So it’s quite the well-known fact that of Willo’s talent: Blastflower, is Willo’s best talent, at least statistically it does well. I won’t say it’s not because it is just that much better than her other two talents. But there’s a huge “why?” to it. In general, the factors of why talents are good or bad when compared to one another come from three factors: Their actual upsides, their actual downsides, and how they make someone play.If anyone takes a look at most talents in the game you’ll notice that most don’t list a downside, the “downside” of taking Darkstalker is the fact he’s not using either of his other talents, that and my technicality certain cards don’t work the same as they would if they were on a chained Netherstep and so this example sucks and I didn’t want to change what I had written, but that’s not the point. All talents have this drawback- the fact they’re not other talents. Some talents in their upsides come up short of their peers. Sometimes they’re not even a problem and it’s that one talent overwhelms the others with its sheer power- I’m not saying Blastflower needs to be nerfed even if the bar graphs are showing that (though it should on principle), that’s not what I’m saying.
The final issue is the playstyle that is incentivized by both Nightshade and Scorn actively making them contrast with their intended and more effective playstyles, I should say that Nightshade is less egregious than Scorn thought it still has problems.
They yellow/gold represents a increase in a stat, The red represents a decrease the red spots represent a potential decrease. Top left is the default.

Nightshade

By increasing the damage Nightshade does you make it an easy-to-land damage tool, in the previous guide I mentioned that Nightshade doesn’t have falloff, and that makes it incredibly useful for helping new players land it, however, it also gives the impression that you should use deadzone for dueling, which you shouldn’t since you’re now no longer using it for Area Denial or Crowd Control, however, if you don’t use it to fight squishies and just use it as normal you end up risking the chance you effectively have a non-talent since unless you save it for only hitting targets you might end up never taking the shot at all, that mixed with Deadzones cooldown makes it incredibly hard to use effectively for a reward that’s more or less able to be caught up with via Blastflower, even with a specialized build for Nightshade, my best advice for when to use this (outside of never) is to use it on TDM where the lack of tanks and objective gives plenty of room to use this for deathmatching.A side note, Nightshade is considered ability damage which ignores AP and instead can only be stopped by flat DR or AW.
In conclusion, in the case of Nightshade, risks, by its incentivised damage amp rewarding using it for fighting targets rather than stopping healing, means it possibly loses out on the area denial, however, it still is capable of doing this job even if the reward of the talent may be lost, so the red isn’t a full stop, though the talent also risks not using the damage however, you will rarely not gain value from deadzone denying heal, and if you use it on a tank or a shield, that damage still exists so it won’t be losing out on its value since you still have use cases of Crowd Control, and Ensuring kills where you’d have used the ability in the same way regardless.

Blastflower

Willo’s meta talent, and by a large margin as it gives Willo the means to duel enemies more easily (without using deadzone to do so) gives her more damage against health pools and generally has no real downsides. It’s to the point it’s more or less self-explanatory but I shall elaborate regardless. Blastflower as a Talent works regardless of whatever else you have going on, by the nature of it being attached to her primary attack with no special gimmicks beyond just hitting the same person multiple times, this and its ability to consistently get this stacking damage even with splash damage (though increasing 125 damage by 90% still doesn’t kill anyone any time soon so still aim at target) means you can easily ramp up damage and land the absolutely lethal 900 damage, while normally these guides won’t be used for balance discussion I will say that they should reduce the max stacks by 1, capping Willo’s damage to 800, to allow for duels, and some tank shredding while at the same time not doing 900 goddamn damage. Since I genuinely believe any attempts at balancing Nightshade in its current state are hopeless and giving her scorched earth (perhaps at a weaker value or without the cooldown reduction to not entirely gut point tanks with a single ability no matter how little uptime it has) it’s hard to advise people about Blastflower beyond just hit your shots.

Scorn

Okay so while I personally never looked at Scorn beyond it being just a weirder weaker version of the already weak accelerant, it was Snake (the person who does my math for me and helped me make this guide via his time on Willo) who made me realize the problems with it. We’ll talk about the positives first, it’ll be quick.

1. It does over 3500 damage if all seedlings hit
2. It’s easier to use aggressively
3. They are considered ability damage like Nightshade so all the same benefits apply.

And we’re done, the issue with Scorn is that by the nature of seedlings, they’re inconsistent in where they land, and the possibility of them spreading too far out or being evaded (they are only reduced by 0.5 seconds means while they are easier to use aggressively they still aren’t doing anything for a decent while, and this means certain techniques that can be done with normal seedlings become much harder on Scorn. This and using them for area denial can end up being pointless since while they still last for 1.5 seconds they disappear sooner which means you can drop your shields sooner, and go on through sooner.They make area denial harder for the incentive of killing a default AFK Barik in 1.5 seconds, which anyone with a brain can easily mitigate the damage they take and make space, and even with decks that focus on spamming seedlings, shields easily eat up the damage they offer and without these builds you end up with a similar long cooldown issue that Nightshade faces without the use cases to use the cooldown on actually mattering since you’re throwing them in hoping for the best. Oh, and you feed Terminus’ siphon more than throwing normal seedlings at him already does which you know… they won’t complain about.
Tommorow I'll make a post about Willo's best and worst cards, and further elaborate on builds.

Yesterday, I had my graduation ceremony. After years of university with absolutely no help besides occasional rides to the bus stop and, very rarely, to campus, I finally graduated. Here's what my parents have done in the lead-up to graduation and the day after instead of supporting me.
My parents spent months leading up to the graduation freaking out about how I'll get a job, trying to control my hair and clothing (even implying I'm ugly when I choose my own hair and clothing), harassing me to hand out business cards to everyone I meet (especially if the situation would be an immense faux pas), grilling me on if my grades are good, lecturing me relentlessly about how I need to keep in contact with people in my class and it's soooo important and would I like to hear about how my dad got a job through nepotism for the eightieth time, asking me questions they already know the answers to (Yes, I'm still talking to my former classmates. Yes, I know that you worked in the Yukon when you were 18. Yes, I know about your friend who worked in a weather station. Yes, I know you had to move to find a job in the 1980s. Yes, I am aware that it is a possibility I might have to move too. Yes, I know that it's okay to invite people over to the house, you've only "informed" me about a hundred times. Yes, I know that school is important.) Every single thing that they "inform" me about is something I have very clearly expressed that I understand, and is just thinly veiled criticism. But my dad needs to lecture more than he needs oxygen.
Just constant nitpicking, criticism, and nothing I ever did was enough. I couldn't even focus on grades, because they would in their own words "put pressure on" me to do what they wanted. To handle their emotions for them. They're obsessed with the idea that I would have to move to a tiny town or work in a coal mine to find a job, because I'm more highly educated than my dad (who dropped out of university despite having all expenses paid by his father), and because my dad worked in the Yukon for two summers. He will never shut up about that, and he even goes so far as to hold us hostage with implicit threat of a massive tantrum to listen to him tell us the story again and again and again and to show us pictures of the place he worked on Google maps and point to everything he remembers. Sometimes he can go on for half an hour just repeating himself over and over.
Last summer, my parents even went and took action without my knowledge or approval to try and get a job set up for me cleaning up a mine contaminated with arsenic in the middle of nowhere, NWT. They tried to guilt and shame me into it ("What are your plans instead? Do you have another job lined up? Because you need to have a job. You can't sit around all day." This coming almost literally one week into summer vacation after my second-last year of university, when I could be using my energy to find interesting co-ops or explore hobbies or travel, instead dealing with their harassment and obsession with trying to literally trap me in a fucking arsenic mine.) They went on and on, lectured me over and over, implied that I would be embarrassing my grandfather if I didn't go, and so on. Eventually they said "You can go work or get a certification", and I picked the certification, but then they got grumpy anyways, and every week for the entire summer they would ask "Are you still working on the certification?". Of course, dipsh*t. I've told you fifty times how long the program lasts.
They don't care about what I'm learning in class, don't care about my hobbies or interests, only care about my friends as either a means to get backdoored into a job or a "nice French Canadian woman" to have babies with. They don't care if I'm struggling, and are completely unavailable to help in any regard. Any request for help would result in a guilt trip. Even if I actually couldn't eat dinner with the family for one day because I had a test, my father would get raw emotions and I'd have to walk on eggshells for a few days. The one time I mentioned I was having trouble studying, instead of shutting up and no longer ranting in the main floor where I could hear him or turning the TV off, he just dragged a table into the unfurnished boiler room (without asking me) and then told me that I would have to study there. I wasn't allowed to choose not to, because he'd already set it up. Ironically, my anger at him did let me study pretty well for the one day that I was forced there. He tried to keep me there long-term because he thought it was just such a great idea, but I managed to trick him into thinking I didn't need help studying anymore, so I got to study at a desk with a light on it and flooring that wasn't bare cement. Hooray for the most minor victory imaginable.
In the months leading up to graduation, did they care about how hard I was working at my capstone project and offer support? Absolutely not! Did they care about how well my sleep quality was, how many times the cat woke me up because they didn't play with her enough or give her enough attention? Nope! Did they care about how exhausting it was to deal with their constant lectures on the same topics, and to have to give them affirmations ("Yes, you're right, that's right, good job, nice, very tasty, good work, oh really?, neat, that's cool, how'd you make that?, mhm, I agree, you're being reasonable, they're being ridiculous, that's crazy") a hundred times a day? Not even in the slightest!
We spend more time talking about my dad's college friends than about anything I or my brother care about.
Then, leading up to graduation. all I've gotten are the most humiliating, infuriating, insulting messages and lectures from my parents. I get almost daily emails and texts saying "You need to get a job, it's important to look for a job" despite the fact I've told them I am looking probably fifty times. Too cowardly to say it to my face. I've been texted literal links to a Google search for "[degree name] jobs [city]" more than once. Both my parents treat me like I don't listen, when I do. They treat me like I'm lazy, when I've put myself through university with no help even after they lied to me about giving me financial aid and made me out to be a bully demanding more money when all I did was say "alright" and then pay for it myself. They must have sternly given me a talking to about how "I'm not going to pay for university, you know that, right? You need to pay. Don't expect us to pay. Because we paid for your first semesters, you know that, right? We've already paid for enough." thirty times, even after I'd made the final payment. They treat me like I'm stupid when I have expressed understanding before. They treat me like I'm a bully while I always bend over backwards for them, just because I don't play my role as "surrogate mommy but this time I get to tell her what to do" well enough.
It feels like they're almost raising me into a replacement or surrogate parent. Like my dad wants me to be his mom or dad, except this time he gets to be in charge. And my mom wants me to be her mom, except this time when she freaks out or has her deer in headlights look, she'll get someone to step up and take care of everything for her. I distinctly remember having to comfort her even for things she did to me, like tell me that a pair of comfortable shoes I picked out was good and she'd get them, and then immediately scream "take it out, take it out!" after it was scanned at the register. I could not have been older than twelve. And for my dad, he always rants and raves to me exactly like he does to his parents, except without including blame for them sending him to boarding school and instead having tons of old "life updates" like where he worked when he was 18 and what music he liked to listen to in high school, stuff like that. Then he expects me to praise him or be interested like his parents never were (he always tells me that his parents only cared about his car when they called).
So now I graduated. All they had to say in the days coming up to it was to grill me on the time I'd have to be at the venue and the time I was planning to leave the house to get there on time, with a distinct air of "you're too lazy to think of this in advance and too stupid to figure it out without a plan". Of course, I had to answer this question probably five times, because they don't care to ever listen to me. Before the ceremony I got text messages showing they were way more excited about themselves being here than anything relating to me, with multiple messages expressing how they arrived and it was exciting, then they asked me how the atmosphere was and their only reply was a one-word "nice" with no punctuation, because they don't care about me and only ask droll questions to segue into their next bit.
After grad, there was two generic sentences spoken with no emotion about how it was nice I graduated, and then they made a whole song and dance about the amazing gifts they got me. It was a degree frame I picked out myself that my dad presented as new and exciting (because he never pays attention to me, of course, when I told him I had picked one out and ordered it with my mother. Also she had another freakout about price and acted like I was holding her hostage by taking her unforced offer to buy me the second-cheapest degree frame on offer.). Then he presented the free gift small frame they got with it as though I should praise him for it, then a congratulation card that was alright I suppose if only because my brother drew a little creature in it that made me smile (my parents did not add anything special or meaningful to it). There was also a cap, which I genuinely enjoy and is nice, and a cheap ballpoint pen for some reason. He said there was more gifts at home, which okay, I don't care about gifts but I'd like him to at least be as excited for my graduation as he was for the picture frame. I didn't get any souvenirs from the bookstore because I knew if I got something he'd also gotten he'd freak out and accuse me of not listening to him or whatever, so I waited. When I got home my gift was Skittles. I don't know why I thought me might have gone to the bookstore and gotten me something special related to my actual interests. He doesn't care to know what those are anyways. I guess I hoped that at least this one day would be different.
Today, the day after graduation, all I've gotten from my parents is:
- Involved in a lecture and manufactured drama about my brother not using my car to drive to his job, even though my dad had the exact opposite position the entire rest of the year, because "what if you need to drive somewhere?", trying to manufacture a fight between my brother and me while also guilting and shaming me for not driving as a hobby like he does.
- A text message from my mother asking me if I'm awake because she wants more ammo to paint me as lazy. Nevermind that I barely slept the night before to make it to grad (of course neither of my parents would care enough about me to come with me as a family. I was literally the only person I saw who went on my own and without their family showing up early too, to support them. I walked past so many families in the parking lot knowing my mother couldn't be bothered to change out of her pajamas for me.) Nevermind I had a huge day that day, and that I was taking care of the cat's energy all that night too because attending my grad is apparently soooo draining my parents can't look after their own pet, and somehow it falls to me. All that matters is she woke up early and I didn't (after I handled all her inconveniences for her, funny how that works).
- Rapid knocks on my door because my dad is making bread as a hobby and apparently "needs" me there to help him with it, and then also "needed" me to stay and make cookies with him.
- A lecture about someone I never knew who apparently once threw something at another kid on my street when I was about 5, and about how he died and how his wife's hobby was really expensive or whatever and if I really don't remember him?
- I went to a showhome for fun and brought back the brochure. My dad jabbed his finger at the pictures on it to explain the house to me like I wasn't the one who literally brought the brochure back. Never asked if I cared or anything, just immediate launch into lecture and expecting me to stay and listen and praise him for being so smart or whatever.
- A lecture about D Day for some fucking reason. My dad is obsessed with history, and he doesn't have any friends to talk to (wonder why) so his lectures always fall on my ears.
- An email from my mother explaining in an extremely condescending way how important it is to have a cover letter when applying for jobs (just completely assuming I don't write them and also am too lazy or stupid to think about having them) including copy-pasted text from a sample cover letter that is no doubt one of the first results on google for "cover letter example"
- An angry email from my mother including a job she found on google
But, contrast that to my neighbors across the street. I was friends them in grade school, haven't seen them in like ten years, and just on my way past to the showhome we said hi and chatted in a genuinely nice conversation that wasn't a one-sided lecture like usual in my house. They could sense my emotions and didn't try to keep me there longer than I wanted to rant, they were genuinely interested in me and gave me space and interest to express myself, their mother even hugged me for graduating and it was the most genuine hug and congratulations I've ever received in person. Every other hug was my family members forcing me to hug them for their own sole benefit. I admit I cried a bit later on my walk thinking about it.
Compared to my parents, the parents of old friends care more about me, trust me more, believe in me more, have more hope for my future, are more interested in me, and understand me better. It's tremendously sad that all throughout my graduation ceremony I was worried about my parents becoming upset for some random reason and blowing up at me. I'm glad I at least focused and made myself feel some pride and joy in myself for graduating.
Even the random people I met who were also taking part in the open house were nicer and better conversationalists than my parents. A random elderly couple I have never seen in my life can have a better interaction with me than my own parents. The realtor was more chill and less perfectionistic than my parents by a mile. His million-dollar house sale was something he was less stressed and perfectionistic about and something he beat himself up over less than my parents are about my hairstyle when I'm going to class because "What if you meet someone in industry and they see you're not professional".
It's absurd.

