About four months ago news about a breakthrough wormhole simulation made the news, however as per this submission a recent analysis of the data suggests it may have been misinterpretted:

> Now another group of physicists has analyzed the result and determined that, while the experiment may have produced something vaguely wormhole-like, it wasn’t really a holographic wormhole in any meaningful sense. In light of the new analysis, independent researchers are coming to doubt that the teleportation experiment has anything to do with gravity after all.

I'd probably look at the highest-rated games on Steam with the "point & click" tag if I were you. There's still a lot of variety there, some of which probably wouldn't be of interest to her, but you can find games that fit every single one of your criteria there.

k

Oh, absolutely. Animal Crossing: New Horizons sort of spits in the face of the Switch's reputation as a "family" or "party" console.

Animal Crossing on the N64, DS, and 3DS were limited to one save/island due to technical limitations, but you can have multiple saves/islands on a single memory card for Animal Crossing on the GameCube if you use a memory card with more than 512K. There are no technical limitations on the Switch though, the "one island per Switch console" policy is totally arbitrary.

The completely arbitrary "one island per Switch console" policy for Animal Crossing: New Horizons certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth.

> For example Tekken 7. To get every character in the game and all DLC, you have to pay 120 dollar.

That's a $20 increase from the $49.99 price of Tekken 1 on the PS1, released in 1994, once adjusted for inflation. And Tekken 7 allegedly cost 50 million yen, or $370K USD, per stage, which is probably more than the entire budget for Tekken 1, even after adjusting for inflation. If anything, the Tekken example illustrates how the increasing number of sales over the past few decades have subsidized significant increases in development costs.

Like it or not, developers and studios answer to shareholders above consumers and everything else.

Personally I only consider Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX (4 through 9) "must play games", in addition to Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. But your mileage may vary.

Game prices have hardly increased in the past 30 years. The real problem is the purchasing power of the average person and the working class as a whole has decreased significantly during that time.

I'd be inclined to recommend an Xbox Series S or Series X for the exclusives Starfield, Quantum Break, Shadow Complex, the Halo series, and the Gears of War series. Other great sci-fi games available for Xbox (and other platforms) include The Outer Worlds, Prey (2017), Outer Wilds, No Man's Sky, Alien: Isolation, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, the XCom series, the Deus Ex series, the Bioshock series, Surviving Mars, Deliver Us The Moon, Deliver Us Mars, the Fallout series, the Dead Space series, Cyberpunk 2077, the Portal series, and many others. Note a number of these games are currently available on the Game Pass Ultimate subscription service for Xbox as well.

As PC isn't an option for you it comes down to weighing titles -- of which there are a number of exclusives for both platforms in your situation -- and services.

There are two types of radar: Primary and secondary. Secondary radar works by detecting an aircraft's transmitter and doesn't apply here, but primary works by sending radio waves from a ground station and then monitoring for signals that are returned to the ground station -- reflections -- to make a determination about an aircraft's speed and bearing. The radar cross-section of an aircraft is a measure of how susceptible it is to detection by primary radar from different angles.

To be clear the following does not contradict u/Caucasiafro's explanation but compliments it.

From here:

> In the mouth itself, though, food scientists continue to discover new receptors and new pathways for gustatory impressions to reach our brain. Here are some taste sensations vying for a place at the table as a sixth basic taste.

> 1. Calcium

> 2. Kokumi

> 3. Piquance

> 4. Coolness

> 5. Metallicity

> 6. Fat

> 7. Carbon Dioxide

Note that article goes into detail about the arguments for and against clasifying those items as distinct senses of taste.

No, you're right. The second game definitely has alien mojo.

Lennus 2 is a great game, especially since it has a lot more sprite detail -- the first game started developmental as a GameBoy title before being moved to the SNES -- and it shows in the character and monster designs, and for that matter the architecture designs, but the sequel dropped the unique colour pallet the first game was known for.

