24:36 I wanted to dig into this a bit further, so I used the Monte Carlo Method (100,000 simulations) to calculate the chance of each roll being as good as, or better than, it was. All calculations are based on 'true random' dice. Unfortunately for Pete, black's loss of 29 on a 25 cap (or getting a better roll) is actually more probable than a loss of 3 on a 6 cap (or a better roll) (about 12.6% to 9.5%). As the number of cap troops increases, the mean of the number of attacking troops lost increases at a greater rate. However, the variance of the number of troops lost also grows. This results in a higher chance for good rolls than one might initially think. There is about a 6% of getting an even (or better) role on a 25 cap. And even for a 50 troop cap, there is a ~1.5% chance of breaking even (or better) when attacking in true random. (This was only simulated 10,000 times so is less accurate) Having said all that, Pete is right regarding a higher number of troops. For example, consider 26:26, in 10,000 simulations, not a single one managed to win a 1250 troop cap with less than a 1250 troop loss, let alone a 950 troop loss. If anyone wants to check the percentages for yourselves, I'd recommend using the Risk blitz calculator. Just put the number of troops lost + 3 as the troops on the attacking territory (1 left behind, 2 to guarentee always rolling 3 die per attack). This will give a slight overestimate on the probability of loosing that number of troops, but becomes much more accurate for higher troop values.
yeah dude a six cap only costing three troops is highly unlikely. But just another example of the frequency we see the dice behaving strangely because of balanced blitz
43:28 about chess. IMO, you don't really need to be smart to play or appreciate chess. Nowadays, at the high level, as far as I know, chess is about fast pattern recognition and memorization. With fast pattern recognition you can detect that in current position there are advantageous moves to win material or checkmate the opponent. That's what chess puzzles are for. And good memory are required for openings. Super GMs and GMs study thousands of different opening variations, and certain endgames of 7 or less pieces/pawns are mathematically proven to have certain outcome. You just have to like the game, and not be bummed about losing a lot. Chess is more approachable than you think. Look up Tyler1's chess progress. He's a buffy dude, and objectively not considered to be a bright bulb, but he's been having a huge success in his chess career right now! This proves that you don't have to be a genius, you just have to play, fail and learn.
Definitely. If Pete really just thinks he "isn't smart enough" he should definitely try to learn. Probably doesn't need as much "smarts" as Risk. But I bet the reason is more that chess is slower paced, even in blitz/bullet.
@@JD2jr. yeah, in the beginning, it's not going to be fun to watch, and commentate and play at the same time would be impossible, but it's certainly approachable for anyone who are interested in the game.
@@JD2jr. no, I'm saying for Pete, if he's going to start. 😅 Of course it's possible to commentate (a great example is Daniel Naroditsky), but I was talking if Pete were to try doing chess stream, it would be hard to commentate on what's going on.
I'm a regular and (fairly strong by most people's standards) passable chess player. Pete is 100% smart enough to play chess. I imagine he could be quite good at it, although starting young gives you an advantage. It takes some patience if you want to lay a solid foundation though. Edit: In fact, patience, putting in the work, and a decent curriculum are probably the most important things.
After watching a lot of games from you , Kyle and Olive I have finally cracked the noobery dilemma and now I am gm sitting on almost 32 k points . Keep up the good strats Pete❤
44:50 100% Agree, I don't like watching sports, but participating in activities is different. I enjoy the active participation. during the pandemic I finally got into watching like other people playing games, like Chess and now RIsk, but that stemmed from getting into watching sudoku while pandemic as well. it's wild. I still don't watch people play D&D or Magic two of the hobbies I do. 53:00 Out of Nowhere! What an Ending.
I just think most sports are super boring to watch, and I never got invested in having any allegiance to any particular teams so there isn't even that aspect to make it interesting for me. I do like watching people play board games because they are way more interesting than most sports.
I was playing field in baseball. Got hit right in the chest by a ball. Somehow caught it. I absolutely was paying attention to the grasshopper instead.
Hey Pete I really enjoyed the sports talk and your baseball story - did you ever listen to Fireworks by the Hip? “You said you didn’t give a FUCK about hockey - and I never saw someone say THAT before,” hehe
Always baffles me why people try so hard to differentiate between people as animals and say people are somehow "special" Do I treat humans and animals differently? Sure. But fundamentally most things are transferable in terms of lessons you can learn and use.
Humans are simply superior. You can't eat animals, breed them, cage them, pet them, castrate them; then turnaround and say we are equal. No other species has that much control over the environment, we are changing the earth in ways can only be compared to "Acts of God". Before you take me out of context, I'm not saying you can't love animals, or that we shouldn't protect the environment.
