Posts by Eric Newman75

mistybison said:If we want to tackle those serious topics, we're going to need to get some Viagra for our server. 🧐

If it finally goes down for good, all the collective wisdom shared on this site will be lost to future generations forever! 🙂

Oh, please. It’s not happening. Have you seriously never heard of Internet Archive?

mistybison said:On a more pressing note: will the server ever crash permanently, and if so, when? 🧐

Perhaps we should start a betting pool? 🤔

Honestly, it's just a dirty little diversion cooked up by mistyhound94. He doesn't want us focusing on the stuff that actually matters—you know, the core issues that determine whether we survive or go under. 😳

Jessica Morris6 said:I’m not sure if you actually took a second to look at the date that post was published... If you just check your calendar, you'll see what holiday is coming up tomorrow.

The legendary April Fools' Admin Panel, now officially archived. 😁

And here I was, thinking it was actually serious. It's a shame people fall for such nonsense so easily. ☕

Terry Martinez10 said:I’m leaning towards a "yes" on this one

The whole point of a poll isn't to sit around and stare at the results—you actually have to cast your vote.

lonegardener said:I think you're thinking of Star Castle. 😁

That’s pretty spot on, nice job. I seem to remember the actual game being a bit more visually polished—and definitely harder—but hey, that’s just how it goes. I guess all those little details depend on which specific arcade cabinet you were playing.

When you start talking about those old-school arcade cabinets, Scramble definitely holds a special spot in my heart, right up there with the legends like Pac-Man and Space Invaders. But honestly, there’s this one game I can't quite wrap my brain around the title of, though man, it was incredibly addictive. You pilot this little spaceship, trying to pick up speed while dodging these "bosses" that are guarded by layers upon layers of obstacles. These shields are arranged in circles, maybe five or six levels deep. And the coolest part? To dodge the constant barrage of projectiles, you could actually fly right off one side of the screen and just pop out on the opposite side. That seamless loop—that whole continuum thing—was just so unique.

The New York Times just put together a compilation of the absolute best games out there, picking 20 titles that they claim you "simply have to play at least once."

Look, you don't have to agree with their picks—let's be real, objective "best of" lists are a myth—but we did end up mentioning a few of them in our own discussions.

Robin Diaz4 said:With all due respect to the medical experts out there, I honestly think addiction is the least of anyone's worries when they're facing a terminal diagnosis.

Spot on. It’s honestly ridiculous to even entertain those kinds of arguments. The fundamental principle should be that a patient shouldn't have to suffer through pain. We need to prevent that at all costs—not just for people at the end of their journey, but for everyone. Pain is useful only until a diagnosis is made. Once you know what you're dealing with, the goal should be to get rid of it immediately.

hiddeneagle98 said:I haven't played it. To be honest, I haven't really touched a video game in maybe 15 years. The only exception was Star Wars, which I missed out on when I was younger, and I skipped all the subsequent entries entirely. These days, the only thing I can handle is a PlayStation or a PlayStation U. I just don't have the patience for anything too demanding anymore; occasionally I'll pick up some Super Mario Kart, Super Mario Galaxy 3D, or Donkey Kong, and I did manage to get through Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild—which was an incredible game, by the way. That’s pretty much it. And yeah, I think I spent most of my teenage years hooked on those early massive online games, Subspace and later Continuum. I haven't really gotten sucked into an online community like that since. Now, it's mostly just zombie games or single-player stories—stuff like GTA, racing games, shooters, nothing competitive. Sin City comes to mind right now; that was such a cool, artsy, smart game with that killer bullet-time mechanic. That was probably one of the last things I played on a PC. I'm not really interested in the modern era; I miss the old classics from my childhood—those Sid Meier games back when he was doing them himself, Centurion, Prince of Persia, Warlords, Star Control, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master of Orion, SimCity, Duke Nukem 3D, Descent, X-Wing, Doom, F-15, the Monkey Island series, Lost Vikings... okay, fine, I guess I played Tomb Raider 2 too, but mostly it's that stuff people call "abandonware" today. Man, I feel old. Oh, and Alien vs. Predator was a freaking masterpiece.