Exion has finally started to respond to my posts. It would be easier if Exion would unblock me and engage with me directly but they still refuse to do so. It would also be nice if they linked the posts they are responding to so anyone reading his posts can look up my posts. I made sure to do that for all his posts. In this post I’ll be responding to https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/98oVSczZYe.
For the list of parts in my series see https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/01K9X3Pjxj

In this post, I will be answering and refuting the individual who keeps writing posts about me and comments every second he gets trying to "refute" me and "expose" me. I am only doing this because some brothers and sisters have allowed themselves to be fooled by this dude.

In his last post before he started addressing my criticisms he made it clear he wouldn’t engage with my criticisms. It’s only after the mods told him to either respond or they’d remove his posts, as can be seen here https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/c1XSgLQlZe, that he started responding to me. Given those facts I find it hard to believe his reasons given here for responding to me.

He begins by discussing my translation of the word "ישוחח," which I interpret as "argue" or "put forth."

That’s not where I begin. There is some important context before that. The first part of my first post was about showing the general sloppy nature of his posts using examples which he acknowledged his mistake, are things someone who knows Hebrew would be unlikely to make, and which he later copied elsewhere without fixing the mistake. The issue of ישוחח is just one part of this.

Firstly, in Biblical Hebrew, verb forms such as Qal and Piel (often referred to as Polel in some grammatical traditions) are distinguished by their specific diacritic markings (i.e., vowel points and consonantal diacritics).

Nope. The difference between the Qal and Polel forms in this case are not just in the diacritical marks but also have consonant differences.

Since I believe that the Masoretes distorted the Old Testament by adding these diacritics to reach a deviant interpretation, I do not consider them at all. I read the Old Testament without any diacritics. This is something he has yet to understand

Again in this case it’s not just the diacritical marks. I also understand Exion rejects them and in my responses I give reasons why his diacritical mark suggestions don’t work.

He later argues that the ancient Christian manuscripts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint, etc.) must agree with my claims and not with the Masoretic renderings of the Hebrew text, a conclusion he bases on thin air. I ask: Why is that so? Can you give us one good reason for this conclusion? You can't! He says this only because he considers these Christian manuscripts as divinely revealed criteria and translations.

Note the Septuagint was written by Jews not Christians. I’ve also given my reasons for why those should agree with Exion. He ignores those reasons and then attributes different reasons I never said. I’ll repeat again, Exion’s theory that he’s stated multiple times is that when the Masoretes added the diacritical marks they intentionally added ones that change the original meaning of the text to cover prophecies about Mohammed and Islam. He then claims he is discovering the original true meaning of the verses. If this is true then pre Masorete texts would still have the original meaning. Also any sources from after the Masoretes but which weren’t influenced by them should still have the original meaning. Also any before Mohammed and Islam wouldn’t have the same motivation to hide prophecies about Mohammed and Islam.

The Masoretes could even have been influenced by Christians and their manuscripts,

This is a textbook example of an ad hoc assumption. An ad hoc assumption is when an assumption is added without any evidence to modify a theory for the sole purpose of avoiding falsification of the theory by some evidence. Since these sources that should agree with Exion don’t agree he added a new assumption without evidence to modify his theory to avoid falsification.
It’s also a problematic assumption. The Masoretes were Jews. Jews and Christians were split a few hundred years earlier and so didn’t really influence each other. For the Septuagint this was written even before Christianity. It’s so far before Islam and Mohammed that it’s extremely unlikely they were trying to hide any prophecies about them. It’s one of our oldest sources for the text making them a good source for how early Jews understood the text. It serves as an excellent source for testing Exion’s claims since if they’re true we’d expect, at least a significant portion of the time, they’d agree with Exion. If no one else in history, even before the diacritical marks were added, agrees with Exion then Exion is not speaking the same language as everyone else.

In other words, both Qal and Polel essentially mean the same thing.

Here is what Exion said previously, “Regarding the phrase "Who will argue...", an alternative rendering could be "Who will claim..." However, using the word "argue" may be more faithful to the original text, as it carries a connotation of "complaining" or "disputing" rather than simply making a statement or engaging in ordinary conversation. This nuance helps capture the intended meaning more accurately.”
They specifically note the nuance of the meaning ‘complain’. What they failed to notice is that meaning is only part of the Qal form not the Polel. Both their original and new dictionary citation show this. Since the verb in question is in the Polel form that meaning doesn’t apply. Both source clearly listed the two different forms and the meanings for both. Either this is another case of Exion not reading his sources properly or he didn’t realize the correct form of the verb. Either way it shows the general unreliability of Exion.

Thus, he has fixated on this specific word, insisting it is (without a shadow of a doubt) in the Polel form (because his Pauline forefathers said so)

Actually I insist it’s in the Polel because I understand the different verb congregations. It’s not just diacritical marks but consonant differences as well. A key way we can tell is that the final consonant, ח, is duplicated.

Let's see if the Polel form does anything to save him:

This whole section is a lengthy that follows completely misses the point. Here is the original discussion, https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/s/f3XrmqDNqi. Like back then his response misses the point. I go on to note how is translation depends upon connecting two parks of the sentence where the diacritical marks have a break. I asked given all the mistakes he’s made up to that point, with the mix up of the Qal and Polel being the most recent at that time, why should we trust him over the Masoretes. The idea was to show how Exion is unreliable and doesn’t know Hebrew so he can’t be trusted over Hebrew speakers. He doesn’t justify why we shouldn’t take a break at that section, we’re just supposed to trust him but with all the mistakes he makes we can’t trust him. Furthermore after adjusting his translation to accommodate the Polel meaning the next day he copied his post to this subreddit without making the same correction but leaving the mistaken Qal meaning.

I believe (if I remember correctly) that he translates it as:

Nope. I never gave my own translation for this verse. He could have just checked the discussion but instead he made another sloppy mistake where he misrepresented what someone else has said. The discussion is public for anyone to read it themselves and see I never said that.