Man, I'm struggling in ranked FFA. I'm probably making simple mistakes and i just don't know it. Especially in choosing the right cap, and my negotiation skills are probably poor. I also feel as if i just get hated out of the game as well, or just get bad dice, the way it goes i suppose. Keep up the great work Pete.
When watching Pete play this mode I've started pausing at the video start and trying to figure out which cap I would choose and why, and then getting immediate feedback on whether it was a good idea or not once I start the video. I've gotten way better at choosing good caps by doing this. I'm now closer to 90% in agreement with Pete about where I would cap when I use to be like 40% in agreement.
Hi Pete. Why did you kill orange in Africa at 10:55 instead of treating it like the kill card you mentioned that both magenta and black had? I realize it wouldn't have been guarded by a capital but it still seems it may have been useful. Because at least one person knew it was there?
It wouldn't have been guarded at all. That territory in Africa connects to 2 territories to the right. Pete would have to put off-cap stacks on 2 territories to even have a chance of gaurding, and that's way too many off-cap troops. Also that fact that it's not a capital matters a TON. Pretty much nobody can get by a well defended capital when trying to make a kill, but it's easy to punch through a non-cap stack. Plus once the sets get big enough orange could make a comeback with a single set and punch back up. That could never happen when guarding with a strong cap.
For the 5 round rumble tournament what about a handicap based on turn position. The later your turn position the higher the handicap. The handicap would be a % of the territories of that map are discounted from your total. For example On a 40 territory map Position 1 no handicap Position 2 5% handicap so 2 territories are subtracted from their total at the end Position 3 10% handicap so 4 territories are subtracted P4 15% -6t P5 20% -8t P6 25% -10t These numbers are arbitrary obviously, just an example.
We can't see through the fog so using the way the game scores it is ideal. But I hear you otherwise. If we had a sandbox mode we could do so much here.
@@FreePete ah gotcha, the damn fog! You’d need access to post game statistics to apply the scoring , post game statistics would be a cool feature but definitely on the bottom of the list of things they should work on.
There is extremely strong evidence for a creator. Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. The universe is made up of time, space and matter. Whatever caused time, space and matter to begin must therefore exist outside of all 3. This is the definition of God. Occam's razor then narrows our explanation down to a single creator, otherwise you have multiplied explanations beyond necessity. There are only 3 monotheistic religions in the world.... all are related and 2 are extremely closely related: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You can posit an impersonal "God" or that there exists a God outside of world religion, but you are then admitting to God's existence, the existence of which you have no evidence in.
Was it Aquinas who first came up with the casual argument for god? Faith requires no evidence. And I think it's totally ok to admit to ourselves that we believe things based on faith rather than evidence or proof. I think this is where a lot of people get tripped up with their beliefs in the spiritual. We are trying to apply an evidence-based system like science to understand our faith instead of just resigning ourselves to faith. I'm not remotely interested in arguing proof of god because I think it's impossible at best and rude at worst. This is why I say I'm totally ok with what anyone else believes and I hope and expect them to be ok with (accepting, tolerant, loving) what I believe. So I not only admit that I believe based on no evidence but I see it as necessary.
@@FreePete I can respect that. I think we start from different perspectives on faith requiring evidence or not. I always demand evidence for my beliefs and I would venture to say you also have a threshold, however minimal, for what you believe as well. To some degree our belief system must at least make more sense to us than an alternative and experience is very much a part of the scientific method.
We have no evidence for either Premise 1 or Premise 2 (if you think we do, it's probably stemming from your misunderstanding of what Big Bang theory claims). Also even if both premises were accurate and thus your conclusion was accurate, there is absolutely no way I would accept God as the simplest explanation. Not even close.
@@thenonsequitur Did you know that experience is part of the scientific method. So I would love to hear of a thing that began to exist which doesn't have a cause. To your second point: I never said God is the simplest explanation, but I can tell you it is currently the only possible one. You seem to like disagreeing while offering no alternative explanation or counter-evidence for any statement you disagree with. Name a premise you disagree with and offer counter-evidence. Or perhaps you can think of something outside time, space and matter that could create all 3.
@@swentworth Whether I know of anything that begins to exist but has no cause is not relevant, as I was not claiming that I do. My claim was that we can't prove that there is nothing that begins to exist without a cause. Being unable to provide a counterexample is not proof. A counterexample could exist that I do not know about. So I won't accept that as a premise. But it's really premise 2 I have a much bigger problem with. We definitely don't know if the universe began to exist. It's quite possible the universe has always existed. So I definitely won't accept that as a premise. Also, I don't need to provide an alternative explanation for something to reject an explanation that is wrong. I don't need to explain anything about the origins of time, space, and matter to reject the notion that "God did it", as that claim has neither any evidence for it nor any explanatory power.
Ha!! I agree Baseball is mind numbingly stupid. What do you think about combat sports? Grappling more specifically? BJJ or Wrestling. Mental and physical chess.
