TomKerbal Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 26 minutes ago, Polaris0352 said: Do you understand the concept of an NDA? ALL the current, former, in limbo employees of IG, PD, et al, are under an NDA regarding basically everything we want to know about. Inflammatory, accusatory statements do nothing but rile people up for no reason. When someone is LEGALLY ALLOWED to speak about what is going on, then we will know something. Until then, play KSP2, or KSP1, or go for a walk, or literally anything other than get on the forum to demand what you can't have like a petulant child. Do you think it's easy for Dakota being community manager? Having trolls constantly demanding answers he can't provide, listening to a never ending flood of complaints about this, that and the other that are all well outside his control. What would having information do for you anyway? If they're continuing to work on the game quietly, you'll STILL have some sort of update you're waiting for. If they're not working on it, you'll STILL be lamenting about how T2 screwed everyone over by not completing an EARLY ACCESS game that by it's very definition may be abandoned at any time, be buggy, go months or longer between updates. Has this whole experience been ideal? No, I think we can all agree on that. Was the development of the game as it was riddled with problems? Definitely. Could you have done better? The devs are just there trying to do their thing while trying to remain employed by their corporate overlords. How would you feel if someone came into your job (More like 1000 people) and stood over you demanding updates every 10 minutes on what you were working on? Let's all just be patient, go enjoy some other hobbies for a while, and revisit when some of this has blown over and we have confirmation one way or another. For now, all this bickering is absolutely exhausting. What is this all about? I just asked a simple question to a community manager. No need to insult me. Bye, have a good time! Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dprostock Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacke Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) 6 hours ago, Caerfinon said: Lisan al Gaib! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib! Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Edited June 12 by Jacke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xindar Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 19 hours ago, Caerfinon said: Lisan al Gaib! Muad'Dib! Muad'Dib! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdJ Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 19 hours ago, Tony Tony Chopper said: So, does disbelief in climate change make you more scientific? Absolutely not. Believing in facts is a necessary. You would end up in conspiracy theory territory otherwise. Obviously that misconception is the reason why conspiracy theorists are somewhat successful. They think because of their disbelief they are right, just no one understand them. But that's plain wrong. Belief doesn't generally exclude being skeptical. You seem to be missing the point of what is being said. Belief without proof is called faith, which is when people believe in something they cannot give you tangible evidence of. Science requires provable, repeatable method and evidence in order to be considered real. You can come up with a theory or belief that something may work or that something that you have not seen before might exist, but it is not scientific fact until you can prove it in such a way that others can follow a method and get the same results. There is scientific theory and there is scientific fact. One scientific theory is that there is stuff called "Dark Matter" out in the Universe, but as there currently isn't away to prove this without a shadow of a doubt, it is scientific theory. There was a theory that without air pressure to cause drag, all objects would fall towards the Earth at the same speed. So they built a giant room that could have all the atmosphere in it pumped out, evacuated it, and dropped a bowling ball and a feather at the same time. The result was they both fell at the same rate. Now they have proof and so it is now scientific fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechBFP Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 “Believing in facts” is a poor use of language in this case given the context. It is necessary for people to accept and acknowledge facts, but belief has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaviper Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 20 hours ago, TomKerbal said: What is this all about? I just asked a simple question to a community manager. No need to insult me. Bye, have a good time! Tom. The point was that vanamonde is not a CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKunze Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 21 hours ago, Tony Tony Chopper said: Believing in facts is a necessary. Errm - no. Actually, facts are those pesky things that stubbornly refuse to vanish when you stop believing in them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 21 hours ago, Tony Tony Chopper said: Believing in facts is a necessary. I dunno why y'all are so quick to judge. I regularly stop believing in gravity when I need to go uphill for example. You guys should try it someday. I dunno why NASA et al keep up with this "chemical reaction" stuff. Its clearly inferior Also @Vanamonde I could never do your job. The temptation to give out joke answers would corrupt me Edited June 13 by Meecrob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris0352 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 8 minutes ago, Meecrob said: I dunno why y'all are so quick to judge. I regularly stop believing in gravity when I need to go uphill for example. You guys should try it someday. I