He goes on to say that I quoted from a fictitious source, which is not true at all. I simply didn’t bother looking through my entire library to find a quote I mistakenly mis-referenced, mainly because the quote turned out to be quite irrelevant, and I don’t waste my time like that.

That’s just an excuse. After giving the original citation a few people tried and couldn’t find it. He was pressed on the issue. Finally after some back and forth he gave a new book name and new author. However, the citation still couldn’t be found in that new book. It was at that point where he just ignored any further requests for proving the source exists. This is the first time since then he’s acknowledged it. Given that course of events it’s strong evidence the citation doesn’t actually exist. Until he provides proof the citation actually exists we should take the citation as fictitious. Though even if the source does exist his acknowledgment of a wrong citation is still evidence of his sloppy work and unreliability with representing sources, something he does very often.

So, I will not bother to refute every single point of the old stuff that I’ve already conclusively answered.

He never did. For the issue about copying the verse number and making it part of the verse all he could say before is that it’s a minor mistake that I’m overblowing. However, as I note the error is not a minor one but actually requires several points of failure, some of which are hard to accidentally make. E.g. removing the space between the verse number and first word after copying takes intentional action. For the pronoun suffixes his response boils down to just claiming every single person who has ever translated it is wrong and he is right. He refused to give a general account of pronoun suffixes that supports his translation along with a source to back up his account. I on the other hand took a picture of my Hebrew textbook showing the full chart to prove he is wrong.

Regarding the stone God mentions that was to be placed in the Temple of God, he says that it is saying

Notice in this section of his response he changes his original translation to include the second instance of the word stone that he previously missed. This acknowledges that he was originally wrong and missed that word. He just tries to rework the translation have that second occurrence of the word stone while still referring to God’s stone. Let’s see if it works.

The next word is אל: This is taken as a preposition according to them, and it generally means "to" or "toward," and never "upon." It is used to indicate direction or movement towards something. While the following word is, again, a stone "אבן."

I deal with his simplistic view of Hebrew pronouns in my pt 2. Once again we have the same problem. The relationship between pronouns in Hebrew compared to English is complicated. The pronoun in my pt 2 analysis has 8 pages in the BDB. אל has 2 pages. For על, which we be relevant in a moment, it has almost 6 pages for the proposition part. It’s far more complicated than giving a short list and only limiting translation to that list.
Regarding אל the BDB under note 2 points out there is a tendency to use it interchangeably with על. For על it lists upon as one of the meanings. Exion goes on to argue the limited set of meanings he gives don’t make sense and from that argues אל should instead be taken to be God. However, when we realized prepositions are more complicated than he makes them out to be and that אל can mean upon this argument fails.

Here, "אל־אבן" would translate to "God's stone" or "stone of God."

Here is the chapter from my textbook on the construct relationship singular. https://imgur.com/a/TWa8x4B. Take the first example. The first word on Hebrew is סוּס which means horse. The second word is הַמֶּלֶךְ which means the king. The translation given is “the horse of the king”. The second page gives examples of how this is translated into English with a ‘s. Based on that “the horse of the king” would be “the king’s horse”. This example shows us if we accept Exion’s claim אל means God and this is a construct relationship then the translation would actually be “God of stone” or “stone’s God”. Exion has flipped the words in his translation.

Thus, the phrase "מטרם שום־אבן אל־אבן בהיכל יהוה" would be understood as "before placing a stone as God's stone in the temple of YHWH" or "before placing a stone, God's stone, in the temple of YHWH"

Actually with the correct word order we’d have “before placing a stone, God of stone, in the temple of YHWH”.

Or you could simply not take "El" as a construct state. In Hebrew, a noun followed by another noun can indicate possession without needing a construct state (i.e. the equivalent of adding 's in English). This is often called "smikhut" or construct form, but it is not always necessary to explicitly form it.

This is confused. He thinks construct state refers to a specific different form or the noun but the possession meaning doesn’t require that different form. My textbook shows that’s mistaken. Yes it’s true the possession meaning doesn’t require a different form, however it’s still called the construct state. This is evident from my textbook. It notes at the bottom of the second page the construct state is sometimes the same as the absolute state. I didn’t mean to say Exion was taking it as having a different form from the absolute state but was pointing out he takes the phrase as indicating possession. That’s why I said if we add the missing word at take the phrase as indicating possession we’d get “stone’s God’s stone”.

This is something he doesn't know because, well, who knows why.

As my textbook proves it’s him that doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Explicitly contradicting your claim that it doesn't exist, but you didn't know that because you have probably never even read the entirety of the chapter to begin with. The Temple was already there. A stone was to be placed in it, God's stone, the black stone of the House of God, and not that it was to be built or built anew. This is why I even wrote the article, because the temple of God was already in existence. How you could have missed this, if you've read the chapter in it entirety, is very baffling to me.

What’s baffling to me is how someone can be so confident and condescending while being so wrong. Not only did Exion fail to research the historical context of the literature he tries to interpret, he failed to notice my summary of the history. Haggai gives explicit historical markers for when the prophecies were made. “In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest:” Haggai‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬ ‭ESV‬‬. This places the prophecy in 520 B.C. This was after the Babylonians conquered Israel (specifically the southern kingdom as the northern was already conquered), brought them into exile, destroyed the first temple, the Persians conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews back to Israel to rebuilt the temple. They started to built the temple but stoped when opposition arose. Haggai’s prophecies are about pushing the Jews to continue rebuilding the temple. You can read about the fall of Israel by the Babylonians at the end of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. You can read about the return to Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah (note the events in Ezra are before those in Nehemiah).
Exion mentions Haggai 2:3 to disprove me. This is another case of him misrepresenting his sources. Let’s analyze it carefully part by part.
"Who among you is left, who saw this house in its former glory?” The word former indicates it had that glory in the past but no longer has it. That is because the previous temple was destroyed.
“And as you see it now”. This calls to attention a comparison of the former glory with the current glory.
“is it not as nothing in your eyes?" This expresses the current glory calling it nothing in their eyes. That’s because the previous temple was destroyed and not yet rebuilt.
Also check out these verses: ““Thus says the Lord of hosts: These people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord.” Then the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, “Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins? Now, therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways. You have sown much, and harvested little. You eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill. You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm. And he who earns wages does so to put them into a bag with holes. “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways. Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may be glorified, says the Lord. You looked for much, and behold, it came to little. And when you brought it home, I blew it away. Why? declares the Lord of hosts. Because of my house that lies in ruins, while each of you busies himself with his own house. Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce. And I have called for a drought on the land and the hills, on the grain, the new wine, the oil, on what the ground brings forth, on man and beast, and on all their labors.” Haggai‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭11 ‭ESV‬‬. It’s pretty clear the previous temple lies in ruins and God is calling them to rebuild it.

This is why Jacob

Jacob lived long before the temple was built. His life is recorded in Genesis. There is a lot of history in between Jacob’s life in Genesis and the building of the temple in 1 Kings/2 Chronicles. Either Exion is completely ignorant of the history he is commenting on or he’s cherry picking which parts he wants to accept.

Lying and adding words to the Word of God to make it look like another House would be raised.

But that’s literally what happened in history. The first temple was destroyed and the later rebuilt. Again check out the books I mentioned for the historical background, especially Ezra which records the events during the time Haggai was prophesying.

The preposition "the" is not there before "Chemdat," while it is before "Goyim" (heathens), which makes sense because "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)" and doesn't translate to "The treasure of all the heathens (will come)," as they have it.

Exion takes the lack of the definite article before chemdat as indicating it shouldn’t be translated with a “the” as its indefinite. He then argues taking chemdat the traditional way doesn’t make sense without the definite article so we should instead take it as a name. This again shows he doesn’t know Hebrew.
Note Exion translates it as Chemdat of. He interprets it as possession indicating he takes the Hebrew as being in the construct state. I linked above the chapter on the construct state. The first page notes a noun in the construct state never has the definite article. Instead the the last noun as the definite article then the noun in the construct state is also definite, and if the last noun is indefinite then the noun in the construct state is indefinite. Exion also acknowledges the last noun as having the definite article. When we actually understand the construct relationship we see that while there is no definite article on chemdat it’s still definite since it’s in the construct form with the last noun having the definite article. This undermines his argument for why chemdat is a name.

The phrase "הגוים" (ha-goyim) translates as "the heathens,"

The BDB lists this word as meaning nations/people. Heathen has very negative connotations which are not necessarily implied by the word.

He then says He will fill this house, which they saw as nothing, with glory. The house already exists;

Again look at the historical markers Haggai gives and the historical books for the historical background. Also look at the passage I quoted from Haggai 1 which clearly mentions the current temple in ruins and God calling the people to rebuild it. The promise God is making in Haggai 2:7 is about the new temple being greater than the former.

Going back to Haggai 2, the 18th verse also confirms that the Temple already was there:
"Consider, please, your heart from this day and onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the temple of the Lord was founded, consider your heart."

This particular section is Haggai 2:10-19. By this time the Jews started rebuilding the temple again and had laid the foundation. Haggai 2:15 and 18 are parallel passages calling the people to consider the time since that work on rebuilding the temple was done. God then points to the blessing they’ve experienced since then. That is in contrast to the hardships listed in Haggai 1:10-11 that God says we’re because they weren’t rebuilding his temple.

Nevertheless, he is right about one thing regarding this chapter: it does not mention the new moon to new moon and the end of the Sabbath—that was in Isaiah 66. My mistake.

Yes it is a mistake and it is one of way too many to count where he messes up representing his source in some way.

the second phrase can be interpreted as an end (if we interpret "Shabbat" as "End")

Actually it can’t. I missed this in my post but u/c0d3rman caught it in his comment on Exion’s post. The definition Exion gives in his post is the verb “to cease”. However, “an end” is not a verb but a noun. His translation doesn’t match his own definition.

but it is Biblically and generally interpreted as "Sabbath."

Because as a noun it means Sabbath.

A literal translation of the phrase in the 23rd verse would be:
‎>שבת (shabbat) - "Sabbath"
‎>בשבתו (be-shabbato) - "His Sabbath"
‎>יבוא (yavo) - "it will come"

Putting יבוא as part of this phrase has 3 problems. First it breaks the parallel in grammar and idea with the previous phrase. Second the subject of the verb then becomes the sabbath but that’s not possible. The gender of the verb and subject need to match but sabbath is feminine while יבוא is masculine. Third Exion’s translation has יבוא translated twice, both as part of this phrase and as part of the following phrase. However the word only occurs once in Hebrew so it can’t be translated twice into English as a part of 2 different phrases.
I also explained how this phrase is an idiom in my first post. I referenced the BDB which explains how we know it’s an idiom and what the idiom means, which corresponds to the traditional translation. The verse is not talking about a sabbath coming to a sabbath or coming to an end. It’s saying the frequency that all flesh shall come to worship before God.
I’ve mentioned the BDB often as a source. For those unaware there is an online version where words can be searched, https://www.sefaria.org/BDB. I’m mentioning this because unlike Exion I want to be sure people can easily find the sources I reference. If anyone has trouble finding any particular word I’m not sure how to link to specific words but I’m happy to take pics of my physical copy.
u/TheQuranicMumin you said “If he fails/refuses to do this, we will remove his posts for misinformation.” Can we agree already this counts as a failure to respond and consider his posts misinformation or do I really need to continue addressing his posts/responses?