Ultimately, that "abandonware" era represents the peak of gaming for me. Back when games were being built by tiny teams or even just a single person working out of passion rather than chasing a massive paycheck. People weren't making fortunes off this stuff back then; it was pure creativity and genius. If I had been a little older, maybe I would have ended up in that Hall of Fame myself. Who knows, maybe I'll get back into it via mobile; I actually have a few original ideas sitting around that are developed up to the proof-of-concept stage.

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

Yeah, those old-school games really hit different. They remind me of those early sci-fi shows where they weren't obsessed with special effects—maybe because they didn't even have the computers to pull them off—so all the focus went into the actual story and the characters. Nowadays, both games and TV series are just buried under tech. You take some high-end engine, like Unreal Engine or Crysis, and you just feed the user what you know will sell: flawless graphics, perfect physics, and all that other bells and whistles. Once you have a ready-made framework like that, you don't need to be John Carmack, but you're also naturally drifting far away from anything truly revolutionary.

I personally miss the guys over at id Software and titles like Doom, Quake, or Wolfenstein, because back then, there were genuine breakthroughs in 3D animation and storytelling. Those guys basically defined the FPS genre as we know it.

steelridge58 said:Thanks.
🙂)
I’d honestly love to hear your take on the reasons behind all this, if you wouldn't mind walking me through your reasoning.

I honestly can't even begin to describe how much I needed this little getaway, though I suppose I should have planned it better from the start because my attempt at being organized was, well, predictably disastrous. There’s just something about finally getting away from the grind and breathing some fresh air that makes you realize how much you've been running on fumes, even if I did spend half my time wandering around aimlessly like a lost tourist. It's been one of those trips where everything feels slightly chaotic but in a way that actually makes me feel alive again, which is a weirdly comforting thought when you're sitting there wondering why you forgot to pack your favorite pair of shoes. As specified by steelridge58:
The fundamental flaw in philosophy—the one that Wittgenstein really hit the nail on the head with—is this idea that we can take concepts, words, and abstract notions as if they were the primary, solid building blocks used to construct something precise. We treat them like mathematical constants, but in reality, they’re just secondary phenomena; they aren't even perfectly exact themselves, so if you try to build a rigorous system by taking them literally, you aren't going to end up with anything truly exact. All you're really getting are approximations. Back in Wittgenstein's day, I suppose that distinction wasn't quite as glaringly obvious to everyone, but honestly, in our modern era of video games and digital simulations, the gap between those fuzzy concepts and actual precision is impossible to ignore.

I think you’re actually going to find this pretty interesting.

You don't just stumble upon a piece of history like this by accident; you find it because you’re actually looking for something more meaningful than the digital noise we deal with every single day. I was reading this piece about how we often treat our past—and even our present cultural milestones—as if they're just static objects sitting behind glass in a museum, rather than living, breathing parts of who we are. It’s easy to get caught up in the idea that an artifact is just a "thing," a relic of some bygone era that has nothing to do with us, but that's a pretty shallow way to view the world, isn't it? When we look at these historical markers, we aren't just staring at old stone or dusty paper; we're looking at the fingerprints of people who felt the same fears, joys, and ambitions that we do right now in the States. There's this tendency in our modern culture to prioritize the "new" and the "fast," treating everything else as obsolete junk, but there's a profound weight to things that have actually endured. If we strip away the context and just see an object as a curiosity, we lose the thread that connects us to the human experience. I guess what I'm trying to say is that understanding where we came from isn't just some academic exercise for historians in D.C.; it's about recognizing that we are part of a much longer, much deeper story than the one we tell ourselves on social media. We need to stop treating our heritage like a collection of dead things and start seeing them as mirrors.