I really enjoyed jiu jitsu, not only for the strategic component but I also really liked how totally exhausting it is. Great way to get out a lot of energy.
Your baseball story... I'm sorry. I almost agree with you but not quite. Somewhere, someone was just like you and said no one can make a slower, more boring game, and some guy went "Hold my beer." He then decided to force the pitcher to throw underhand and use a bigger ball and screw around to create a game like baseball but even slower. Thankfully, they added a mercy rule so if you're losing badly enough you can end the game early. Baseball is bad, yes, but softball is SO much worse.
There is actually much more observed scientific data supporting intelligent design vs. almost none that supports evolution. Adaptation is supported and true. Also to say you respect others opinions but then label them as stories and your opinion as based on facts doesn’t seem like a serious show of respect. Love your videos and your dialogue thanks for putting yourself out there
My opinion is not based on fact. I must have failed to make that clear. Observed scientific evidence and faith are incompatible concepts. What I'm saying is: that's ok. I think people get tripped up with the language. I would never use a word like evidence to describe a belief a person takes on faith because it is neither required nor is it even possible.
@@FreePete It all comes down to, what are you even trying to prove scientifically? If you're proving something that's unbiblical then of course science and faith are incompatible. Assuming objective truth exists and assuming creator God is a logical being and assuming God is perfect, the whole universe can be put under scientific scrutiny without even an error to be found. People have to be clear about what they are trying to prove and what their assumptions are. ”Ex nihilo nihil fit.“ From nothing but nothing. We are living proof for creative design.
14:25, that was disgusting Pete. You should give it back out of pity for the dice. Lol This has to be the most important fix they need to work on when they migrate servers, imho.
24:50 yes, it is massively different to get a positive roll on a low value compared to a high value capital. As the troop value increases, the expected value for loss goes way up for the attackers. On a low cap, you'd only need to roll better than your opponent once or twice. On 25 you need to roll better than them like 8 times to go positive. I really need to make that calculator for the community... biggest issue I have had is I don't know what percent they round up to a guaranteed roll.
@@connorskudlarek8598 Wouldn't the Expected Value remain the same proportionately? With higher numbers it would be the variance/s.d that becomes narrower and more refined, i.e. the probability of positive rolls decreases?
@@mathpd4356 correct. Slightly misleading terminology was used by me. There is the expected value based on the math used to formulate the probability curve (how SMG says it's calculated). Then there is the expected value based on what the statistics indicate for the true probability curve (how SMG actually coded it). What I meant is that it would not be statistically significant to see a low capital get rolled with very little troop loss (true for both the intended probability and the true probability). Even a positive roll should happen from time to time. But seeing a higher capital get rolled with minimal troop loss (especially positive) is well outside the probability curve. This is still fine, it should happen from time to time. Just like flipping 10 heads in a row out of 10 flips, or getting a Yahtzee, or an ace-high royal flush, should happen from time to time. The issue is how frequent it happens vs how frequent the probability says it should happen. It happens at a much greater rate than it ought to, which means the rules SMG says governs the rolls does not actually do so. Rather an approximating function is used, and that function poorly approximates the losses in favor of the attacker.
Besides all of this evolution crap that I do disagree with, I do like it a lot that you are thinking and talking about philosophy. I guess that's how the algorithm found me you, Pete Anyway, very disappointed for you of how the game turned out and what Black did to your off-cap stack. The suspense is ever just immense, Pete.
Biologically, humans are born extrauterin premature. Meaning, they lack any tools other mammals have when they are born. Most mammals can walk, have better stength or can do other things a short time after they are born. Humans are basically helpless and don't have any specific "tools" like claws or sharp teeth or eyes that can see in darkness and so on. But we have a larynx that enables us to build a variety of different sounds, a cerebral cortex which allows us to learn fast and coordinate our motions and hands which are not strong or sharp, but allows for mulifunctional use. The advantage of being born early and being neary helpless is, the great adaptability. Humans are basically learning machines compared to animals. Thanks to our brain, we are able to understand causal connections and we are able to act on moral principles (however they may be shaped). The human is probably the only creature on this planet who can imagine something and then try to implement it in reality (like the dream of flying and constructing a machine to fly).
I believe that we are rational animals rather than just animals which is why it is important to save a human life rather that a cow or a dog. The line of thinking that we are all animals would lead us all to be vegan or lead us to devalue human life. This line of thinking could lead to the experimentation of humans but this thinking could be wrong. And just for honesty's sake, I am religious.
why would valuing non-human life devalue human life? I think the opposite it true, it's very hard for dehumanization to work when you don't think of non-humans as inferior. dehumanization is something you see happen every time a minority gets targeted. every single genocide starts with dehumanization. if you believe in protecting all beings that means _all_ including _all humans_. human supremacist thinking on the other hand creates fertile ground for other kinds of supremacist and bigoted beliefs, as history shows us over and over again. and it leads to self-destructive behavior where we destroy the ecosystems we belong to and rely upon for survival because we cannot see ourselves as part of them.