It’s finally time and I’m shitting my pants. I’m scheduled for surgery on 6/10. The doctor thinks they can do the surgery laparoscopically, but there is a chance they will have to open me up. She also thinks they may be able to leave my ovaries, but that is dependent also on what they find when they go in. I am prepared for the worst case scenario and fully expect to wake up to hear that it was an abdominal hysterectomy and that I also had my ovaries removed. I would appreciate any advice or tips for recovery.
A little history of why I am having a hysterectomy This is my ultrasound report:
IMPRESSION: 1. Enlarged fibroid replaced uterus. There could be some cystic degeneration or a tract from the very large submucosal and intramural fibroid extending into the fundal endometrial complex tip. Additionally mass effect could be causing some trapped fluid. Fibroid appears to be increasing in size. 2. Ovaries are obscured. Consider MRI of the pelvis with and without contrast if indicated. All reports both verbal and nonverbal are conducted in the Central Time zone unless otherwise specified. Narrative Date of Exam: 3/14/2024 (Received on: 3/14/2024 4:03:37 PM) Reason for Exam: Irregular menstrual cycles EXAM: COMPLETE TRANSABDOMINAL AND TRANSVAGINAL PELVIS ULTRASOUND. (COMPARED TO: 3/31/2022) Ultrasound interpreted with permanently recorded images. TECHNIQUE: Ultrasound images of the pelvis were obtained transabdominally and transvaginally, with limited Doppler interrogation. FINDINGS: UTERUS: The uterus is anteverted and enlarged, measuring 11.1 x 7.3 x 6.4 cm transvaginally. It is nearly replaced by solid masses. The largest is difficult to discretely measure because it is quite prominent. It exerts mass effect on the endometrial complex. It measures up to at least 5.4 x 5.6 x 4.2 cm. The endometrium has a thickness of 0.7 cm, and is homogeneous except for in the uterine fundus where there is some anechoic avascular material extending from the endometrial tip into the underlying junctional zone and myometrium in a serpiginous fashion. ADNEXA/OVARIES: There are no adnexal masses. Neither ovary is visualized because of shadowing from masses and bowel gas. There is no free fluid. The visualized urinary bladder is within normal limits.

Hello!
I've typed myself as an IEI for a while now, but I've been doing some soul searching and I'm not sure how well that fits me right now, and I'm curious whether it's to do with my understanding of socionics or just transient personal stuff.
I've seen some of the comments and answers on previous posts of this questionnaire, and they've been quite insightful and thorough, which I greatly appreciate, since it helps me learn better.
Any help that you could give would be greatly appreciated, and thank you!
*********************
-How do you work? Why do people go to work? Are there any parameters that determine whether you can do work or not? What are they?
My knee-jerk answer is to say “by starting, then finishing”. I do my best to be quick, efficient, to do it well, and to do extra sometimes. I get kind of competitive about it sometimes, where if I see someone else working hard it makes me want to do more. Granted they’re usually getting paid more to do more, but the urge is still there.
Depends on the person, but mostly to survive. You make money, you spend it on survival. Ideally, you’ll get to use it for more fulfilling things and to improve your life. For some people the reason could be to follow their passion, for socialization, for a cause, etc., but I do think that it’s mostly for survival.
I’m not sure I really understand this part of the question. Parameters like the working environment, the type of work, understanding/skill? I’m not sure how to answer this.

-How do you determine the quality of work? How do you determine the quality of a purchase? Do you pay any attention to it?
That’s kind of hard to quantify. I think boiled down: if it’s free of errors, if it’s organized, if it’s neat/done carefully, if it makes sense logically, and does the product/outcome show the skill that went into it.
For a purchase, I think basically are you getting a good quality for what you paid. Does it work the way it’s supposed to, and maybe even better? If it’s something for fun, does it bring joy, not just now, but for a while in the future? And in that vein, it should last for a long time and be able to be maintained.
I pay attention to both. Quality of work (from others as well, but from me especially) matters a LOT to me, and I do think that quality of purchases does hold at least some importance to me because my money used to purchase it came from my time, and I don’t want that to go to waste.

-There is a professional next to you. How do you know they are a professional? How do you evaluate their skill?
That’s actually a pretty interesting question. I would imagine the ease of which they are doing something, their ability to be creative in problem-solving/drawing conclusions, their confidence in what they are doing, and their ability and willingness to teach or at least share. I would evaluate their skill using the same criteria (but also, if I’m not a professional in that, my evaluation wouldn’t mean much).

-If you struggle to do something, how do you fix that? Do you know if your performance is better or worse than others?
Part of the time, I’ll power through the frustration until something finally clicks, or the outcome is at least “good enough” or done, even if the quality isn’t ideal. If I’m being honest, part of the time when I hit a wall in struggling with something, I will stop doing it. Sometimes because you need to figure out a different approach, sometimes it’s essentially “giving up”. I have a hard time asking for help, so it’s a last resort sort of thing.
I do keep a close eye on my performance, and compare it to others. I do wish I did it in a way where I’m using it as a kind of inspirational competitive things vs. just comparing myself to others (comparison is the thief of joy and all that). Sometimes I can, but most of the time it’s comparing and wanting to make sure I’m doing better.

-How do you measure the success of a job? What standard do you use? Do you pay attention to it? When should you deviate from this standard?
By if it worked, the result was good, and ideally also that getting to the result went smoothly. I feel like if the process to getting the result is chaotic, it usually means something needs to be done better and improve.
I use my own standards most of the time, being a perfectionist. I’ll have awareness of what the external standard is, like one set by a boss, but will have my own standards internally.
I do pay attention to both of these standards.
Sometimes you have to prioritize things, and honestly sometimes you have to “cut corners” and decide which things need to be done perfectly and which things can be done “enough” without effecting the result. Sometimes things just go sideways, and you have to say “good enough is good enough”. It depends on the situation, really. Try your best to meet the standards, but things are going to happen outside of your control sometimes and you have to adapt to the circumstances.
________________________________________
-What is a whole? Can you identify its parts? Are the parts equivalent to the whole?
Ngl, this is an annoying question. A whole is one unit, made up of smaller parts.
If there’s a whole, it would logically follow that it’s made up of parts, so I’d assume I’d be able to identify them?
I would say no, the parts aren’t equivalent to the whole. Take a car, for example: each parts together make up one car, but each parts are wholes in their own right and are their own working units.

-What does "logical" mean? What is your understanding? Do you think that it correlates with the common view? How do you know you are being logical?
Going from point A to point B in a way that can be replicated, I guess. This is another one I have a hard time actually getting into the details and defining. I don’t really think about this in great detail, I just do it?

-What is hierarchy? Give examples of hierarchies. Do you need to follow it? Why or why not? Explain how hierarchy is used in a system you are familiar with.
It’s an organization of people (at least in the context of this question) that operates with a person in charge, then a layer of people underneath them, and so on and so forth until you reach the lowest level (like a pyramid). Most of the ways humans are organized (government, military, schools, jobs, religions, the list goes on and on) are hierarchies, whether formally or not.
Whether or not you need to follow it is situational. To use the military example, if you’re given an order that violates laws, you don’t need to follow it (the consequences are a whole other topic). In general, I don’t mind hierarchies, so don’t mind following them, but there are limits. If someone is telling you to do something stupid or dangerous, it’s ridiculous to follow it just because you’re “following orders”. That’s how awful things happen, and you’re still a human being with a working brain and autonomy.
I feel like I’ve explained how the hierarchies work by explaining what they are, so I won’t go into it again.

-What is classification? How does classification work? Why is it needed and where is it applied? Give examples.
It’s essentially just a way of categorizing things, like phenomena, animals, plants, psychiatric disorders, etc. You’re grouping things with similarities together, whatever those similarities are. These furry things have four legs and give live birth? Mammals! These green things that get bigger in the sun? Plants!
It’s incredibly useful for understanding the world around us, and being able to connect concepts, ideas, and just tangible things together quickly. You don’t need to re-figure out what a strawberry plant is in relation to an apple tree every time, we can just say they’re fruit-bearing. It’s really just the natural way the human brain works: we scan around us, and oh! Something moved! It wouldn’t make sense for the survival of a species for us to have to figure out what a snake is and if it’s poisonous or not every time we see one, we just classify this scaly long boi as a “snake”, and put it into the “poisonous” sub-category if it’s also red.

• Are your ideas consistent? How do you know they are consistent? How do you spot inconsistency in others' ideas?

I would say they’re logically consistent (ideally lol, I try to be aware if they’re not really logically consistent to be honest about it, and to then not take those too seriously and be open to change if they’re not), but not consistent in the sense that I’ll have the same ideas about everything for eternity. I change my mind and ideas as needed, I’m not going to just stick my head in the sand and not change my mind if more information pops up.
If I’m actually paying attention to what the other person is saying, I can usually tell inconsistencies in their ideas, though I’m thinking of logical issues in their reasoning, and I’m not sure if this question means it in another way.

This section was the strangest to answer. It was like answering the question “why does 1+1=2?”. Because that’s how it works, move on to something more interesting!
________________________________________
-Can you press people? What methods do you use? How does it happen?
I don’t like pressing other people honestly, I’d prefer to collaborate with them, even if I’m the one “calling the shots”. I’m not a fan of pressing people, but can if I really have to. I don’t know that it’s a method, but just flat-out telling someone what you need them to do and not leave any room for discussion is how I’ve done it.

-How do you get what you want? What do you do if you have to work to get what you want?
Hm, I guess for the most part to do it myself, and if I need to, do it with other people? You kind of just have to pick a point where you want to go, and start going there. You might have to change your goals up (like if you realize your career goals hurt you instead of help you) along the way, but you just have to go for it and put in the work to get there.
You really always have to work to get what you want (well, I guess not everyone), so you just do it and keep going. I dunno, it’s not magic really, it’s mostly boring and hard until you get there, then you get new goals and do it all again!

-How do you deal with opposition? What methods do you use to defend your interests?
I think “screw them” lol Ideally I won’t have made it so that I’ll be opposed, I try to stay friendly with people so that won’t happen.
So, in a hypothetical situation, say I’m telling someone the best way to do something at work (let’s say organizing something). If I know that’s the best way and they disagree, I’ll hear them out as to why they think that, then go over it and say why that will/won’t work. If they’re still not going to agree, I’ll push more and have them try it and see. If they’re still resistant, then I’m going to tell them to go for it, watch them, then go over at the end why a stupid thing is happening because they did it their way. The problem is the last way is basically guaranteed to cause future issues with that person, which is why I’d prefer not to use it, because it has to be done really specifically so that they won’t just become defensive and double down.

-When do you think it's ok to occupy someone's space? Do you recognize it?
Like, if they don’t want me to? Or to go in for a hug or something? If you guys are on good terms and they’re fine with it, occupy away. If it’s someone you’re not close with, I wouldn’t unless they initiate it first. I’m not being on being physically close with people I’m not close to anyway, so it’s rare I’m going to do that. If I do though, it’s because I needed to get something done quickly and they were physically where I needed to be.
I recognize when people are in my space, and unless I like the person, I’m really not a fan. Personal bubble and all that.