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
I’m thinking we should start a group reading session together.
I’m thinking we should throw in some actual gameplay, maybe some specific scenarios or even just random associations and examples—basically anything we can mash together to see what sticks.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this lately, and honestly, I feel like I might be overcomplicating things, but there is just something so deeply unsettling about how we approach these heavy philosophical questions without any real sense of direction. It feels like we're all just wandering through this massive, intellectual fog, trying to make sense of existence while tripping over our own feet, and I can't help but wonder if we're even asking the right questions to begin with. You know that feeling when you're staring at a problem that seems simple on the surface, but the more you dig, the more you realize the entire foundation is built on sand? That's exactly where I find myself right now. I keep going back to these core ideas, trying to find some sort of anchor, but everything feels so fleeting and subjective, which is frankly a little exhausting if I'm being completely honest with myself. I suppose I'm just looking for some kind of clarity in the chaos, even if I end up just circling the same old doubts. 🙂

Man, what an absolutely fantastic topic we've got on the table here. 👍

Technically speaking, sure, video games are run through some kind of software, but honestly, that’s such a massive oversimplification if you really stop to think about it. If you ask certain people, they’d probably argue that a computer game actually falls under the category of... I’ve been spending way too much time lately thinking about digital art and where the hell we actually stand with it all. It feels like every single day there's some massive shift happening, whether it's a new tool hitting the market or a heated debate about what even counts as "real" creativity in an age where you can just prompt an image into existence. I honestly find myself oscillating between being completely mesmerized by the sheer technical possibility of it—like, how incredible is it that someone sitting in a studio in Seattle can manipulate light and texture with such precision—and feeling this deep, slightly embarrassing sense of dread that maybe we're losing that raw, tactile connection to the craft. It’s a weird, messy intersection of high-tech innovation and old-school soul, and I guess I'm just trying to figure out if we're witnessing the evolution of expression or just the beginning of a very shiny, very hollow era.Digital art really just boils down to whatever we can squeeze out of computer-based coding or that constant cycle of electronic storage and information processing—we’re talking about everything from raw text and numbers to images and sounds, all distilled down into binary code.

Sure, there’s definitely a dark side to video games—and honestly, we could go on about that for ages—but it feels like there's some genuine value tucked away in them too. It’s the same story with anything else, really; online forums can be toxic, scrolling through the news can mess with your head, and even following sports has its downsides. There are pitfalls everywhere if you look for them.

It’s actually pretty interesting to chew on these ideas before we dive even deeper into the weeds:

I mean, at the end of the day, video games are just part of electronic media, which is a field that philosophy spends a massive amount of time dissecting.
That’s a fantastic contribution, and you've raised some great questions. 👍

Beyond just covering those specific topics, I think the real challenge—and also the most exciting part—of media philosophy is how it differs from older philosophical traditions; it offers these incredible opportunities to mediate philosophical thought, especially since its scope reaches far beyond just the realm of linguistics.

Anyway, I'll catch you on the next one.
🙂
I’m thinking we should start a group reading session together.
I’m thinking we should throw in some actual gameplay, maybe some specific scenarios or even just random associations and examples—basically anything we can mash together to see what sticks.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this lately, and honestly, I feel like I might be overcomplicating things, but there is just something so deeply unsettling about how we approach these heavy philosophical questions without any real sense of direction. It feels like we're all just wandering through this massive, intellectual fog, trying to make sense of existence while tripping over our own feet, and I can't help but wonder if we're even asking the right questions to begin with. You know that feeling when you're staring at a problem that seems simple on the surface, but the more you dig, the more you realize the entire foundation is built on sand? That's exactly where I find myself right now. I keep going back to these core ideas, trying to find some sort of anchor, but everything feels so fleeting and subjective, which is frankly a little exhausting if I'm being completely honest with myself. I suppose I'm just looking for some kind of clarity in the chaos, even if I end up just circling the same old doubts. 🙂

Man, what an absolutely fantastic topic we've got on the table here. 👍

Technically speaking, sure, video games are run through some kind of software, but honestly, that’s such a massive oversimplification if you really stop to think about it. If you ask certain people, they’d probably argue that a computer game actually falls under the category of... I’ve been spending way too much time lately thinking about digital art and where the hell we actually stand with it all. It feels like every single day there's some massive shift happening, whether it's a new tool hitting the market or a heated debate about what even counts as "real" creativity in an age where you can just prompt an image into existence. I honestly find myself oscillating between being completely mesmerized by the sheer technical possibility of it—like, how incredible is it that someone sitting in a studio in Seattle can manipulate light and texture with such precision—and feeling this deep, slightly embarrassing sense of dread that maybe we're losing that raw, tactile connection to the craft. It’s a weird, messy intersection of high-tech innovation and old-school soul, and I guess I'm just trying to figure out if we're witnessing the evolution of expression or just the beginning of a very shiny, very hollow era.Digital art really just boils down to whatever we can squeeze out of computer-based coding or that constant cycle of electronic storage and information processing—we’re talking about everything from raw text and numbers to images and sounds, all distilled down into binary code.

