What does crashlanding from space count as?

Yes and no. I love growing plants irl, especially perennials, and have my own style which requires minimal constant maintenance. But in Programming, if someone has to do something manually repeatedly, it basically means they are too inept to code a function to do it for them. Essentially, in coding, one’s aversion to manual repeated tasks determines how powerful one ultimately becomes. A good coder makes it so one line is equivalent to a noob typing 100. So, while I do not agree with you about looking down on ‘farming’ as in agriculture and raising plants… Yes there is an aspect of the ideal coding mentality that is directly opposite ‘repeated manual actions’.

<3

oh ya lol haha

I liked the first few posts and am thankful for them and found them informative. was about to keep playing. Then the people believing farming has to be boring and tedious and repetitive and timeconsuming and that i am at fault for thinking anything else came online and make me toootally never play again and uninstall it, lol.

interesting the people that think farming has to be boring (You)

thank you. good advice

“Also, it’s a farming game. Did you not expect to farm?”

Correct. I had no expectations at all. I literally saw news repeatedly about “concerned ape” for months with trillions of comments of people loving stardew. I then read an article and viewed him as a solo dev who would be a good romodel on my personal journey. I then got the game to try it with no idea how it was structured. Were I to make a farming game I enjoy, all the repetitive minor stuff would be automated, as inspired by rimworld, and because it isn’t, the sheer time lost is too much a barrier for me. By the way you say the last sentence, you are apparently a hostile person? So you believe there is no possibility of a farming game with the little tedious things taken care of? I can easily envision one.

Thank you I just looked up all those and none call to me. i wanted to like stardew because of the ‘cool solo dev’. Anyway, time to think of exactly what I want after this experience and let it shape my own project.

except the microscopic level.

quantum level yes make it a fight there. levels above microscopic sure make it a fight there. But not microscopic level. we need at least one level where there’s peace

I literally never even played it but what a cool project that guy has. (after reading article)

“You do not mention the path of the electron at all, Heisenberg. But yet when you look in a cloud chamber the electron’s track can be observed quite directly.” “Don’t you think that it’s strange to say that there is a path for the electron in the cloud chamber, but there is no path for the electron in the atom?” ~Einstein

Yeah weird it would then be pure probability with no causes when it’s inside the atom because that’s what matches the mathematical framework of Quantum Physics while when it’s in a cloud chamber ITS EXACT LOCATION AS A DISTINCT OBJECT IS CLEARLY VISIBLE. So yeah I’m with reality instead of that mathematical framework and don’t see any issue with the same concept of ‘having a form’ applying to entanglement ~which 100% blows up Bell’s theorem before it gets to multilocation.

Bell’s Theorem —> 💥

Possibility of Hidden Variables —> 👍

I disagree. “Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it’s path in a cloud chamber.” I am definitely of the einstein view and not the mainstream quantum scientist view. According to me, things, like einstein’s electron DO have actual states when not ‘observed’ and do not need to ‘be observed and collapse in to a form at that time’. At every point in it’s path thru that cloud chamber the electron has it’s form WHICH IS SUPEROBVIOUS TO SEE even tho the quantum math has no idea what to do about it and is like ‘no does not fit in the math thus cannot exist’. In reality, the electron does not need to be measured to have it’s form. Same with the ‘entangled’ particles Bell uses. Just because it is measured later does not mean it did not have it’s form while not measured ~which is common sense to me and blows up Bell’s Theorem before even having to reach to exotic theories. Weird to me stuff like that is not common sense. But I personally think quantum physics went wrong waaaaaay at the start and is riddled with exotic theories based on good data but faulty definitions and conclusions (such as the doubleslit experiment being touted as ‘a single photon being let thru’ when it’s a guy shining a very dim light for a month and taking a slow exposure pic. Shining light for 1 month = 1 Photon. Does not match common sense. Throws off future work. But is definitionwise accurate as quanta is ‘a level of energy’). So meh. Disagree. Nice you know your stuff tho.

Just adding to this: any modern arguments using the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena to fight determinism are wrong. Einstein made a theory called ‘hidden variable theory’ saying there were causes we couldn’t see (duh). A guy named Bell ‘proved it wrong’ by arguing against something einstein said in it about data being in multiple places simultaneously. Had nothing to do with whether hidden variables exist. But the headlines were ‘hidden variable theory proved wrong’ implying to the public that there are somehow no causes of things below a certain level and that an illogical foundation of ‘probability’ somehow underlies everything. Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it’s path in a cloud chamber. It clearly is a thing constantly existing.

With the errors of the foundational days of quantum physics out of the way, how can one argue against a thought or action having causes preceding it? Even if we are in woowoo land where everyone is spirits with minds existing separately in different worlds, there are still variables determining what those minds think. Only seeming alternative explanation so far is the faulty quantum probability field… which is wrong.

good job

And thus a healthy relationship wherein the individuals are mutually becoming smarter, with better norms, instead of increasing the normalcy of less intelligencegrowing conversation as their minds and norms deteriorate from it. Weird how it’s the rarity.

haha I just small talk to appease social standards. In my ideal reality, intelligent beings are creating and doing greater things themselves every day and viewing it like a wasted day if they have not. I could, right now, talk about my design decisions I’m coding in to this editor today and what some of the plans are for it as of now. I wouldn’t talk about Why I’m focusing on the editor before the game because I’ve already been over that so there would be little gain for the ultimate quality of what I’m making in that conversation. And, with my ideal type of person, the conversation could easily drift in to what groundbreaking realms they are in too. It should be like this every day for an individual to be considered healthy. Comparatively, small talk is a waste meant to give vocalization options to beings fulfilling low to medium potential roles that cannot enter any realm of novelty themselves ~followers that cannot be waymakers. I know I say this in a realm of 90% people who are just fulfilling a low potential role while otherwise ‘passing the time’, just like the person in the post. So downvote me. You know it’s true tho and it isn’t the smalltalkers who are the next feynmans, einsteins, etc. Where do you aim for yourself? ‘passing the time’ ‘smalltalk’ level or higher?

like a boss

because i live in a swamp and the usbs all fill with mud

Nice answers everyone but this one is THE CORRECTEST ANSWER and what I’m about to play :)