-Do others think you are a strong-willed person? Do you think you have a strong will?
If I’m being honest, no, not particularly. I can be extremely stubborn about certain things, and give up very easily on others. Sometimes it’s to do with being fickle, but also willpower. It comes in bursts, it’s not consistent by any means.
________________________________________
-How do you satisfy your physical senses? What examples can you give? What physical experiences are you drawn to?
If I’m thirsty or hungry, I drink and eat (or when I’m bored, sad, etc. etc.). If I’m tired, I’ll eventually sleep. I can’t say there’s a lot of physical experiences I’m drawn to, it’s more about interest and intrigue than physical sensations.

-How do you find harmony with your environment? How do you build a harmonious environment? What happens if this harmony is disturbed?
I’m not sure. If we’re talking like, having a nice bedroom, cut down on noises and lights and stuff for nighttime and have weather-appropriate sheets and a good pillow. Maybe some mood lighting and nice stuff to look at (I have a lot of my own art up in my room, which makes it feel more “mine” and I guess that means more harmonious?).
I can’t say I understand the feeling of being in harmony with my environment, so I also can’t say what I’d do if it’s disturbed. I’m more in tune with my internal environment and the harmony there than the external.

-What does comfort mean to you? How do you create it?
Means you’re not in pain, you feel nice. Get some good shoes and chairs and pillows and stuff.

-How do you express yourself in your hobbies? How do you engage yourself with those things?
My hobbies are a huge part of who I am, they’re what keep me sane and more fulfilled. I don’t know how people can feel like a full person without them, it’s got to be tough. I do a lot of art-based hobbies, especially crafts and tangible things, though also music and drawing. Usually it’s a one and done, then move on to another. I engage myself by just doing them?

-Tell us how you'd design any room, house or an office. Do you do it yourself, or trust someone else to do it? Why?
First thought was to just answer this question “No.” lol Design it so the furniture is laid out in a way that optimizes space and so you won’t slam into things, preferably keeping furniture on the outer edges of the room. Make it work so that you have things where they’re the most convenient, like an outlet by your bed for your phone, drawers next to your desk, etc.
I’d be fine at it, but not good. I’d trust someone else to do it for sure.
________________________________________
-Is it acceptable to express emotions in public? Give examples of inappropriate expression of emotions.
Certain emotions, I guess. I don’t want to be sad or angry in public at all, and I get really nervous around people who do in public. Happy is fine, as long as it’s not over the top yelling and jumping up and down, just chill. I’m personally uncomfortable expressing more than surface level emotions in public, I’d rather show genuine emotions in private.
Inappropriate expressions would be getting upset over something and then taking it out on other people. It’s not their fault you’re upset, don’t transmit your issues onto others. It’s infectious, it sucks.

-How do you express your emotions? Can you tell how your expressions affect others in a positive or negative way?
This has always been kind of a struggle, I have a hard time getting that “sweet spot” of expressing my emotions in a way that isn’t too much or too little. I don’t want to have a tantrum, but I want to express that I’m angry. At this point I’ve started just saying how it is I feel verbally, trying not to act out the emotion with it. Not everyone is equipped to deal with that, but I don’t want to just bottle it up and not express it, so I figure it’s a happy medium where I’m saying what I need to say, and I’m letting someone else decide if they want to engage or not without just holding them hostage.
I try to be upbeat and cheery at work at least, but honestly I’m normally pretty sarcastic and prefer a style of communication that can come across as combative to people (like ribbing each other type of thing, like stronger teasing that sounds malicious with the understanding that it’s not), so I feel like I can come across as negative a lot, which I can tell affects people. So, I try to be more upbeat or at least neutral. This isn’t to say I’m always making people miserable, I do cheer people up sometimes and enough people seem to like being around me that whatever I’m doing seems to work enough, but it’s not entirely natural.

-Are you able to change your demeanor in order to interact with your environment in a more or less suitable way? How do you determine what is suitable?
I would say generally, yes. I’ve worked in customer service a long time, and that’s a skill you learn and get better at the more you use it. I’ll act differently around different people, like I won’t act the same way to new people I don’t know as I will to people I’ve known for half a decade.
I’d say I determine what’s suitable based on their reactions. If they’re looking shocked or uncomfortable or darting their eyes to look for an exit, you’ve screwed up and need to adjust. If the conversation keeps flowing, you’re probably good.

-In what situations do you feel others' feelings? Can you give examples of when you wanted to improve the mood of others?
This is something I’ve worked on over the years since it’s pretty hard for me to not get “infected” by someone else’s feelings. If I’m close to the person it’s a lot stronger and I can better “feel” their feelings than just understand what they’re going through intellectually.
If someone is getting antsy and pissy about something, I try to make light of something to cheer them up so they knock it off.

-How do others' emotions affect you? How does your internal emotional state correlate or contrast with what you express?
Honestly they make me nervous most of the time, which is something I’m not always conscious of. I’m prone to depression, and I learned how to hide it and put on a mask like everything is fine. A lot of the time what I’m feeling and expressing aren’t the same. Like, I get irritable and angry pretty easily, but I’m going to try to not express it because I don’t want to put that on another person.
________________________________________
-How can you tell how much emotional space there is between yourself and others? How can you affect this space?
I feel like it’s usually quite a far space between me and the other person, unless they make it obvious we’re close (and I reciprocate) by like, spending time with me and talking to me and remembering things about me. I try to affect this space by doing things like spending more time, sharing more about myself, but I think if I’m being honest I usually leave it up to the other person to regulate.

-How do you determine how much you like or dislike someone else? How does this affect your relationships?
It can be super variable depending on if they’ve done something I feel “wronged” by or not, because then it flips like a switch (not something that I’m okay with, and something I’m consciously working on). I’m not sure how to quantify how much I like or dislike someone, it comes down to a physical feeling. Do I feel excited and warm fuzzies? Like! Revulsion if they’re within 20 feet? Dislike!
This essentially means that relationships are something I mostly leave up to the other person. I’ve been able to be the first to approach people before, and I can do it mostly okay, but I do prefer they come to me because I can’t tell if I’m annoying them or if they’re just being polite otherwise.

-How do you move from a distant relationship to a close one? What are the distinguishing characteristics of a close relationship?
It happens over time, as you get to know each other better. You just click with some people and you don’t with others, that’s just how it goes. Most people I don’t want to be that close to, but I put effort into people I do want to be close to. I make the effort to reach out to spend time with them, talk to them, and actually share things about myself to them instead of just being a listener.
I think the biggest characteristics of a close relationship is how little you have to explain yourself to the other person, they just get it and accept you, and you don’t have to waste time explaining why you do every single little thing, and get to talk about and focus on other things.

-How do you know that you are a moral person? Where do you draw your morality from? Do you believe others should share your beliefs on what's moral? Why?
I wouldn’t say I’m particularly moral. I’m not immoral, but I do think morals are subjective and situational, so I think by definition if I think morals are malleable, I’m not a “moral” person by popular definition.
I would say my morality comes internally, but obviously some of it is shaped by external things like culture. Like don’t steal, kill, etc.
My morals will be different from other people’s. I do think a lot of the morals I have are so general and common that it’d be messed up if people didn’t share them, but some of them are just based on me personally so I wouldn’t expect other people to uphold them, even though I want that.

-Someone you care about is acting distant to you. How do you know when this attitude is a reflection of your relationship?
I assume it is immediately, and that I did something to cause it to be distant.
________________________________________
-How can you tell someone has the potential to be a successful person? What qualities make a successful person and why?
This one’s a little hard because it’s such an intuitive thing that takes so many factors into account and just turns it into a “feeling” (like gut feeling). I guess broken down it comes down to their characteristics like follow through, work ethic, how they work with other people, their self confidence, their intelligence, their problem solving, their general attitude, etc. If you have all that, you have a very good foundation to bob and weave with life when it throws its punches, and you can adapt and overcome.

-Where would you start when looking for a new hobby? How do you find new opportunities and how do you choose which would be best?
I constantly have new hobbies, and I can hardly remember where I looked to find them. The internet is a beautiful thing, it exposes you to so much without you even realizing it. If it doesn’t just come to you naturally, you can literally just go online and ask people what hobbies they have and to describe them, and you can choose from those and try them.
I’m not sure I go looking for new opportunities, but I guess keep an ear out for the possibilities when they come up. It’s also hard to say how I figure out which one is the best, I think it’s whichever one gets me the most bang for my buck, whether it’s in a job and that’s financial or if it’s in a hobby and that’s with fulfillment.

-How do you interpret the following statement: "Ideas don't need to be feasible in order to be worthwhile." Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Seems reasonable. Whatever idea someone has, even if it doesn’t work itself, can spark something else that WOULD be feasible. All ideas are worthwhile for their potential, even if all they do is help another idea along the path to feasibility.

-Describe your thought process when relating the following ideas: swimming, chicken, sciences. Do you think that others would draw the same or different connections?
I just think of a chicken swimming and a dude in a labcoat with a clipboard. I don’t think other people would draw the same connections, brains are weird and different.

-How would you summarize the qualities that are essential to who you are? What kind of potential in you has yet to be actualized and why?
I would say curiosity and willingness to learn are the most essential qualities of mine. On a real level, I feel a lot of the time like a lot of my potential has yet to be actualized for fun mental reasons. I think that’s true for a lot of human beings though, most people have a lot of potential, it’s just not tapped into or channeled properly.
________________________________________
-How do people change? Can you describe how various events change people? Can others see those changes?
I think every little thing in life changes you as you live, like that butterfly flapping its wings causing a typhoon halfway across the world. You are in a constant state of flux, you’re always evolving. That being said, there are events that will change a person drastically and quickly. Going through something traumatic will make a dramatic, sudden change, like in evolution how there are random gene mutations instead of just slow and steady natural selection.
I guess it depends on how closely they’re paying attention, and if they’re the kind of people who believe people change. You can usually tell when a person has been through let’s say something traumatic, they just have an air about them. Now add in if you knew them before whatever happened, happened, then for sure you’d be able to see those changes.

-How do you feel and experience time? Can time be wasted? How?
Time is one constant stream that we are all always in and always riding. I feel it quite well, and I have a good sense of time. My belief is that your time is the only thing that’s truly yours, and to really value it as much as you can.
I do think you can waste time, yes. It doesn’t make it not worthwhile, but there are ways to use your time well and there are ways to run out the clock. You don’t have to fill every second of every day with something “productive” (dear please god don’t, that’s exhausting), but you do want to try and make it meaningful in some sort of way at least.