Sure, there’s definitely a dark side to video games—and honestly, we could go on about that for ages—but it feels like there's some genuine value tucked away in them too. It’s the same story with anything else, really; online forums can be toxic, scrolling through the news can mess with your head, and even following sports has its downsides. There are pitfalls everywhere if you look for them.

It’s actually pretty interesting to chew on these ideas before we dive even deeper into the weeds:

I mean, at the end of the day, video games are just part of electronic media, which is a field that philosophy spends a massive amount of time dissecting.
That’s a fantastic contribution, and you've raised some great questions. 👍

Beyond just covering those specific topics, I think the real challenge—and also the most exciting part—of media philosophy is how it differs from older philosophical traditions; it offers these incredible opportunities to mediate philosophical thought, especially since its scope reaches far beyond just the realm of linguistics.

Anyway, I'll catch you on the next one.
🙂
I mean, at the end of the day, video games are just part of electronic media, which is a field that philosophy spends a massive amount of time dissecting.

That’s a fantastic contribution, and you've raised some great questions. 👍

Beyond just covering those specific topics, I think the real challenge—and also the most exciting part—of media philosophy is how it differs from older philosophical traditions; it offers these incredible opportunities to mediate philosophical thought, especially since its scope reaches far beyond just the realm of linguistics.

Anyway, I'll catch you on the next one.
🙂
First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.

First off, I’ve gotta give props to Return for calling them "video games" (hallelujah!) instead of those patronizing little "games" or whatever. We can get into the why behind that later.

Look, games aren't inherently bad. They build creativity, sharpen reflexes, and demand focus—basically, they're actually useful if you have some self-control. If you don't? Well, then they're just like any other addiction; they'll swallow you whole before you even know what hit you.

Honestly, I’m mostly just bummed that I don't have the time to play. It's not just about playing, either—I love watching how much skill goes into building these modern worlds. The storytelling, the engines, the soundtracks... I'm fascinated by all of it. Some titles (Far Cry, Elite) are just mind-blowing. My hands are itching to pick up a controller, seriously. I’m a huge fan of other franchises too, like Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, and Need for Speed. There's so much stuff I'd love to download and dive into right now.

Both medications are available here in the States—both Durogesic and Matrifen. You can get fentanyl doses at 12, 25, 50, 75, and 100 micrograms per hour. But listen, these patches aren't for anyone who’s just starting out with opioids; they’re dangerous. Even that tiny 12 microgram dose could be way too much for a beginner. It might honestly be smarter to start with oral tablets instead.

Generally speaking, the transdermal route isn't recommended for patients who haven't been on opioids before. It makes more sense to look at other delivery methods first, like oral or IV. To prevent an overdose, it's suggested that opioid-naive patients start with small doses of immediate-release opioids (think morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, tramadol, or codeine). You basically have to titrate those until you hit an analgesic dose that matches the DUROGESIC patch at a release rate of 12 µg/h or 25 µg/h. Once that's settled, then the patient can switch over to DUROGESIC.

https://mediately.co/en/drugs/OvzCgX...rmalni-flaster

brightviper29 said:I hope everything went smoothly with the scans 👍

Thank you, but I honestly don't know anything yet. They actually transferred me from the Cancer Clinic over to Vinogradski because of some technical issues. I’ll be there on Tuesday, and then I should head back to my usual clinic. Luckily, they pushed the ultrasound back by a week, otherwise, the wait would've been way longer.