@@elenna_alexia It is an important distinction to make that humans have the duty to take care of nature and all the creatures in it but it is also important to realize that human life is more important than animal life at least from a religious perspective.
For starters, reason and sentience separate humans from animals. 😂 honestly, it astounds me when smart people say foolish things like this. Then again wisdom and intellect are not the same thing.
@@FreePete i completely agree but we cant say the big bang theory or evolution is fact that's my pov anyways it could be something know one has ever suggested. p.s big fan of your work
key word is educated. and they're only guesses if you really stretch the meaning of the word. If i tell you the sun will rise again tomorrow, would that be considered a guess? An educated guess? Something else? Heck, if i told you the sun rose this morning, is that also just a guess? Maybe Im confused and just think it did. Maybe a wizard is tricking me into thinking it did? Anything is possible *spooky fingers* Also the bit about 'missing links' is just a rehash of zeno's paradox. Let's say we have two fossil remains of early hominids, one from 100K years ago and another from 150K years ago with no remains known from the time period between them. Someone does an expedition and finds some remains that date to 125K years ago. We just found the missing link between the two sets of remains! Yay! But wait, now there's two missing links (from 150K to 125K years ago, and from 125K to 100K years ago). Did our knowledge of the evolution of early hominids actually get worse by finding new evidence? No. It got better. It only seems like it got worse because you've used rhetoric to make an increasing amount of knowledge seem like its opposite.
@@invisiblechains969 How much evidence does something need to have backing it before it is considered known? Evolution either exists or doesn't, its just up to us to determine what is true, so we look for evidence that evolution exists. We have found a ton of evidence that it does exist, that this explains nearly all of the biological phenomena that we see in the world. And we know the mechanisms by which evolution works. We have even demonstrated evolution in practice with breeding animals, cultivating crops, fighting diseases etc.
@@billybob-uz6wzi would argue that we still largely run on instinct. I have a long list of examples but i think that the vast majority of what we do comes down to instinct, even if it seems more complex.
19:50 I had this very same thing happen to me. I was in the very final stages of a game of 6 people in Europe advanced progressive capitals. It was just the 2 of us left playing and I was fairly confident of the victory. Suddenly, the board completely reset, and only the 2 of us remained and were playing against the 4 bots. I was seriously annoyed about it, and I lost all concentration and came second in a game I was going to win
Pete's name before that ball hit him was Peter. His parents knew he was a one syllable kid after that.
Man that 10 stack fortify was a next level tactic, full of golden bits of info as usual Pete , thanks sir
24:36 I wanted to dig into this a bit further, so I used the Monte Carlo Method (100,000 simulations) to calculate the chance of each roll being as good as, or better than, it was. All calculations are based on 'true random' dice.
Unfortunately for Pete, black's loss of 29 on a 25 cap (or getting a better roll) is actually more probable than a loss of 3 on a 6 cap (or a better roll) (about 12.6% to 9.5%).
As the number of cap troops increases, the mean of the number of attacking troops lost increases at a greater rate. However, the variance of the number of troops lost also grows. This results in a higher chance for good rolls than one might initially think.
There is about a 6% of getting an even (or better) role on a 25 cap. And even for a 50 troop cap, there is a ~1.5% chance of breaking even (or better) when attacking in true random. (This was only simulated 10,000 times so is less accurate)
Having said all that, Pete is right regarding a higher number of troops. For example, consider 26:26, in 10,000 simulations, not a single one managed to win a 1250 troop cap with less than a 1250 troop loss, let alone a 950 troop loss.
If anyone wants to check the percentages for yourselves, I'd recommend using the Risk blitz calculator. Just put the number of troops lost + 3 as the troops on the attacking territory (1 left behind, 2 to guarentee always rolling 3 die per attack). This will give a slight overestimate on the probability of loosing that number of troops, but becomes much more accurate for higher troop values.
yeah dude a six cap only costing three troops is highly unlikely. But just another example of the frequency we see the dice behaving strangely because of balanced blitz
43:28 about chess. IMO, you don't really need to be smart to play or appreciate chess. Nowadays, at the high level, as far as I know, chess is about fast pattern recognition and memorization. With fast pattern recognition you can detect that in current position there are advantageous moves to win material or checkmate the opponent. That's what chess puzzles are for. And good memory are required for openings. Super GMs and GMs study thousands of different opening variations, and certain endgames of 7 or less pieces/pawns are mathematically proven to have certain outcome.