-Is there anything that cannot be described with words? What is it? If so, how can we understand what it is if language does not work?
Of course! That’s essentially intuition. It’s such a hard thing to grasp, but everyone experiences it. How do you just know and feel something is off about a situation? It’s probably about a million different things happening that your brain is taking in subconsciously and making decisions for in nanoseconds, and all you’re feeling from all that processing is “spidey senses tingling”.
Things like spirituality also can’t really be explained with words. I’ve tried to talk to people to understand their feelings behind it (I’m an atheist because I’ve never felt that or understood it, so it fascinates me and I like learning about it), but it’s such an amorphous and personal thing, it can’t really be reduced to words. It’s just a feeling, not like an emotion, but more like that gut feeling.
For those two concepts at least, they can be at least somewhat understood because it’s an almost universal experience. That being said, both are such subjective experiences that there are so many shades and nuances that can’t be explained, we can all just try our best to understand. There have been wars fought over these misunderstandings, though, so it’s not like it’s a perfect system.

-How do you anticipate events unfolding? How can you observe such unfoldments in your environment?
Hm, by understanding what’s happened in the past either with those same set of circumstances, or at least generally similar ones. Take into account the context, variables, people involved, what’s different, etc., and make your best educated guess. It’s something that occupies my mind, tying back into the question about how I feel time. I feel it all the time since I’m always in it, so I’m always trying to think about how one thing evolves into the next. Might as well think about it, since it’s going to happen anyway.
I observe them as they happen.

-In what situations is timing important? How do you know the time is right to act? How do you feel about waiting for the right moment?
Literally every single situation timing is important, I don’t know how else to say it. It’s kind of everything, honestly. It’s hard to explain how to know what the right time to act is, it ties back into the gut feeling and “spidey sense”. It just makes sense. I’d always rather wait for the right moment and have something go correctly than rush things and ruin them because I was too impatient.
This last one was the most interesting to answer, for sure!
****************************** Thank you for the read, and I'm looking forward to hearing feedback!

If you had to choose the best bang for your buck on a relatively bright, possibly brilliant finish 18” crash to provide contrast with a 19” dark crash, which would you pick? Consider best sound AND the best price. (So, if two are pretty comparable in quality but one is way cheaper, pick the cheaper one; if one is more expensive but clearly sounds better, pick the more expensive one.) And if there’s something else you’d pick, comment below!
View Poll

This is a summary of William O. Stephens' 13-page paper "Stoicism in the Stars: Yoda, the Emperor, and the Force" in Kevin Decker & Jason Eberl (eds.), (2005) Star Wars and Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. pp. 16–28. Available to download from PhilArchive
Introduction
In a short introduction, Stephens announces the thesis he intends to pursue: how Stoicism will allow us to understand Star Wars characters, and the logic of the Light and Dark Sides of the Force.
Appearance versus Reality: Jester or Jedi Master?
Stephens begins with The Empire Strikes Back. Luke and R2D2 arrive on Dagobah and encounter an "olive-skinned dwarf" named Yoda. Luke fails to understand that this is the Jedi master he is searching for. Yoda, an alien with a quirky sense of humor, dismisses Luke's search for a great warrior. Yoda acts like a beggar, consuming and discarding food in Luke's supplies. This contrasts with the first appearance of Darth Vader in A New Hope and the Emperor in The Return of the Jedi. Vader appears menacing and powerful, but even he obeys an even more powerful master—the Emperor—whose arrival on the second Death Star is honored by massed ranks of Imperial officers and stormtroopers.
Luke initially perceives Yoda as a jester not a Jedi, failing to spot the virtues, such as timeliness and patience, which reveal him as a Jedi master. When Yoda offers to take Luke to the Jedi master, Luke insists they leave immediately, but Yoda suggests they first eat together. Yoda's patience is a virtue for a Jedi, whereas Luke's impatience leads to frustration.
Yoda emphasizes the importance of mental seriousness and a deep commitment to the lifelong pursuit of mastering the Force. He rejects frivolity but is not humorless, allowing Luke to be deceived by his assumptions about a Jedi master. Yoda's philosophy includes: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." The Stoic sage, just like Yoda, lacks the vices of fear, anger, hatred, and aggression. Yoda believes that a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, not for attack. Yoda's wisdom allows him to distinguish between the Light Side and the Dark Side of the Force, allowing him to be "calm, at peace, passive."
Stoicism and the Virtues of the Sage
Stephens moves on to Stoicism. Stoicism emphasizes the importance of living in harmony with nature, which is structured according to Logos, or reason. This involves embracing and making good use of all events in the rationally structured universe, which entails living in agreement with our unique human nature. Stephens quotes Epictetus (Discourses 1.6.19–21) saying that humans should begin and end "where nature has fixed our end, and that is in contemplation and understanding and a way of life in harmony with nature." The Stoics seek to free themselves "from all passion, excitation, and frivolity" to apply reason reliably. Passion is considered a sickness, and a Stoic who frees themselves from these disturbances becomes good. The Stoic sage's soul is steady, orderly, and virtuous, without suffering any passion. Seneca called anger "the most hideous and frenzied of all emotions", comparing anger to ruins that crash in pieces over what they have crushed. (On Anger 1.1.2). Yoda embodies the Stoic traits—he is calm and even-tempered, benevolent and cautious, with a quirky humor that tempers his seriousness.
Yoda's disciplined lifestyle, like that described by the Stoics, requires commitment and practice. The Stoics believed that the wise man, the virtuous person, was exceptionally rare due to the difficulty of disciplining oneself to make rational judgments. They distinguished between those who were simply vicious and those making progress toward virtue, even if still suffering from vice. Luke is a "progressor", learning the ways of the Force and becoming a Jedi. Yoda resembles the Stoic sage—the ideal person who has perfected his reason and achieved complete wisdom. Yoda, unlike Luke, has studied and attuned himself to the Force for over eight centuries.
Yoda believes life creates the Force and makes it grow, and the energy of the Force surrounds people and binds them. This description resembles the Stoics' idea of the "breath" that pervades the cosmos, with the active principle that is the "reason" is one with Nature, fate, providence, and Zeus. However Jedi masters also use a mystical side of the Force: telekinesis, psychic perception of distant events, and a luminous afterlife of dead Jedi. The Stoics would reject the supernaturalism or mysticism expressed in this aspect of the Force. It's the Stoic sage's profound understanding of Nature whch gives them infallible knowledge of what should be done in every situation. But Yoda, on the other hand, 'feels' the Force guiding his actions and counsel. So the resemblance between the Stoic and the Jedi lies in the character traits that make reason possible for a Stoic and the traits that make it possible for Jedi like Yoda to feel and harness the Force.
The Logic of the Dark Side
The Dark Side of the Force shapes Darth Vader and the Emperor. What makes them evil if Yoda is supposed to be good? Both Yoda and the Emperor are ascetic devotees—they wear simple robes and live monkish lives. The Emperor's character is complex, with a serious mind and deep commitment to the Dark Side. He urges patience to Vader in his search for Luke, a virtue Yoda shares. However, the Emperor views compassion as a weakness, not a virtue. The Stoics, on the other hand, believed that showing compassion to others through acts of kindness is virtuous. So although the Emperor is correct, from a Stoic perspective, to reject the feeling of compassion as a weakness, he is wrong to be cruel by failing to show compassion to those he can help. From the Stoic perspective, his logic is twisted because the essence of the Dark Side is mastery over others, or tyranny.
Vader brings Luke as a captive to the Emperor, who eagerly awaits completing Luke's training as his new master. The Emperor encourages Luke to use his Jedi weapon, urging him to use it to defeat Vader. The logic of the Dark Side is that anger leads to hatred, aggression, and true power. The Emperor is a propagator of terror, hatred, and cruelty, taking pleasure in the distress of others. Luke urges Vader to let go of his hatred, but the Emperor's superior hatred and aggression control Vader's behavior, enslaving him. According to Stoicism, the Emperor's cleverness, commitment, and self-possession are not virtues. Since he lacks wisdom, he lacks all the virtues, and so he is full of vice. As a result, his mind is dysfunctional and his vice is incurable.
“Control, Control, You Must Learn Control”
Yoda uses discipline and commitment to control himself, while Vader and the Emperor use anger and hatred to empower themselves. They feed the negative emotions within themselves, seeking to control not themselves, but others, in an ultimately doomed attempt to fill the cold, black void behind the mask or the hood with the false satisfaction that arises from domination of others. A Stoic could never be seduced by the Dark Side, but might well feel at home among the calm, self-disciplined, virtuous Jedi.

