Well, it still would be issue, cause some denominations would totally prevent marriages, and assuming you don't choose your denomination, it would leave some same-sex couples who'd want a religious recognition for their union without one, so...

Tough thing really, cause some gay couples really care about getting a blessing from church that isn't really openminded about stuff like that.


But yeah, it's actually a bit offtopic, when it comes to NC 1st amendment, it's both discriminating, due to preventing same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits that other couples get, and against freedom of religion, because it defines the rite of marriage for them.

AWdeV said:

Sir Alekzandr said:

But seriously, it's more of a compromise (Even though I dislike compromises in general). Homosexuals get the same legal privileges as heterosexuals, and those opposed get to have marriage stay as something religious that's only between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

Seperate but equal. Whatever could go wrong.

There is no single actual argument against gay marriage. It's why you hear such nonsense as "oh noes the sanctity of marriage" and "they'll want to marry dogs next". Those aren't arguments. Those are bull**** and massively hypocritical.

Click to expand...

That's the system we have in Finland. Same-sex religious marriage currently considered, but at the moment we have option for civil union(that is also an alternative to marriage for different-sex couples) that gives pretty much the same rights and priviledges as marriage.

I definetly think there should be secular discrimination-free alternative to marriage, and that the state shouldn't force any religious organizations to discriminate, but not allowing churches to decide what type of marriages they allow would conflict with freedom of religion. Basically by not allowing them to discriminate. But I think it is generally accepted that religious organizations are allowed to do that based on religion when it comes to purely religious matters.

While this is not really my personal experience, most people I'd view as douche would've been from working class, the results do kind of make sense. Not being limited as much by morals would improve the chances of getting rich, and being born into upper class could easily make you feel superior, thus care less about your relationships with the common folk.

I guess most of these tests were done on US citizens? Would be intrested to see how it would change if done on people of different nationalities.

Ilex said:

Traps under the tower are pretty huge IMO. Longer AA range means you can auto deeper under the tower without tower aggro.

Click to expand...

If you do it right, you can aa without taking tower shots ok. Range helps against some lane though I guess.

The traps if you drop them under tower in lane are like 80dmg on 17iish sec cooldown, they can be cleared up while creeps push out a bit for a short while. They really more limit any counterplay rather than add to pressure.

Ilex said:

On the other hand Cait has traps, an escape and a longer AA range.

Click to expand...

Yeah, meant for pressuring the bot lane. You don't need those things to pressure, they help you stay safe. If you pressure hard enough, just the jungler alone can't gank you. Dodging the Q is really really hard, so its keeping ridiculous pressure is really easy to do especially with someone like Janna. Cause it has 1.6 AD ratio.

ColonicAcid said:

I hate varrus, he is bad, his ult is good at low level play but bad at pro level play so I wont see him in competetive play.
IE: it moves extremely slow and you can walk out of its range.
His Q is okay since its poke but you loose alot of CS.

Click to expand...

Umm... Yeah, good luck diving on him while also walking out of the ulti range. It's amazing defensive tool.


And yeah, you just push to tower and poke with Q, you can do that as much as you want without losing anything. He is like Caitlyn that doesn't CC herself with the skills.