You just have to like the game, and not be bummed about losing a lot. Chess is more approachable than you think. Look up Tyler1's chess progress. He's a buffy dude, and objectively not considered to be a bright bulb, but he's been having a huge success in his chess career right now! This proves that you don't have to be a genius, you just have to play, fail and learn.
Definitely. If Pete really just thinks he "isn't smart enough" he should definitely try to learn. Probably doesn't need as much "smarts" as Risk. But I bet the reason is more that chess is slower paced, even in blitz/bullet.
@@JD2jr. yeah, in the beginning, it's not going to be fun to watch, and commentate and play at the same time would be impossible, but it's certainly approachable for anyone who are interested in the game.
@@McHorsesCreations definitely not impossible to commentate. There are likely more chess youtubers than Risk ones.
@@JD2jr. no, I'm saying for Pete, if he's going to start. 😅
Of course it's possible to commentate (a great example is Daniel Naroditsky), but I was talking if Pete were to try doing chess stream, it would be hard to commentate on what's going on.
I'm a regular and (fairly strong by most people's standards) passable chess player. Pete is 100% smart enough to play chess. I imagine he could be quite good at it, although starting young gives you an advantage.
It takes some patience if you want to lay a solid foundation though.
Edit: In fact, patience, putting in the work, and a decent curriculum are probably the most important things.
Damn Pete, that off cap 10 to fortify was such a beautiful strategy. I’m gonna keep that one in my back pocket.
where?
@@TheModeler99 21:25, was a really slick move
Rule number four. Don't force trade your joker. Because that would be stupid! 😂 Great vid Pete! 🎉🎉🎉
Today I am Grandmaster after learning a lot from you thank you Mr Pete
Well done! Welcome to the ranks bro!
After watching a lot of games from you , Kyle and Olive I have finally cracked the noobery dilemma and now I am gm sitting on almost 32 k points . Keep up the good strats Pete❤
Very nice! Welcome to the top of the mountain!
I am Parley von Strop (I used my auto generated risk name for discord) thanks for sharing your take. It was shocking hearing my risk name out loud
44:50 100% Agree, I don't like watching sports, but participating in activities is different. I enjoy the active participation. during the pandemic I finally got into watching like other people playing games, like Chess and now RIsk, but that stemmed from getting into watching sudoku while pandemic as well. it's wild. I still don't watch people play D&D or Magic two of the hobbies I do.
53:00 Out of Nowhere! What an Ending.
I just think most sports are super boring to watch, and I never got invested in having any allegiance to any particular teams so there isn't even that aspect to make it interesting for me. I do like watching people play board games because they are way more interesting than most sports.
I was playing field in baseball. Got hit right in the chest by a ball. Somehow caught it. I absolutely was paying attention to the grasshopper instead.
Had to toss a like just for the intro alone
The cackling zoom ins are top tier lol
24:16 You have a very good Toad impression 🤣 (take it as a complement)
Or at least SMG4 toad
Hey Pete I really enjoyed the sports talk and your baseball story - did you ever listen to Fireworks by the Hip? “You said you didn’t give a FUCK about hockey - and I never saw someone say THAT before,” hehe
14:18 😂😂
Always baffles me why people try so hard to differentiate between people as animals and say people are somehow "special"
Do I treat humans and animals differently? Sure. But fundamentally most things are transferable in terms of lessons you can learn and use.
People's ego craves a story that tells them they're special. It's a lot of really advanced post-hoc rationalization
@@FreePete That’s certainly a plausible explanation. 👍
Humans are simply superior. You can't eat animals, breed them, cage them, pet them, castrate them; then turnaround and say we are equal. No other species has that much control over the environment, we are changing the earth in ways can only be compared to "Acts of God".
Before you take me out of context, I'm not saying you can't love animals, or that we shouldn't protect the environment.
Man, I'm struggling in ranked FFA. I'm probably making simple mistakes and i just don't know it. Especially in choosing the right cap, and my negotiation skills are probably poor. I also feel as if i just get hated out of the game as well, or just get bad dice, the way it goes i suppose. Keep up the great work Pete.
When watching Pete play this mode I've started pausing at the video start and trying to figure out which cap I would choose and why, and then getting immediate feedback on whether it was a good idea or not once I start the video. I've gotten way better at choosing good caps by doing this. I'm now closer to 90% in agreement with Pete about where I would cap when I use to be like 40% in agreement.
My brain greatly appreciates that intro!!!❤
Hi Pete, thanks to you I started playing:
...and I've also been Sue slamming back every #¥£€N player repeatedly breaking my "bono" 😂😂
GO GET EM!
Hi Pete. Why did you kill orange in Africa at 10:55 instead of treating it like the kill card you mentioned that both magenta and black had? I realize it wouldn't have been guarded by a capital but it still seems it may have been useful. Because at least one person knew it was there?