This is another useless post comparing the pros and cons of each game. My experience is limited to the mod-less console editions, so bear with me. I’ll be sorting my statements by category, focusing on the following: Sound, Creative vs Story Modes, Plantable Flora, Creature Eggs, The ‘Dead Zones’, Subnautica’s Subtle Fear vs Below Zero’s Choking Claustrophobia, and The PDA. Read—or don’t—at your own discretion.
Sound: To me, this is the most vital and important feature throughout the Subnautica series. Sound has so many psychological effects, enough that we are still discovering more of them to this day, and hearing is not a sense to be underestimated or ignored.
So much of the original Subnautica’s fear responses were aroused by startlingly effective use of sound. Out of nowhere, you’d hear a Reaper Leviathan roar in rage as you dared to enter its territory, and that shriek would be the only warning you’d get before the damn thing pummeled your Seamoth or Cyclops. You’d delve deep into a trench, and not really realize you were in any danger before you heard the music shift, changing from a hopeful melody to a more frightful ambiance fraught with peculiar sounds and eerie notes. You’d rise to the surface to catch a breath of air before you died an early death, and feel a pang of sympathy for poor Ryley as he sucked in several gasps of air once you breached the waves.
This changed in Below Zero. Rather than sound being one of your only allies, it became a source of illusion. You’d hear a vicious roar, and whirl around rapidly, expecting to see a Cryptosucchus or Chelicerate closing fast—you’ll ultimately be disappointed, as many of Below Zero’s auditory jump scares seem to echo across great enough distances that whatever creature made the noise has already swam out of sight by the time you turn. Not to mention the fact that I swear the sound in the sequel is deliberately deceptive, causing you to cringe in fear but never actually get hurt by anything. As any psychologist knows, fear responses become dulled over time, as your brain has ‘learned’ that many of Below Zero’s sounds are more decorative than an actual warning. And thus, our only source of becoming fearful has been rendered completely ineffective.
I suspect that some of the reasons behind these issues was that the original Subnautica’s sound designer, Simon Chylinski, was fired from Unknown Studios due to posting a number of rather hateful and insensitive tweets. As a result, the sequel did not feature the same sound director. I find myself sorrowful over this, because I know that Below Zero could’ve been a truly great sequel if a few key tweaks had been made. Of course, I do not think that such comments as those that were made by Chylinski are in any way okay or appropriate, and I abhor hateful/sexist/racist/exclusionary rhetoric. I simply wish that the developers had gotten the time or resources to hire a better sound director for the sequel.
Creative vs Story Modes: Subnautica and its sequel seem to have disparaging views on how much of the story you should be able to access if you load up in Creative. In Subnautica (the original), you could play on Creative and get a pretty rewarding experiece out of the game, and also get to complete the story questline. In sharp and jarring contrast, this is not really possible in Below Zero. Below Zero’s Creative mode disables the story entirely. From what I can tell, Creative mode also seems to automatically remove any and all PDAs—which, as any even halfway experienced Subnautica diver knows, are pretty much half the damn story. Oddly enough, it would also seem that creature eggs are somewhat harder to find on Creative. Additionally, weather conditions are far more tame (read: boring AF) than what the custom experience allows for.
So, feeling bereft, I swap over to a modified story mode, one where I do my best to mimic the conditions offered by Creative. Of course, in every mode other than Creative, the capricious Sea Monkeys are quick to snatch your stuff (this gets extremely irritating the minute one of the little jerks takes your one damn builder tool), and you can still be affected by creature attacks even if you disable death. And yes, the story of Below Zero holds your hand, guides you a bit more than its predecessor. Don’t get me wrong, I am not disapproving of Below Zero’s story. Rather, I quite like the questline and its sharp-minded protagonist, and sometimes its a nice reprieve from the more vague “go and look til you find something” attitude taken by the original game.
However, if the developers made the decision to disable the story (and ALL PDAs) the minute you enter Creative mode, you’d think they’d give you more to actually do. The Creature eggs are tedious and awful to find, and the flora that you actually want to plant cannot be planted. There’s only so many times that I can create another sprawling base in the Crystal Caves without eventually incurring my ire and boredom.
Plantable Flora: Others have made posts about this, but I feel the need to revisit the issue. In the original Subnautica, you could plant nearly everything you found, with some but not many exceptions. In Below Zero, half of the plant life you find can’t be planted in your own grow beds or aquariums. You’ll never get to see a small forest of Eclipse Plants and Reaper Wineglasses growing in an alien containment tank, along with a large number of other plants. You want to grow your own Frost Acacias, Blooming Raindrops, or Thermal Lillies? Sorry, sucker, you’re out of luck.
There’s another component to this. There were more plantable flora in Subnautica that required a very vertically inclined growing space. These were specifically the Creepvine and the Blood Kelp plants, though some of the other plants were no slouches in that area either. In contrast, Below Zero’s taller water-borne plants only seem to include the red Creepvine variant. Of course, there could be a perfectly sane reason for this. Perhaps the developers thought that, given the claustrophobic nature of having ice sheets and glaciers looming overhead in most of the watery areas, they figured that really tall plant life would be a poor design choice.
Creature Eggs: For a game that seems to prioritize effective usage of alien fauna and flora, Below Zero has a remarkable lack of eggs. Okay, let me amend that statement: there are eggs, but they are so tedious to find that they might as well not be there. You know how long it took me to find Cryptosucchus eggs? I have consulted numerous guides on how to find them, as well as the eggs of other species, and have only been partially successful. I finally found them on accident, swimming lazily through some weird geothermal vents decked out with Alterra gear. At which point, the cave system I found them in was so littered with them, it overloaded my Seatruck storage, which I equipped with not one, but three storage modules. I still haven’t found any of those damn Glow Whale eggs that supposedly exist, but ever onward.
The worst part is when the scanner doesn’t pick up any eggs. There appear to be vast swathes of what I call ‘dead zones’, where none of the flora you encounter can actually be planted, and any fauna you find seem to suddenly and unpredictably lack the ability to lay eggs—if the utter lack of eggs nearby is any indication.
The ‘Dead Zones’: In Below Zero, there are large areas which appear stunningly beautiful, such as the numerous coral bridge trenches and both crystal cave variants. However, these biomes have become naught but simple decorations, for very little of the flora that grows there can be planted or even harvested, and there seem to either be practically no eggs or so many eggs that you just give up on picking them up (looking at you, Brute Sharks).
I’ll build bases in this areas, thinking that I can tediously pack my Seatruck full of other alien flora and fauna and bring them to these remote habitats to liven up the aquariums. It works out—usually—but I then find myself milling around within said bases, feeling locked between staying inside or venturing out where the nearest harvestable plant or creature egg is perhaps a thousand or more meters away from my base. The beauty of these areas becomes stifling rather than entrancing, and I quickly grow bored of these doomed habitats—I’ll then save my game, quit and close the whole thing, and then boot up the original Subnautica to soothe my pain.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like Subnautica doesn’t have its fair share of more treacherous, less egg-abundant biomes. However, the original game made up for these occasions by allowing you to find all manner of eggs in other areas. I haven’t found a Creepvine forest that didn’t have Stalker eggs, and the Safe Shallows and Jellyshroom Caves are so rife with eggs that you could fill half a dozen aquariums with ease. This more abundant egg placement encouraged players to build numerous bases, rather than consolidate all their resources into one massive base, as Below Zero seems to encourage.
Subnautica’s Subtle Fear vs Below Zero’s Choking Claustrophobia: I’ve noticed a shift in design choices by the developers when comparing the two games: the first Subnautica emphasizes the terror of diving into deep, dark, and unknowable depths, whereas Below Zero makes use of tight spaces to restrict where your Seatruck can roam and make the player more vulnerable to predation by enemy fauna. One of these approaches remains effective whether you are on Creative or not, whereas that latter option quickly becomes rather irritating on Creative modes.
In terms of what actually causes more fear and triggers greater emotional/physical/psychological reactions, I believe the original game’s approach was far more effective. There are areas of that game that I have stumbled upon, yet been totally unable to revisit in later games, despite following my compass closely. For instance, I swear I found a peculiar Blood Kelp cave that passed through a mountain and triggered the “7 of 9 conditions for stimulating terror” voice line, but cannot at all find that area again—of course, I had foolishly not placed a beacon near that cave, so I have no way of finding it, not to mention that such a geological feature is absent on the Subnautica Interactive maps I’ve found online.
Below Zero, in contrast, is less mesmerizing to explore. Where Subnautica had various unique geological features that were endlessly enthralling, Below Zero is ridiculously monotonous unless you dive very deep—which brings us right back to the ineffective attempts at terror that the game tries to inflict upon you when you enter tight spaces. And, yet, after some time, those deeper spaces also become rather boring once you’ve learned how to dodge those pesky Leviathans, with nothing else in those spaces to offer players anything interesting.
At first, it was cool to experience exploring the Purple and Red Crystal Caves. I found myself fascinated, and even endeavored to built bases that were big enough to choke several Leviathans. However, now that the initial thrill is gone, I am reminded of the sheer emptiness of the zone I’ve hunkered down in, and I soon can’t bear to stand the sight of said zones any longer. Truly, that lack of plantable flora and weirdly stingy placement of creature eggs has come back to bite our asses, so to speak.
The PDA: Not to beat a dead horse, but the Below Zero PDA is…unbearable to listen to. I find myself cringing every time it chirps at me, often offering unhelpful tips with a side of what may be sarcasm but could also be poor writing. I’ll be honest, the PDA’s accent doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to have bothered others; I’ve lived in other countries and am used to hearing all kinds of dialects. What bothers me is the quality of the voice lines it delivers. I understand that the whole point of the game is to point out how corrupt and immoral Alterra is, but they could have done that without making the Xenoworx PDA sound…so ridiculous. I suppose I should be glad that Robin seems to have a better sense of humor than that damn PDA. Her comments are at least logical, intelligent, and well-informed. Is it too much to wish that we had a more useful PDA to complement this?
The original Subnautica’s PDA was at least intriguing to listen to. There are enough cool voice lines that it delivers that I deliberately seek out ways to trigger its dialogue, but the exact opposite is true with Below Zero. In Below Zero, I always craft something different or move into a different area, hoping to get back even a smidge of what I had with the original PDA, and it disappoints me every single time. — — — I’ll end my little rant here. Thanks for reading, and feel free to offer any opinions or comments on this topic.
Looking back, I realize that these statements might be viewed as regarding Below Zero with disapproving eyes, but this is not exactly the case. Rather, what I truly believe is that the developers should work on an update and fix some of the issues that I’ve mentioned above. Given that the last update for this game was in…late 2022, I doubt that this will actually occur. However, one can always hope….or save up and buy a PC, where one can apply some modifications that remedy these problems.
Of course, no matter which game you favor or how you prefer to play: safe diving, have fun, and watch out for those damned Leviathans!

TLDR

1. Sailing could be just a minigame/activity, but it benefits the game much more as a skill.
2. Its basic training methods are closer in complexity to skilling than to minigames.

Breaking each point down:

Sailing could be just a minigame/activity, but it benefits the game much more as a skill

What purpose do skills serve in OSRS? They're a form of permanent progression which unlock content at certain milestones in return for significant time investment. The satisfaction of working towards goals is the heart of OSRS, and skills are a big part of that.
Skills are thematically flexible and tie into many forms of content spread throughout the game world. This includes:

• Quest requirements
• Quest XP rewards
• Area unlocks (usually via quests)
• Training methods
• Equipment unlocks

Minigames do a lot less. They might have reward points and equipment unlocks, but they aren't used as quest requirements or rewards. Imagine how odd it'd feel for the next GM quest to require 1000 hallowed marks instead of 70 agility. They are also finished products - new areas like Varlamore don't add onto the gameplay of Guardians of the Rift or Tempoross. In contrast, skills get expanded with new training methods over time.
Minigame progression systems are also less satisfying than leveling skills. The minigames that see significant play provide XP - otherwise people do the bare minimum necessary for an unlock or don't play them at all. On the other hand, many players train skills past the useful unlocks just for its own sake. There's a whole ecosystem of subtle dopamine rewards like XP drops, XP trackers, level up messages, total level worlds, and skillcapes which reinforce this.
Sailing easily ties in across the oceans, ports, and islands of the game world, and has a ton of different potential activities. If all of that was added to the game but left as a minigame, it'd be a huge missed opportunity.

Its basic training methods are closer in complexity to skilling than to minigames

Sailing sounds complicated when trying to describe everything that goes into it, but the actual gameplay of the training methods is simple. From what they've shown so far, the most basic method is Port Tasks. This is just traveling back and forth between certain locations while occasionally clicking your sails. It's essentially Runecrafting with randomized altars each trip. There's also salvaging, which looks like shorter-lived and more common shooting stars. Compare these to the boogeyman "skill which is actually a minigame" from RS3 - Dungeoneering - and it's not even close. Sailing can easily deliver the chill, classic skilling experience in addition to more intense options like barracuda trials and ship combat.
(If you're having a gut negative reaction to the mention of Runecrafting, imagine how much better it'd feel with natural variety, modern XP rates, and no run energy concerns.)

Hi everyone,
I’ve been a teacher for 9 years now. I have 1 years teaching grade 5, 4 years teaching grade 6, and 4 years teaching K-5 as an EL teacher. I now have an opportunity to become an academic leader, managing teachers in K-2 or 3-5 grade levels. While I enjoy teaching upper grades, I believe that managing the younger grades would be easier as I transition into this step of my career.
How would all of you compare and contrast teaching/leading grades k-2 as opposed to 3-5?

Hi everyone,
I’ve been a teacher for 9 years now. I have 1 years teaching grade 5, 4 years teaching grade 6, and 4 years teaching K-5 as an EL teacher. I now have an opportunity to become an academic leader, managing teachers in K-2 or 3-5 grade levels. While I enjoy teaching upper grades, I believe that managing the younger grades would be easier as I transition into this step of my career.
How would all of you compare and contrast teaching/leading grades k-2 as opposed to 3-5?

