kromem

Also, ants.

It was good, but it did feel like the narrative around the boss could have been tied to the rest of the world a bit better.

The zone leading up to it was one of my favorite in the DLC with the ambience build up, but I expected more after the fight.

Self destructive addiction even happens to corporations.

Ah, yes Shabriri, I know thee well.

Guided by the three fingers to be Lord of Frenzy.

Just a poor soul looking for some grapes to help see the faded light of the guiding grace.

The DLC is really the right balance for FromSoft.

The zones in the base game are slightly too big.

In the DLC, it's still open world and extremely flexible in how you explore it, but there's less wasted space.

It's very tightly knit and the pacing is better as a result.

It's like Elden Ring was watching masters of their craft cut their teeth on something new, and then the DLC was them applying everything they learned in that process.

Can't wait for their next game in that same vein (especially not held back by last gen consoles).

Your interpretation of copyright law would be helped by reading this piece from an EFF lawyer who has actually litigated copyright cases in the past:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0

Part of the problem with this approach is that prediction engines are predicted on the idea that there's more of a thing to predict.

So unless they really, really go out of their way with modeling the records to account for this, they'll have a system very strongly biased towards predicting more criminal behavior for everyone fed into it.

I hate that the Smithscript weapons can't be buffed.

Especially for the daggers.

Wanted to pew pew little bolts of lightning buffed daggers doing an additional 200+ damage per hit. 😢

No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there's no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.

As I said in my earlier comment, this narrative was probably appropriated from the forced relocation of the sea peoples into the southern Levant. The Egyptians do have extensive records of conflict with them, who they note in that conflict were without foreskins (as opposed to the partial circumcision more common at the time), and there's an emerging picture of Aegean cohabitation with the Israelites in the early Iron Age along with Anatolian trade with an area where the Denyen were talking about their founding leader Mopsus.

Here's the source for the Noah's Ark as originally a famine narrative: https://scholar.harvard.edu/dershowitz/publications/man-land-unearthing-original-noah

You're welcome to find the material as you like, but I'm telling you that there's a lot more value to careful analysis of it within it's broader context than you (and many others) seem to think. Whether you find that stance condescending or not.

Kind of falls apart if rejecting the idea of objective good and evil and interpreting the parable of the fruit of knowledge in Eden as the inheritance of a relative knowledge of good and evil for oneself which inherently makes any shared consensus utopia an impossibility.

In general, we have very bizarre constraints on what we imagine for the divine, such as it always being a dominant personality.

Is God allowed to be a sub? Where's the world religion built around that idea?

What about the notion that the variety of life is not a test for us to pass/fail, but more like a Rorsarch test where it allows us to determine for ourselves what is good or not?

Yes, antiquated inflexible ideas don't hold up well to scrutiny. But adopting those as the only idea to contrast with equally inflexible consideration just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved, no?

Actually, the book of Job is nearly verbatim a combination of the opening of the Canaanite A Tale of Aqhat where Anat petitions El to kill the son of Danel as the lead in to a near copy of the dialogue on suffering of the Babylonian Theodicy. With what appears a sloppy edit to make it monotheistic later on, changing Anat from being a different god to simply 'adversary' and spawning fanfiction for millennia.

Understanding the context helps a lot in meaningful analysis.

Without the context, yeah, a lot can go over your head and it just seem pointless.

Edit: And Noah's ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.

Edit 2: And the eating of the fruit by the first two people was probably adapted from the Phonecian creation myth around the first man and woman with the woman discovering the technology of eating fruit from the trees.

There's actually a lot of interesting stuff in the text when you learn how to spot it between the lines of the revisionism. Both OT and NT.

The problem is you basically only have two camps.

One, that thinks the text as it exists today represents an unadulterated divine transmission.

And the other, that thinks anything to do with it is worthless nonsense.

So there's very few people actually looking at it in between those two extremes, with most engaged with the material clustering around the former, or at very least with an anchoring and survivorship bias around the former cluster.

We're left with audiences for the text that on both sides would be incredulous at the idea that, say, the Exodus narrative was in part an appropriation of the LBA/Early Iron Age sea peoples history when they were forcibly relocated into cohabitation with the Israelites, or say, that Jesus was taking about evolution with the sower parable.

Even though both those things have very compelling cases that can be made given emerging available evidence, the discussion is all about the acceptance or wholesale rejection of canon with little to no discussion of what actually exists in the absence of the BS.

It's most disappointing for the latter group though. While I kind of get the way the trauma of proselytizing and indoctrination turns minds off to anything connected with the material, it's very frustrating that what should be the healthy opposition cedes so many claims of authenticity to the faithfully blind.