It wouldn't have been guarded at all. That territory in Africa connects to 2 territories to the right. Pete would have to put off-cap stacks on 2 territories to even have a chance of gaurding, and that's way too many off-cap troops.
Also that fact that it's not a capital matters a TON. Pretty much nobody can get by a well defended capital when trying to make a kill, but it's easy to punch through a non-cap stack. Plus once the sets get big enough orange could make a comeback with a single set and punch back up. That could never happen when guarding with a strong cap.
13:47. Perfect way to state it
For the 5 round rumble tournament what about a handicap based on turn position. The later your turn position the higher the handicap. The handicap would be a % of the territories of that map are discounted from your total. For example
On a 40 territory map
Position 1 no handicap
Position 2 5% handicap so 2 territories are subtracted from their total at the end
Position 3 10% handicap so 4 territories are subtracted
P4 15% -6t
P5 20% -8t
P6 25% -10t
These numbers are arbitrary obviously, just an example.
We can't see through the fog so using the way the game scores it is ideal. But I hear you otherwise. If we had a sandbox mode we could do so much here.
@@FreePete ah gotcha, the damn fog! You’d need access to post game statistics to apply the scoring , post game statistics would be a cool feature but definitely on the bottom of the list of things they should work on.
There is extremely strong evidence for a creator. Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. The universe is made up of time, space and matter. Whatever caused time, space and matter to begin must therefore exist outside of all 3. This is the definition of God. Occam's razor then narrows our explanation down to a single creator, otherwise you have multiplied explanations beyond necessity. There are only 3 monotheistic religions in the world.... all are related and 2 are extremely closely related: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You can posit an impersonal "God" or that there exists a God outside of world religion, but you are then admitting to God's existence, the existence of which you have no evidence in.
Was it Aquinas who first came up with the casual argument for god?
Faith requires no evidence. And I think it's totally ok to admit to ourselves that we believe things based on faith rather than evidence or proof. I think this is where a lot of people get tripped up with their beliefs in the spiritual. We are trying to apply an evidence-based system like science to understand our faith instead of just resigning ourselves to faith.
I'm not remotely interested in arguing proof of god because I think it's impossible at best and rude at worst. This is why I say I'm totally ok with what anyone else believes and I hope and expect them to be ok with (accepting, tolerant, loving) what I believe.
So I not only admit that I believe based on no evidence but I see it as necessary.
@@FreePete I can respect that. I think we start from different perspectives on faith requiring evidence or not. I always demand evidence for my beliefs and I would venture to say you also have a threshold, however minimal, for what you believe as well. To some degree our belief system must at least make more sense to us than an alternative and experience is very much a part of the scientific method.
We have no evidence for either Premise 1 or Premise 2 (if you think we do, it's probably stemming from your misunderstanding of what Big Bang theory claims). Also even if both premises were accurate and thus your conclusion was accurate, there is absolutely no way I would accept God as the simplest explanation. Not even close.
@@thenonsequitur Did you know that experience is part of the scientific method. So I would love to hear of a thing that began to exist which doesn't have a cause.
To your second point: I never said God is the simplest explanation, but I can tell you it is currently the only possible one.
You seem to like disagreeing while offering no alternative explanation or counter-evidence for any statement you disagree with. Name a premise you disagree with and offer counter-evidence. Or perhaps you can think of something outside time, space and matter that could create all 3.
@@swentworth Whether I know of anything that begins to exist but has no cause is not relevant, as I was not claiming that I do. My claim was that we can't prove that there is nothing that begins to exist without a cause. Being unable to provide a counterexample is not proof. A counterexample could exist that I do not know about. So I won't accept that as a premise.
But it's really premise 2 I have a much bigger problem with. We definitely don't know if the universe began to exist. It's quite possible the universe has always existed. So I definitely won't accept that as a premise.
Also, I don't need to provide an alternative explanation for something to reject an explanation that is wrong. I don't need to explain anything about the origins of time, space, and matter to reject the notion that "God did it", as that claim has neither any evidence for it nor any explanatory power.
Ha!! I agree Baseball is mind numbingly stupid. What do you think about combat sports? Grappling more specifically? BJJ or Wrestling. Mental and physical chess.
I really enjoyed jiu jitsu, not only for the strategic component but I also really liked how totally exhausting it is. Great way to get out a lot of energy.
At 12:30 you said it was spicy he wiped out the kill guard....but the turn just before you wiped out the kill guard you had just the same?
Your baseball story... I'm sorry. I almost agree with you but not quite. Somewhere, someone was just like you and said no one can make a slower, more boring game, and some guy went "Hold my beer." He then decided to force the pitcher to throw underhand and use a bigger ball and screw around to create a game like baseball but even slower. Thankfully, they added a mercy rule so if you're losing badly enough you can end the game early. Baseball is bad, yes, but softball is SO much worse.
