It's not a proof, no. There is no proof. There will never be proof. However, parsimony and Occam's Razor point towards it.
Even though this is slightly off topic, I think this is a nice little quote relating somewhat to this whole thing: "Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby."
I don't believe in God mainly due to the concept of parsimony which basically asserts that it cannot exist.
I don't think parsimony applies in the way you say it does. Parsimony is an informal device for forming a hypothesis, not a logical device for forming a conclusion.
At best, it states that we cannot conclude that God exists without data that fit his existence better than his non-existence.
Christian theologists believe that the events recorded in the Bible are enough evidence for the existence of God that this principle does not apply.
If using the word "parsimony" isn't satisfactory, then I'll go with using the term "Occam's Razor" even though they really are similar enough to be interchangeable.
Also, as an aside, I don't see how anyone can deny the concept of macroevolution over 6 billion years when we see microevolution (or, adaptation) over only a few years. Macroevolution is just microevolution done thousands of times over until there have been so many adaptations that they're something altogether. Evolution is an AMAZINGLY slow process, and there's a fair deal of proof in it. "I don't believe something because I can't comprehend it" is not scientific. Besides, if you can't comprehend evolution as I stated it, I don't see how you could comprehend an omnipotent, omniscient being that came from nothing, or always was. THAT is something I can't understand.
I don't believe in God mainly due to the concept of parsimony which basically asserts that it cannot exist.
That, among other things. I tried to believe but I just don't see how a deity can exist.
I suggest watching this guy's entire channel. There's a few big time savers that he shows off in many levels, including this crazy usage of wing. If these tricks are only available in the Japanese version, I would fully support a switch to use that because these tricks are VERY entertaining.
I also suggest a constant checkup of videos, removing very old videos (2+ years?) from the recommended page that no longer reach the standard of new videos.
I think the system works fine as it is, but it needs to be more often updated and with community input. As AKA said, if we just switched to an outright top rated videos, it might as well be called the "Mario, Metroid and Sonic" page.
While it has been said that stars are not "awards" - we should perhaps treat them as "prizes" of a sort, and make sure we don't just give them to well played well known games (though S3&K would get the star, etc). It'd have to be for something unique.
It is a difficult situation though.
I admit I may have overreacted a bit in my delivery of my points (but I stand by them just as Bisq stands by his) and for that I apologize. It wasn't necessary. I was just so startled by it, that's all.
JXQ: I think just leaving and coming back won't help much. Working on helping yourself now is much better a solution.
There is a general lack of appreciation for "new" people and there contributions. TASes as well as emulator updates or new rerecording platforms.
Kles wrote:
The time the respect stops is the time the TAS' stop.
These are valid points.
Even though this is common sense, I feel it should be mentioned as well:
The respect needs to go both ways. The staff needs to respect the contributors just as much as they need to respect the staff back. If the staff does something they disagree with, they have the right to be huffy and annoyed, but it needs to be respectful and not just a series of ridiculous personal attacks.
Also, respect entails not acting like a complete child when people do things you disagree with. I have always known this but up until recently, I too used to participate in being an immature clown towards those I disagree with. Don't do it. It's nothing but harmful and unproductive and there are much better ways to get your point across. A positive message, genial tone is much more likely to sway your opposition than a nasty, scathing tone is.
But your attitude conveys that you see the members of this community as resources instead of people, and replacable at any time - except for a select few. That pisses me off greatly, and there's no "fix" for it, no matter how many ways you ask. It's hopeless.
Are we all replacable? Yes, very much so. The concept of TAS will live on. But as I told you in PM, reminding people of this fact in your position is a straight dickhead move.
Agreed. It pisses me off too and I have observed and felt this by more situations than just the SDW submission.
There is a general lack of appreciation for "new" people and there contributions. TASes as well as emulator updates or new rerecording platforms.
I have not seen such a thing, (though I do not really follow the politics of the site very closely) if such a thing is happening, it needs to stop. The time the respect stops is the time the TAS' stop. Keep that in mind.
Just as an aside, I find this to be considerably more annoying and unpleasant to the eyes (and the flow of the post) than if I saw "this" displayed on my screen at a particularly large size.
If you're going to do something, don't half ass it, please.
I think the political correctness of trying to do everything "correctly" and "nicely" for everyone is a silly and impractical thing that just gets in the way of progress.
This is really silly and immature bickering, and yet I'm at a loss for words what I really want to say. While I disagree with the general manner in which this site has been run lately, I can't point fingers and say it was just one or two people who are the issue. I think there's a general synergy problem amongst the people in here. This is kind of a complex and confusing situation that I think need to be addressed at the root (which, unsurprisingly, I don't think we'd be able to agree on just what the root is) and worked up to the details.
What? You submitted a run that you knew wasn't 100% perfect in every way? Shame on you!!
(Naw, actually I'm watching this now and will probably enjoy it.)
EDIT: It would be nice if you worked the unassisted WRs in to the submission text.
You were, more or less, aware of that it was faster to make an !Yoshi appear, as seen in Jimsfriend's movie.
It's like doing a TAS then you skip doing a trick that saved ½ second only because you couldn't be arsed to do it.
Oh well.
EDIT: Looks like they weren't fully aware of it but HEY my point here still stands.
If they were fully aware of something like that then it's a mistake, yeah, but there's no way in hell that it's visible to the average viewer and whether you realize it or not, there's a LOT of people on this site who do not actively participate in the forums and discussion and who do not look at TAS' so heavily under the microscope as we do, who will not see a tiny, pretty much unnoticable error as being so horribly dreadful that it warrants keeping an old version up.
I want you to be consistent. SMB2(U) was just published with like 10 seconds of improvement possible. This is rejected for 32 frames. I think it's inconsistent.
Ding ding ding. I noticed that too and even I, who is not a frame Nazi, was considering to vote for rejection on such big errors.
This is really ridiculous. The frame gestapo has struck again. I highly urge you to rethink your decision. Not only is this completely ridiculous (32 frames is barely a single second), and if they're unlikely to want to make such an improvement and spend all that time and effort for 32 frames, then we're going to have an obsolete run on the site the site for a really, really long time.
I'm starting to get really sick of the absolute perfectionism that this site requires (only sometimes!) and I really think the policy needs to be rethinked. Videos should only be rejected when there's clear visible errors (a very minor logistical error is clearly not this) or an egregious amount of very minor logistical errors which leads up to a large loss of time.
Just remember that you're telling these four guys that their long work and their excellent video is below publication quality because of a loss of 32 frames. 32 FRAMES.