Hello everyone, I really hope those of you dealing with illness are starting to feel a bit better. 🙂>

I’ve got a CT scan scheduled this Tuesday for my oral cavity and neck. Honestly? I’m not sweating the scan itself—I have a gut feeling the results will be fine. Once they come back, the next step is a physical exam with the ENT specialists. What actually gives me peace of mind is that the crew over at the Cancer Clinic mentioned that most tumors are caught through manual palpation, so I actually find it reassuring when they do a hands-on check.

I spent the whole week down a rabbit hole of online research, and let me tell you, the next week isn't looking any brighter. One thing I've noticed while out and about, just living life, is that things are finally getting back to "normal." The streets are packed with cars again, and waiting rooms are absolutely slammed. Sure, they're still checking temperatures and screening people at the entrances, which feels a little strange for hospitals and local clinics—especially since I make sure to stay far away from the infectious disease wards. Still, the doctors here are efficient; I rarely end up stuck there for more than an hour or ninety minutes. The only problem is that by the time I get home, I'm completely wiped out. It just drains me. My blood and urine tests are also suggesting I need to pay a lot more attention to my liver and kidney health. And my stamina? Not great. I'm just ready for this pandemic to settle down so I can actually focus on all the work I have piled up. 😁>

Ethan Gomez82 said:Shrewdness, cunning, craftiness... to me, those all require wisdom. If you actually possess wisdom, you can master those traits. But if you try to act clever and cunning without having the actual wisdom to back it up, you just end up looking like an idiot. Such attempts are doomed to fail from the start. 😁

Well, there you have it—we've all defined this term differently. It mostly comes down to the context in which we first encountered the concept, and those contexts vary wildly. Once that's set, it stays with you for life.

Not quite. Resourcefulness, being crafty, acting slick... those terms really point toward the ability to outsmart someone or pull a fast one on them. The meanings are related, sure, but they aren't the same thing as wisdom. Even in English, there's a connection—think about how wise guys refers to mobsters or criminals in slang; the emphasis is totally on unethical behavior. They aren't wise men; they're just con artists.

says:
Basically, you could have tactical wisdom, criminal cunning, sports intelligence, whatever you feel like calling it.

That’s just being crafty, not wise. It's about being shrewd or being a smooth operator.

You could definitely call Pope Francis wise. A lot of his takes are actually pretty sharp and go deep. From what I've gathered, he actually walks the walk when it comes to his own principles.

I used to get Octenidol MD., but I don't think Schülke makes it anymore—it feels like it's vanished from the shelves everywhere. Now, I just grab a very similar mouthwash called Octenident instead. It’s actually a bit cheaper than $23, and most importantly, it doesn't have any alcohol. That part is absolutely key for me.

If you're trying to clear out some fungus, you need to gargle for about two minutes. For just basic oral hygiene or disinfecting little sores and stuff, thirty seconds should do it. Also, honestly? Sage tea works great too if you want to gargle with that.

Harold Doyle3 said:Exactly. Evolutionary mechanisms will simply weed us out if we act like a parasite that destroys its own host or habitat without having any way to find a new one or a way to survive.

Look, evolutionary mechanisms actually work in a positive direction. They trim away flaws and refine organisms. But human "mechanisms"—our specific cognitive glitches and character defects—don't follow those rules. What we’re doing right now isn't evolution; it’s just sawing off the very branch we're sitting on. If we go under, we can't point fingers at nature or biology. It won't be their fault. We'll have been destroyed by our own sheer comfort, fueled by greed and pure negligence. From a philosophical standpoint, maybe it’s just dialectics playing out—everything grows, reaches a peak, and then inevitably veers into its opposite and collapses. Honestly? The human race will vanish; the only real question is when. Countless other species lasted for eons before them, and I don't see why we should be any different.

ruggedraven36 said:It all comes down to the mental heavy lifting involved. If I just start with "truth is true," I'm stuck—it's a dead end, an empty claim that goes nowhere. But if I argue that "truth is logical, and logic holds because truth exists," then I've actually built a path to conclude that "truth is true." In that second scenario, the tautology isn't just a circle—it actually carries the weight of the reasoning process within it.

"We set out on the road. It was a hell of a long trek.
Then we realized, way too late, that the road was just one big circle."