I had that reset thing happen. 4 out of players had botted before it and I ended up 1v1 against a gm in europe advanced. It was weird
What was the logic behind not breaking black's bonuses after stealing his cap?
shoulda gone for turn 1 north africa, also i had the same situation a while ago where i was around 30 minutes into my game then it just reset?
I once had someone go positive rolling my 2100+ troop capital. 💀
What are the odds of that? In the quadrillions?
Gaming and sports are the same thing to me. Its all about the competition for me
An interesting challenge would be never leaving more than 1 troop on any capital (your original capital OR any new ones you get).
The 'Play as a super aggro Noob' challenge?
@@FreePete Exactly! Quite the challenge to win as a super aggro noob, after all!
*the real cure is the friends we've made along the way🃏*
Don’t forget the 4th rule: Have good dice!
There is actually much more observed scientific data supporting intelligent design vs. almost none that supports evolution. Adaptation is supported and true.
Also to say you respect others opinions but then label them as stories and your opinion as based on facts doesn’t seem like a serious show of respect.
Love your videos and your dialogue thanks for putting yourself out there
My opinion is not based on fact.
I must have failed to make that clear.
Observed scientific evidence and faith are incompatible concepts.
What I'm saying is: that's ok.
I think people get tripped up with the language.
I would never use a word like evidence to describe a belief a person takes on faith because it is neither required nor is it even possible.
@@FreePete It all comes down to, what are you even trying to prove scientifically? If you're proving something that's unbiblical then of course science and faith are incompatible.
Assuming objective truth exists and assuming creator God is a logical being and assuming God is perfect, the whole universe can be put under scientific scrutiny without even an error to be found.
People have to be clear about what they are trying to prove and what their assumptions are. ”Ex nihilo nihil fit.“ From nothing but nothing. We are living proof for creative design.
14:25, that was disgusting Pete. You should give it back out of pity for the dice. Lol
This has to be the most important fix they need to work on when they migrate servers, imho.
24:50 yes, it is massively different to get a positive roll on a low value compared to a high value capital. As the troop value increases, the expected value for loss goes way up for the attackers. On a low cap, you'd only need to roll better than your opponent once or twice. On 25 you need to roll better than them like 8 times to go positive.
I really need to make that calculator for the community... biggest issue I have had is I don't know what percent they round up to a guaranteed roll.
@@connorskudlarek8598 Wouldn't the Expected Value remain the same proportionately? With higher numbers it would be the variance/s.d that becomes narrower and more refined, i.e. the probability of positive rolls decreases?
@@mathpd4356 correct. Slightly misleading terminology was used by me. There is the expected value based on the math used to formulate the probability curve (how SMG says it's calculated). Then there is the expected value based on what the statistics indicate for the true probability curve (how SMG actually coded it).
What I meant is that it would not be statistically significant to see a low capital get rolled with very little troop loss (true for both the intended probability and the true probability). Even a positive roll should happen from time to time.
But seeing a higher capital get rolled with minimal troop loss (especially positive) is well outside the probability curve. This is still fine, it should happen from time to time. Just like flipping 10 heads in a row out of 10 flips, or getting a Yahtzee, or an ace-high royal flush, should happen from time to time.
The issue is how frequent it happens vs how frequent the probability says it should happen. It happens at a much greater rate than it ought to, which means the rules SMG says governs the rolls does not actually do so. Rather an approximating function is used, and that function poorly approximates the losses in favor of the attacker.
Besides all of this evolution crap that I do disagree with, I do like it a lot that you are thinking and talking about philosophy. I guess that's how the algorithm found me you, Pete
Anyway, very disappointed for you of how the game turned out and what Black did to your off-cap stack. The suspense is ever just immense, Pete.
I'm sure he was ready for what would happen if he smacked a 200 stack. 🤣🤣🤣 I'm happy with that
I had the reboot when it was heads up and all other players were bots and we played a heads up 4 bot game
I had that reset glitch twice in one game. Bloody annoying.
Sorry to hear it. It hasn't happened to me yet.
Moving objects from here to there huh… OH MY GOODNESS HE MOVED THE OFF CAP STACK ONTO HIS CAP WHAT A PLAY
Hehe love ya bud
oh 100%
I see Pete has watched George Carlin's joke about global warming!
Biologically, humans are born extrauterin premature. Meaning, they lack any tools other mammals have when they are born. Most mammals can walk, have better stength or can do other things a short time after they are born. Humans are basically helpless and don't have any specific "tools" like claws or sharp teeth or eyes that can see in darkness and so on. But we have a larynx that enables us to build a variety of different sounds, a cerebral cortex which allows us to learn fast and coordinate our motions and hands which are not strong or sharp, but allows for mulifunctional use.
The advantage of being born early and being neary helpless is, the great adaptability. Humans are basically learning machines compared to animals.