dunno why NASA et al keep up with this "chemical reaction" stuff. Its clearly inferior Also @Vanamonde I could never do your job. The temptation to give out joke answers would corrupt me I think that's exactly what makes a good moderator though. Knowing when to give out a real, accurate answer, and at all other times, being a jokester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Polaris0352 said: I think that's exactly what makes a good moderator though. Knowing when to give out a real, accurate answer, and at all other times, being a jokester. That's what I was getting at. You couldn't ask more from a lead mod. I'm faceplaming at the resources this game wasted. We had arguably the best community online, and that can't happen without support from the mod team. Now look at us. I don't think you could ruin a community more if you did it on purpose. On 6/11/2024 at 7:35 PM, Izny said: Spill the beans Anything after the WARN notice is a bonus. Seriously. Edited June 13 by Meecrob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Tony Chopper Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 2 hours ago, ColdJ said: You seem to be missing the point of what is being said. Belief without proof is called faith, which is when people believe in something they cannot give you tangible evidence of. I wasn't well aware of the difference between faith and belief in the English language it seems - replace 'belief' with 'faith' in both of my posts in this case. I certainly didn't mean it in 'conviction' terms, if that's a right synonym. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzlebop Smith Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 Faith is predicated on belief, belief is not predicated on faith. Essentially a difference in substance. Logic does not need to factor into belief.. but CAN. Faith requires an absent of supporting proof / logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said: Faith is predicated on belief, belief is not predicated on faith. Essentially a difference in substance. Logic does not need to factor into belief.. but CAN. Faith requires an absent of supporting proof / logic. Problem is that, even on English, the term "believers" got a awful connotation. So many things get screwed by people that "believe" they are doing the right thing without taking a single second to check their believes. In the end, everybody acts under their own believes. But the ones that get results are, usually, the ones that put their believes in check - at least, now and then. Every single scientific breakthrough happened because the scientists believed they were on the right path - but the breakthrough only happened after scientifically checking the facts, no matter what the scientist was believing while producing such facts. Edited June 13 by Lisias Entertaining grammars made slightely less entertaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attosecond Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 38 minutes ago, Lisias said: Every single scientific breakthrough happened because the scientists believed they were on the right path 1st-person perspective: breakthroughs are not something you try for (most days). My experience has been that they're stumbled across, tripped over, and often ignored as noise or systemic error for some period of time. Only when you carefully examine what you did, what the results were, and what could tie the two together do you realize that your problem is much worse than a mistake - you now have new physics you need to explain. It's simultaneously the best, and the worst, realization. At no time during the process do I believe anything, or have faith in anything. That's it. The answers, if proven to be correctly derived and verifiable via measurements, stand on their own. Don't believe me? Go perform the experiment yourself, or code up the physics in a simulation, or both. If you come up with a different answer that's free of mistakes and errors, well... that's what the process is all about, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, attosecond said: 1st-person perspective: breakthroughs are not something you try for (most days). My experience has been that they're stumbled across, tripped over, and often ignored as noise or systemic error for some period of time. Being the reason I wrote "believed they were on the right path", not "they knew". But, as a matter o fact, you explicated what I left implicit, so you fixed a hole in my argument. I should had developed it better, thanks! TL;DR: Belief is a motivator, but never the reason or the cause. Edited June 13 by Lisias TL;DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attosecond Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Lisias said: Being the reason I wrote "believed they were on the right path", not "they knew". Here's what I would correct: I don't ever believe or assume, or even think I'm on the right path. At best, I hope I'm heading in the right direction... if my arguments pass muster, I can usually convince one funding agency or another to throw some $ behind the effort. There's always a healthy amount of doubt about what I'll find at the end of the particular rainbow I'm chasing... experience will teach anyone in STEM that every effort is filled with enough forks, detours, wrong turns, etc that belief in your chosen course of action is ill-placed. So far, the process seems to be worth it. Sometimes I even question that (when things have really gone south and my latest machine just ate itself). Edited June 13 by attosecond bolded text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 So anyways, science vs. faith is beyond the scope of this forum and is likely to get into religion, which just never ends well so we've had to make a rule against talking about it on this forum. Time to move on, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts