Hypx

Most of their games come out on PC now. We are not far off from some SteamOS based PC that works like a console. Sony would be crazy to think they can charge the same price.

The problem is that at those prices, a PC is a more logical purchase. PS6 will have to be priced similar to PS5, or it will underperform dramatically.

My recent realization is that the very high-end of the GPU market is totally unnecessary. A 4070 can play practically any game at 4K with decent framerates. And if you are fine with just “high” settings instead of maxed out, at very good framerates too.

Google is basically ran like Boeing. Their goal is to maximum the stock price regardless of long-term consequences.

MS is ironically breaking up several big publishers and creating a slew of small, independent game studios. Basically out of their own incompetence. It silently heralds a new and hopefully much better era in gaming.

Also, it’s time to seriously wonder about the future of the Xbox console. It seems hopeless at this point. It probably has too small of a marketshare to justify any exclusives, even first-party ones. You wonder when MS will have to just admit that it is a PC in a box, and begin selling it as one.

The author is wrong. It is only a matter of time before Germany goes back to nuclear. Physics won’t change regardless of short-term opinion.

Blizzard has nothing to show.

Literally Goodhart’s Law in action.

Honestly, Microsoft bought them because they thought it can magically catapult them to #1 in the gaming industry. And they have, in a sense. The advantage of having so much money that you can buy your way into the industry. But the problem is that Microsoft has no idea what to do next.

Yes. And it will be replaced by $80-100 games.

Anti-abortion is sponsored by the Catholic Church. It both predates and exists outside of the US anti-abortion movement.

We have about as good enough reason to believe that he existed as any other historical person. That is my point the whole time. And it is the point of all historical scholars on this topic.

If that isn’t enough evidence, and we instead insist on a standard of proof that puts historical Jesus in the unconfirmed category, then we have to abandon nearly all historical people from the list of confirmed. History before the modern era almost completely vanishes in that case.

You really need to be more honest with yourself. Your position is most definitely mythicism. And a very generic form of it at that.

Of course, anything can be wrong. But it cannot be the basis of any argument. For one thing, this can easily be applied to your position. You could be wrong too.

The people who they’re basing their knowledge on for sure had an opinion on it, whether they do or not. We have little to no first hand records. Almost everything is recorded by someone who cared. To ignore this would be a huge issue with the legitimacy of the argument.

Historical scholars will be the first to tell you that this is the problem with all of history. There are almost never first-hand records of any event before the modern era. Their job is to piece together a sequence of events that is most likely based on what evidence they do have. If this isn’t sufficient for you, then problem then becomes that nearly all of history before the modern era can no longer be verified.

As I’ve already explained, historical scholars who specialize in that time and that area are almost without exception followers of one Abrahamic religion or the other.

This is a true ad hominem fallacy. Not just personal attacks. You are really dismissing the scientific consensus entirely because you doubt the motivations of everyone involved. This is not the basis of a valid argument.

Again, the specific evidence for this specific claim is ridiculously lacking. There’s more reliable evidence of the sexual orientation of Alexander the Great than there’s even sketchy evidrnve of Jesus existing.

That’s because Alexander was a king, and Jesus was not. The problem with this rationale has always been the same: Everyone except a handful of nobles vanishes from history because very little was written about most people. Even then, the documentation about Alexander is surprisingly scant. Almost no primary sources survive to the present day.

Because those specific historians are religious hacks who accept even the most spurious evidence for their preferred result and no arguments against it. Sort of like you.

Again, a true ad hominem fallacy. Also, I am an atheist just like you. I just happen to not be anti-science on this topic.

First of all, no. A lack of dispositive evidence doesn’t make up for a lack of positive evidence. That’s not how proof works.

Second, there IS an alternative explanation. One agreed upon by everyone who doesn’t believe in bronze age fairy tales:

Jesus was a fictional character based on older mythologies such as that of the Egyptian god Horus as well as other stories and the imaginations of the authors.

That is one theory by one mythicist. In fact, it’s the pet theory of Gerald Massey, someone who wrote about the subject in the 19th century. It has zero credibility among modern historians, from either the Egypt side or the Judea side. The person simply didn’t know enough about either to make any sort of credible argument. This idea only survives in pop culture.

Other than that, it’s been a cavalcade of one idea after another. Every mythicist has his own explanation. There has never been consensus on what the alternative explanation could even be.

Historical scholars do not claim the story from the Bible is real. In fact, they have done a very good job of figuring where they came from and how it likely differs from the real person.

You’re also making a lousy guilt by association fallacy by suggesting that since past scientific knowledge was wrong, it therefore must be wrong in this very specific context too.

Very few people in the historical community cares whether a historical Jesus existed. This is a true ad hominem fallacy. They merely point out that the evidence suggests that he existed, regardless of what anyone thinks of that.

Almost no evidence is not “no evidence.” That’s pretty much where the mythicism position falls apart, because they have to resort to dismissing what evidence we have to make their position valid. The other point is that if we use the level of standards demanded by mythicists, virtually all people from history can no longer be verified as real. It effectively deletes most of history.

Historical scholars are not religious authorities. It is more or less a field of scientific study. All claims are built on the basis of evidence and logical inferences from the evidence.

I will merely add that your position is not new and in fact it is many decades old. In that timeframe, it has made zero progress at convincing the historical community. And a major stumbling point appears to be the total lack of an alternative explanation and evidence for it.

Again, your argument is just a copy of what other people have said a thousand times over. At least acknowledge that.

It is exactly mythicism. Everything you said is a repeat of stuff said by mythicists a thousand times over.