Thanks to our brain, we are able to understand causal connections and we are able to act on moral principles (however they may be shaped).
The human is probably the only creature on this planet who can imagine something and then try to implement it in reality (like the dream of flying and constructing a machine to fly).
I take it you’re not a big Shorey or letterkenny fan then eh?
I believe that we are rational animals rather than just animals which is why it is important to save a human life rather that a cow or a dog. The line of thinking that we are all animals would lead us all to be vegan or lead us to devalue human life. This line of thinking could lead to the experimentation of humans but this thinking could be wrong. And just for honesty's sake, I am religious.
why would valuing non-human life devalue human life? I think the opposite it true, it's very hard for dehumanization to work when you don't think of non-humans as inferior. dehumanization is something you see happen every time a minority gets targeted. every single genocide starts with dehumanization. if you believe in protecting all beings that means _all_ including _all humans_. human supremacist thinking on the other hand creates fertile ground for other kinds of supremacist and bigoted beliefs, as history shows us over and over again. and it leads to self-destructive behavior where we destroy the ecosystems we belong to and rely upon for survival because we cannot see ourselves as part of them.
@@elenna_alexia It is an important distinction to make that humans have the duty to take care of nature and all the creatures in it but it is also important to realize that human life is more important than animal life at least from a religious perspective.
06:57 The Risk android is glitching
hahaha
I respect petes right to have an opinion and i respect petes opinion. Hes yet to say something i disagree with afaik
His take on death penalty is a little spicy imo.
Pete. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus walked this earth.
Amen
بيت العشق❤
For starters, reason and sentience separate humans from animals. 😂 honestly, it astounds me when smart people say foolish things like this. Then again wisdom and intellect are not the same thing.
indeed
@@FreePete big fan by the way.😅👍
I don't know what the cure to cancer is but the cure to my boredom is some EUROPPPEEEEE ADVANCEDD PROGRESSIVE CAPITALSSSSSS
Black don't garde the kill next time 😂😂
many missing links in the evolution theory like all theories there just educated guesses
Educated guesses is how we come to learn anything
@@FreePete i completely agree but we cant say the big bang theory or evolution is fact that's my pov anyways it could be something know one has ever suggested. p.s big fan of your work
key word is educated. and they're only guesses if you really stretch the meaning of the word. If i tell you the sun will rise again tomorrow, would that be considered a guess? An educated guess? Something else? Heck, if i told you the sun rose this morning, is that also just a guess? Maybe Im confused and just think it did. Maybe a wizard is tricking me into thinking it did? Anything is possible *spooky fingers*
Also the bit about 'missing links' is just a rehash of zeno's paradox. Let's say we have two fossil remains of early hominids, one from 100K years ago and another from 150K years ago with no remains known from the time period between them. Someone does an expedition and finds some remains that date to 125K years ago. We just found the missing link between the two sets of remains! Yay! But wait, now there's two missing links (from 150K to 125K years ago, and from 125K to 100K years ago). Did our knowledge of the evolution of early hominids actually get worse by finding new evidence? No. It got better. It only seems like it got worse because you've used rhetoric to make an increasing amount of knowledge seem like its opposite.
@@invisiblechains969 Yeah man. Talking to a philosopher about fact tends to lead to a very long conversation
@@invisiblechains969 How much evidence does something need to have backing it before it is considered known? Evolution either exists or doesn't, its just up to us to determine what is true, so we look for evidence that evolution exists. We have found a ton of evidence that it does exist, that this explains nearly all of the biological phenomena that we see in the world. And we know the mechanisms by which evolution works. We have even demonstrated evolution in practice with breeding animals, cultivating crops, fighting diseases etc.
Surgery 👌
Tell me you were drunk? 😅 omg
The divine spark of God seperates us from animals.
I could be completely ignorant but is that a planet of the ape quote, If its from the bible I'm sorry
But.. we are animals. We're not separate, we are the dominant species on this planet though.
@@Magiciantao I think it's because some people use animal interchangeably with "beast", something wild and driven predominantly by instinct.
@@billybob-uz6wzi would argue that we still largely run on instinct. I have a long list of examples but i think that the vast majority of what we do comes down to instinct, even if it seems more complex.
😂
I still think Ukraine is the worst capital place
Sevastopol?
@@FreePeteyea that little chunk under Ukraine with one capital card and a difficult bonus to maintain
Ive never disagreed with you more than in this video
but in what way?
@@FreePete hating sports
19:50 I had this very same thing happen to me. I was in the very final stages of a game of 6 people in Europe advanced progressive capitals. It was just the 2 of us left playing and I was fairly confident of the victory. Suddenly, the board completely reset, and only the 2 of us remained and were playing against the 4 bots. I was seriously annoyed about it, and I lost all concentration and came second in a game I was going to win