Hey all,
So instead if whining about if you consider Angela sufficiently attractive/unattractive, let's actually discuss something of merit. Also, remember, we haven't played the game, so all the new content is subject to change.
In this post, I want to discuss the first encounter with the lying figure and compare and contrast the two.
So, in the trailer, we see James enter a room and find the radio on the chair before picking it up and the lying figure bursting through the wall. James then grabs a board from the window and defends himself, with the lying figure immediately rushing James and spewing bile on him.
The combat is sufficiently clunky and brutal, in my opinion, and does give a good sense that it's a life and death struggle. James ultimately beats it to death after a dozen blows and stands over its corpse as blood pools on the floor. The encounter is fast-paced but not rushed and overall feels snappy and threatening without feeling tedious. It's a good first encounter, imo and helps set the tone of how combat will unfold.
Let's then compare to the original.
In the original, James follows the static of the radio into a tunnel under construction. In this tunnel, he finds the radio before noticing the lying figure crouched over a corpse. James backs up, grabs at a board from the barrier, and readies himself to attack the creature.
What follows is James whaling on the creature for about 6 blows before it falls to the ground and its writhing and grunting ceases. James stands over the body and prods it with the board.
Something to note in this scene (and this is important) is that the original encounter is of a creature that will BARELY fight back, often times not even attempting to hurt James before it dies. The figure will writhe and growl but never attack James. This acts as a tutorial for combat so the player can learn the controls on their own without risking and loss of progress.
This, however, is the mechanical reason for it, but there's a story reason for it too.
Lying Figures represent Mary struggling against the constraining flesh of her disease ridden body, spewing poison at those who get too close. They closely resemble Mary right before James killed her. This is why the first encounter represents James killing Mary directly to the player. The creature is revolting but not hostile. We, as the player, however, immediately feel threatened and slay the creature. It's a masterfully directed encounter and this interpretation is backed up by the fact that if yoy return to the tunnel after Brookhaven Hospital, the entrance is locked up and covered in crime scene tape, implying what James did there previously was a crime.
So now that we have both encounters described, I'll render my personal judgment.
The new encounter, while more shallow, is superior in every way except thematically. It's a well designed first encounter and draws the player in. While we who are quite obsessed with the game may find it lack luster, it fits modern game design better and represents a good Modernization of the series.
This gives me hope that while SH2 megaheads like myself can find things we don't like, overall Bloober is preforming well above expectations (with the particular Abstract Daddy trailer beings a MASTERCLASS in psychological horror on their part, arguably not only on par with the quality of the original but even surpassing it in some ways, however that requires a different post if yall intersted.)
What are your thoughts on the information I presented?

2023 was a pretty abysmal year for jump+ when it came to finding new hits. The best new series performance was …..

1. Hope You're Happy, Lemon 2 — 3,841 — 700k views

Not bad for the platform…but that being your best new performer is terrible when compared to previous years. Jump+ is more lenient, and they allow you to persist on the platform with a few thousand sales and like 400k views per chapter or more, but still. However, in the span of a few months, jump+ has produced three hits this year, all of which are instantly in the top 20 of the platform after their first volume.

1. Kaiju No. 8: B-Side 1 — 75,807 — 1.3M views
   
2. Thermae Romae Redux 1 — 35,474 — 650k views
   
3. Girl Meets Rock! 1 — 9,527 — 550k views
   

The catch is……All 3 series had pre-existing audiences.
Something youll note about all 3 of those series, is that they had pre-existing audiences. Kaiju 8 B side is a spin off, thermae romae redux is a sequel to a well-known manga, and girl meets rock had an audience online. This doesn’t mean they are bad or anything, it just means that jump+ has still not produced a new organic platform grown hit since 2022.
These series still count obviously, but it showcases perhaps a switch in strategy for jump+, or at least one they should attend to. Maybe bringing in people with a pre-existing audience to ensure some initial momentum… or spin offs on existing series is better than looking for a new original hit.
Why are new jump+ titles struggling so much in sales, even when viewership is decent?
This is something lots of people have been speculating on, myself included, and I thought id give my two cents, based on reception in japan and my personal opinion.
What I mean by this is there are a bunch of series that have good viewership, but still sell like crap. For example.

1. Shibatarian 3 — <1,550 / 0 day — 760k views
   
2. The Game Devil 4 — <1,500 / 0 day — 700k views
   
3. Muscle Island 4 — <1,500 / 0 day — 500k views
   
4. Wild Strawberry 2 — <1,400 / 1 day — 450k views
   

Given their viewership, you would expect these to sell at least a few thousand copies, if not more. For reference, girl meets rock and thermae have similar views and sell 10k or more, and then titles like these have higher sales and correspondingly higher views.

1. Dandadan 14 — 70,074 — 1.5M views
   
2. You and I Are Polar Opposites 6 — 54,624 — 1.2M views
   
3. Kindergarten WARS 9 — 41,350 — 1.1M views
   

Sales and views source https://mangahelpers.com/forum/threads/shonen-jump-plus-news-and-discussion.3016912/page-104
Heres a bunch of theories.
Are they selling in digital mainly?
We don’t have digital data, but we can infer from circulation numbers and rankings on online bookstores. The titles in questions don’t really perform that well online and don’t have notable circulation numbers mentioned. They just have good viewership and terrible sales.
Are most new jump + releases….just kinda meh ?
This is a controversial point, because technically its subjective…BUT, we can scour comments in japan to make this more concrete. Most of the series with low sales and decent views have what I would call middling reception… people who kinda enjoy it, but have lots of criticisms .
For example. Lets take wild strawberry. This was one of the top rated comments for its last chapter on jump+
“It would be fun to read if you could get a strong weapon for getting a certain score or defeating a strong opponent, but... the only difference between the characters is their hairstyle... It's boring to read regardless of the intentions of the upper echelons, and there are almost no characters that you have an emotional attachment to, so there's no suspense.”
How about shibatarian…some top rated comments
“I don’t understand anymore”
“I don't understand why there are so many Satos and the various Shibatas are disgusting, so I shouldn't read it, but I'm curious about the rest and I keep reading.”
I use these two examples, because I like both series, but also don’t think they are that good. I read them because they are either comfort food in the case of wild strawberry, its just very generic shonen with good art, and in shibatarians case I just cant help but read it…..for reasons. Looks like im not alone, and the English reception on reddit manga etc seems similar.
The argument would be something like…. there is a certain amount of “capture” with online titles where people will read it if its familiar, or looks good or has intrigue, but wont feel compelled to go buy volumes if they aren’t actually that good.
This might be true of lots of jump+ titles, which are all in that middling quality for reception.
Is jump+ just not the platform that rewards creativity and innovation that we thought?
The idea that Jump+ is a platform for more experimental and creative works is debatable to some. Most of the stuff at the top is in conventional genres,(spy family,chainsaw man,dandadan,kaiju 8,) it just a little more out there in tone than might be ok in regular jump. Even that is debateable with chainsaw man originally being in jump.
This is the kicker that many might not want to admit, but I think its increasingly true. If what guarantees sales now are bringing in pre-existing fans, and home grown viewership is not translating to sales, maybe the platform isnt what we think it is.
Either they are not actually selecting for good quality, which could be an issue of editorial etc, or the readership is not receptive to genuinely good and creative works. Or both….
A Good Litmus test. Centuria and Goze Hotaru ….ie if these arent hits the platform just kinda sucks.
So to play by my own rules here, if titles that have good reception on jump+ don’t actually sell and become hits, even with decent to great viewership…the platform might actually be in need of change. Two recent titles that I personally think are great, but also have great reception on jump+, will be a good test case.
Goze Hotaru ……ie does Jump+ care about quality, beauty and creativity.
This is a story of a blind girl who endeavours to become a travelling musician, fighting through her anxiety and reclusiveness, and mixes this with beautiful art and poetic writing while still being entertaining. Its niche obviously, and this isnt just me gushing. Almost All comments on the last chapter on jump+ for example, were universally positive. Its viewership is not great, but its quality I think is undeniable.
“This story made me decide to buy the comics.”
“The final spread and the whole story are amazing. I had no choice but to buy the book.”
“It's amazing. It's not for everyone, but it's a fascinating manga. The first volume was released early.”
“The last page spread made me sigh. Even though I am ignorant and don't know even a single line of the song "Shiogama," I felt like I could hear Sango-chan's voice. What an amazing story! What amazing illustrations!”
“The contrast between the girl rising to the top and the protagonist who is barely keeping up on the last page was really good. It sent shivers down my spine.”
Centuria…….ie does Jump+ care about exceptional art and action that has good reception and commercial appeal
This series is very marketable, is done by a fujimoto assistant(like spy x family, dandadan etc), is a mix between vinland saga and berserk in theme and tone, and has incredible art. It also has very good viewership, especially at the start, but its retaining well. It also does really well in the west, with its blending of western fantasy motifs, darker themes and just sheer brutality.
Its reception on jump+ is also very positive. Some top rated comments.
“The movement and flow of the story is very pleasant to read.”
“I was impressed that three humans were able to defeat that monster. It was so cool. And the main character finally showed up. It was a really satisfying read.”
“It's important to have good illustrations, but that's not all. Not only is there a lot of writing, but the composition of the spread is also well done and the ending is exciting every time. I'm really looking forward to it every week.”
“It’s great that even though it’s a tense and suspenseful story, everyone has their own moment to shine.”
In any case, goze hotarus volume 1 is out in a few days, and the amazon pre orders……. aren’t great. Centuria will be out in july.
If neither of these are at least decent hits in sales, at least relative to their viewership(its mainly centuria, im just throwing goze hotaru in there because im salty lol)…we might have to revaluate jump+ as a platform that genuinely rewards quality and creativity….or at the very least having the ability to translate good viewership or reception into sales for home grown series.
And as I write this, kaiju number 8 is getting a second spin off coming out this month…..

Whilst IC-Light appears straight forward at first, it can be tricky to wrap your head around at first with how comparatively little documentation is on the GitHub, especially when doing lower-contrast scenes, so I thought I'd create a thread for people to share their ideas to help people get the best results they can!
I'll start with three tricks I've learned:

1. Unless you are going for a high-contrast scene, don't use a feathered white circle on a black background. Instead, make the background a neutral shade (I personally think a 0.4-0.6 value works best). This will help drastically with balancing out the contrast and getting more predictable results,
2. Add a subtle vignette to your image. In my testing this hasn't tended to affect the overall lighting too drastically, but it seems to help IC-Light understand what the focus of your image is supposed to be, and
3. If you're like me and make your image maps in Photoshop, there are two things you can do depending on the context of the image that will really improve how natural the lighting looks: once you've done up your image, add either a noise texture or a transparent fog texture to the top layer, set the blending to overlay, and lower both the opacity and fill values until it blends together nicely. In real life light is very complicated with how it bounces around the world, hence why ray-traced light simulations often come out as noisy as they do without a ton of sampling or denoising algorithms. Adding a subtle overlay texture to give that hint of variation in lighting seems to emulate this phenomenon quite well in IC Light in my testing.

So what other suggestions do you all have to help everyone improve their compositions?