You make the claim that a will relies on some idea of chaos, which definitely requires some actual explanation.

The amount of choices one has is irrelevant in the comparison to random chance. If the person uses reason to decide for one of several options, they, in the most common sense, clearly have acted out of free will. Assuming that a free will exists in a physical universe, but we’re in metaphysics anyways.

I am not sure what it even means to create choices where there were none. If you end up making a decision, then it clearly was an option to begin with, by the definition of what that word means.

What pointing out the paradox here entails is that amongst the presumptions we made, at least one of them must be false. The argument used in the OP does not disprove the existence of some divine being at all and it’s not trying to. It’s trying to disprove the concept of a deity that has the three attributes of being all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. In the argument given, it is shown that at least one of these attributes is not present, given the observation of evil in the world.

Your comparison to light being described as a particle and a wave is to your own detriment. The topic of this duality arose in the first place from the fact that our classical particle based models of the universe began to become insufficient to correctly predict behaviours that had been newly observed. A new model was created that can handle the problem. The reason this is a weak argument here is that no physicist would ever claim that the models describe the world precisely. Physical models are analogies that attempt to explain the world around us in terms humans can understand.

In your last question, you make the mistake of misunderstanding the argument once again. You grant the person omnipotence and leave it at that. The argument is arguing about the combination of omnipotence, omniscience and all-lovingness. The last of these deals with your question directly, explaining the drive to make the changes in question. The other two grant the ability to do so without limitation.

This chart isn’t reducing that much at all. It’s explaining a precise chain of reasoning. It may or may not be missing some options, but you haven’t named any so far that weren’t fallacies.

It’s a bit harsh to put such words in their mouth. They said their sympathies lie elsewhere, not that he deserved it.

“Taiwan never has been a sovereign state”

I guess the Republic of China never existed?

Taiwan isn’t exactly a rogue province. It’s the holdover of the prior government of China that lost the revolutionary war and retreated there.

It doesn’t entirely invalidate the point, but it has to be said that the situation is markedly different from the one with Texas.

It’s more like if Texas overthrew the US government in a violent rebellion and the UK worked to support the holdover of the old US government that retreated to Puerto Rico.

Nothing that happened since has invalidated truly the right of Taiwan to remain a sovereign state. It’s in no sense a rogue province.

You should contextualise such claims.

So that vision impaired people or people with whatever other impairment can enjoy the content. The text can be read out by a screen reader.

Historical accuracy is not racism. Choosing to identify yourself based on the racist actions in your history is.

To drive it to the extreme, it would be like saying that Germany depicting Jews being gassed on their new flag isn’t racist, just historically accurate.

The point being made though was that the languages are well shown to be genuinely related through a common ancestral language from which they both deviated, just as have most languages in Europe and parts of the Near East. The connection is tangible and quite real, not something just based on some few similarities.

Paradox has long maintained a DLC policy based around their permanent improvement and development of their games. I don’t get what is greedy about genuinely expanding their games with content that wouldn’t have been in the base game and charging money for it. Some of the DLC may indeed be on the more expensive side, but calling their entire policy greedy is simplistic and just trying to bunch them in with companies trying to rip you off. Sure, there’s been cases where some of Paradox DLC has been egregious, but frankly, the standard case is that they clearly added onto the game that otherwise wouldn’t have been there at all.

To propose one of the titles where this works best is Stellaris. I genuinely mean it, take a look at that games post release development and tell me that Paradox is being genuinely greedy. Just because something is long term profitable doesn’t make them necessarily immoral.

I am just barely at the start of Shadowbringer now and I’ve been playing for more than two years now. I personally really enjoy having an MMO to continuously play next to other games, but it definitely doesn’t help with my backlog either, lol

It’s very fun. I also really enjoyed the sequel, even if it felt like it lost some of its charme and attention to detail in exchange for scope and combat depth. Felt a little harsh to switch to the next one, but I had a lot of fun either way.

I admire your ability to keep track of all that. I actively play FF14 to fill my MMO slot and then some other game that is my mainstay at the time. If I dare even touch another serious title, it tends to completely push out the prior one, so I have been really trying hard not to start another bigger game while I’m not done with the last one.

It’s how I’ve been playing Yakuza 0 for the last entire year, coming back every half eternity. I really need to just sit down and play a title or take forever.

Shogun 2 and older games massively lose out on the UX. Especially in combat, the games have much less quality of life.

Furthermore, the newer games simply work towards a somewhat different audience. The studio has clearly picked up on the success of Warhammer and after stumbling both through all of Three Kingdoms and the launch of Troy, they seem to have firmly settled towards the more fantasy direction which is counter to the philosophy of the earlier games.

While I certainly support trying out the older titles too, calling Troy a simply worse game than the older titles is a bit reductionistic and definitely has a personal bias and may be somewhat misleading, even if your advice was in good faith.

You’re thinking of the right game. You had a pet that was pretty much a massive bipedal animal monster that you could train. Depending on what you do with them, when you reward them with food and petting and when you punish them by slapping them, they’d change their behaviour. You could teach them to either farm food off of fields or eat villagers when they were hungry, whatever you wanted. It was a really fun feature, at least for six year old me.

Neither have they the choice of what format others use. The point here was that the apps are to blame for not supporting the format, not the format for not being supported. It’s a common format nowadays.