The SNES game Paladin's Quest (known as Lennus in Japan) portrays unique character and monster designs, and colour pallets, totally unlike anything produced before or since.

lol How childish do you have to be to take offense to the very idea of personal meaning, to need your meaning to be universal?

This isn't a compelling monologue. All that you've convinced me of is that family, love, music, and everything else in your life is meaningless and hollow without the promise of permanence and righteousness. Honestly, you've turned me away from theism even more.

> Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?

> > 2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them.

> > > This example only matters at all to anyone because we're here to be aware of it.

I pity you.

> People can also just be unaware of things like the heat death of the universe or the futility of their actions. This doesn't mean their actions aren't inherently so. To be aware of what naturalism entails is to be aware of the nihilistic implications it carries.

People have a way of getting caught up in moments, being carried away by their emotions, and running with new ideas. They don't usually adopt a permanent attitude or behaviour based on the absurdly distant future.

> Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?

2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them.

> Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

> Not really. People with working eyes commonly have different subjective experiences of their objective surrounding realities. This doesn't make those surroundings unreal.

What colour is the dress? Was that a rabbit or a duck? Do you see Rubin's vase or two opposing faces?

If meaning were universal, if it were objective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no arguments about what it means to love or the meaning of a cigar.

> Note, I said "often" not "solely." I think it's plainly obvious that people often commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. If it all gets destroyed in the end, what's the point? What are we progressing towards that won't already be lost to oblivion and then why should these things matter to us?

I agree. People often do commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. -- but that doesn't mean they do so with the expectation or under the condition that the results are eternal or permanent. And that doesn't mean people cannot believe temporary or transitory actions can't be deeply meaningful or won't "make a difference" either.

> Why would any of those things matter on naturalism beyond trying to make it to the grave comfortably?

Because people don't live objectively, their lives are personal affairs.

> Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.

By this reasoning similar emotional states should produce similar apprehensions of meaning, but they don't.

> Because we often derive meaning and value from the future impact of our actions. No one wants to labor for something they deem worthwhile only to have it destroyed.

People don't derive meaning and value solely from the future impact of their actions though. A great deal of meaning and value is derived from experience and impression, no matter how transitory.

> In either case, all of mankind's efforts will be reduced to nothing. That's a big pill to swallow now that makes a difference to one's perception of life.

I don't think it makes anymore of a difference in our day-to-day lives than the realities of climate change, economic collapse, a global pandemic, global conflict, or the fact that most of us will be forgotten in a generation or two. But people continue to find reasons -- usually personal reasons -- to live.

> This just seems to affirm my point: there's no human-independent reason to do what we do. We will lose everything and we simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time, on naturalism.

Many people -- including theists -- choose to do nothing more than "simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time". But that isn't the only available option. Personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, etc. aren't exclusively concerned with the enjoyment of one's life.

> Just because our sense of vision is critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of the color red doesn't mean the color red isn't an objective reality. Similarly, emotions may be critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of meaning, but that doesn't mean meaning itself isn't an objective reality.

An "objective reality of meaning" isn't necessary or evident though. And the available evidence suggests the meaning "apprehended" by emotion is explicitly personal -- for example one patient with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (who, again, had an inability to make decisions) remarked when listening to a song that they remembered having emotional reactions to the song before but after their accident they felt nothing at all when listening to it.

> Knowledge of this future event should lead one to ask now "what are we working and striving towards that won't ultimately be lost?"

Why should it? This assertion is based entirely on your personal values or wants.

> It has palpable consequences for the present, since all of our hopes to leave behind a better future will become null and void ventures.

The "hope to leave behind a better future" is not universal, but those that have such hopes typically only look to the next generation or two, often leaving the rest to chance or without consideration.

> So again, why "live well" or do this or do that?

Why live a life according to your personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures? Because it's your life to live.

By the way, did you know people with no emotions -- and I mean no emotions whatsoever -- are incapable of making decisions? Damage to the orbitofrontal cortex in the frontal lobe can result in the condition and it goes to show much of an effect emotions have on our sense of meaning.