The notion does feel a little cynical. It’s not like this is necessarily always the case and, even if such projects will fundamentally always be an attempt at making money in the hands of large studios, they can be well executed regardless.

It’s an example of the other way around, but as someone who frankly was immune to the notion of nostalgia from it, I recently watched the first Alien movie for the first time and played Alien Isolation afterwards. That was an amazing example of a game that really represented the ambience, notion and feel of the originals without being a carbon copy of it (even if they did rely overmuch on parallels in some parts and the general structure is surely more than inspired).

Though I suppose I must also give the point that I can’t think of an example of the game to movie pipeline that ended well. I’m sure someone will be able to share some positive experience there.

AlphaFold does a couple of things. It’s capability in predicting how a single protein will be folded tends to be quite nice, but organisms often rely on complex interactions between proteins. It has a feature to calculate the folding of two or more proteins with each other, which is incredibly important to understand more complex interactions in various processes in the human body, as well as drug interactions.

It is also easier to create a database of folding for all normal proteins in the human body. Any change in your DNA, which is somewhat more common than people think, can modify your proteins to one that has not been seen before, since many proteins can have chunks that don’t do anything but act as filler. Except, when those changes affect a bit that doesn’t act as filler or make the filler suddenly interact with other proteins or structures, like making the protein fold entirely differently or become hydrophobic where it shouldn’t be, then you’re in trouble.

These modified proteins need to be analyzed as well and when their primary function in your body is to interact with other proteins, then this multimer functionality is critical. And that certainly needs much more research, as it is very, very far from perfect.

You hit on a point there I really missed out on in my comment. Sims 2 had that perfect unique character of being weird and endearing at every corner. I feel like Sims 3 frankly was losing it already and by the times of Sims 4 it had just felt entirely corporate already.

The games used to have a very delightful degree of strangeness that was only aided in by the eccentric but utterly iconic music it ran with. I was rather young when I played Sims 1, so Sims 2 is my nostalgia home turf, but I love both of their soundtracks. Mark Mothersbaugh’s music in particular just puts me into an entire space of it’s own when I hear it. Don’t think there is music that more embodies the lightness of existence than that.

I miss the times when somehow they juggled making me feel like my Sims achievements are somewhat hard won and meaningful with the silliness of having my Sim dream of nothing but grilled cheese and living next door to plant people and aliens. Incarnations of Strangerville after Sims 2 just never quite hit the note that that game managed to nail.

I can pitch in that for me at least, Sims 4 was a large improvement in terms of the UI and UX in regards to both CAS and Build Mode. It has a lot of small stuff that makes the experience much more accessible for me, personally.

It also comes with a visual style that I myself quite prefer, but this is controversial itself.

I still find myself getting bored of actual play in Sims 4 rather quickly, since things just don’t feel like they require much investment at all anymore. Being a perfect all-rounder of a Sim is utterly trivial in Sims 4 while Sims 3 and 2 back then made me feel like I had to work for it quite a bit. It may just be me being more capable, who knows.

I’ll say, I can’t say the business model of any of these games has appealed to me. I have purchased the base games for all the titles in the series, but have chosen to experience the DLC in a more budget friendly way. Yar har, et al.

It’s a pity we’ve lost a lot of things that were great that they just didn’t feel like building on. The neighbourhoods in Sims 4 feel terrible and I wish we’d have found some way to make Create a Style from Sims 3 work without bogging down the performance quite as much. At the time when Sims 4 rolled around, I was also happy to swap as my PC at the time just couldn’t handle the game running smoothly anymore, either.

Sims 4 is not really a development that will do the series good in the long run, but it can’t be denied that it has some really great changes that for me at least make building and decorating buildings feel much more fun.

Either works, though the usage in the comic is certainly more archaic. But that’s also intentional, as it gives it a more grandiose and maniacal tone.

You make the claim that a will relies on some idea of chaos, which definitely requires some actual explanation.

The amount of choices one has is irrelevant in the comparison to random chance. If the person uses reason to decide for one of several options, they, in the most common sense, clearly have acted out of free will. Assuming that a free will exists in a physical universe, but we’re in metaphysics anyways.

I am not sure what it even means to create choices where there were none. If you end up making a decision, then it clearly was an option to begin with, by the definition of what that word means.

What pointing out the paradox here entails is that amongst the presumptions we made, at least one of them must be false. The argument used in the OP does not disprove the existence of some divine being at all and it’s not trying to. It’s trying to disprove the concept of a deity that has the three attributes of being all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. In the argument given, it is shown that at least one of these attributes is not present, given the observation of evil in the world.

Your comparison to light being described as a particle and a wave is to your own detriment. The topic of this duality arose in the first place from the fact that our classical particle based models of the universe began to become insufficient to correctly predict behaviours that had been newly observed. A new model was created that can handle the problem. The reason this is a weak argument here is that no physicist would ever claim that the models describe the world precisely. Physical models are analogies that attempt to explain the world around us in terms humans can understand.

In your last question, you make the mistake of misunderstanding the argument once again. You grant the person omnipotence and leave it at that. The argument is arguing about the combination of omnipotence, omniscience and all-lovingness. The last of these deals with your question directly, explaining the drive to make the changes in question. The other two grant the ability to do so without limitation.

This chart isn’t reducing that much at all. It’s explaining a precise chain of reasoning. It may or may not be missing some options, but you haven’t named any so far that weren’t fallacies.