BenVimes

Briefly: I didn't.

More substantively: I never owned a cell phone growing up, even though I was at the right age when they became a common thing for teenagers to have. It wasn't a money thing, nor household rule, as my sisters got phones when they were in high school. The biggest reason was probably just how I communicate. I wasn't big into IM services either, and I preferred email or face-to-face, or a (landline) phone call if it was an urgent matter.

Then there was also my adolescent brain thinking I was making a bold counter-culture statement by steadfastly resisting the march of technology. In reality, I was probably just being a pain in the neck for my friends and family, and I probably unnecessarily endangered myself at least once.

I did finally, begrudgingly, get an old hand-me-down flip-phone in my final year of university, but that was out of necessity, and I used it to make maybe only a dozen calls the 2.5 years I had it before getting a smart device.

To bring it full circle: I did try sending a text message with that flip-phone exactly once, at the insistence of my family. That message was predictably a garbled mess, and to this day my sisters still wonder how I managed to get a number to appear in the middle of the "word".

I have a number of other somewhat amusing stories about people's reactions to my lack of a cellphone, but this post is long enough already.

Am I the only person in my generation who never learned to type on a number pad? It wasn't the only thing I didn't recognize from the "test", but it stuck out to me.

Well, there's the fact that outrage seems to drive more activity than other types of content. YouTube sees it as a more profitable option to advertise a Very Angry Gamer(tm) to you, even if you aren't interested. I guess they assume that you'll find something to watch anyhow, but if they will profit even more of they can hook you into the outrage machine.

Then there's my personal hypothesis that in order to enable this, YouTube's algorithm weights your demographics, subscriptions, and viewing history much more heavily than your manual inputs.

My wife and I had this conversation the other day. Our kid is only two right now, but as we've learned, these milestones sneak up on you.

I used my own life as a guide to my opinion, and so landed on age eight or so. That's around the age I remember being able to go to the park or to a friend's house within the neighbourhood on my own.

Other questions about how much functionality the phone would have and how much access they would have to it at home are still to be determined.

One huge advantage Larian had was years of experience making games in this genre, and I doubt many other studios have that sort of corporate knowledge. Obsidian may be the only sizable one that comes close. Maybe Beamdog too, as they are responsible for the Enhanced Editions of all the old Infinity Engine games, including some original content.

At least last time I donated blood in my country (Canada), you could discretely indicate "do not use" by applying a different sticker to the bag. This was done in case someone got peer pressured into donating but didn't want to reveal something private that would have disqualified them otherwise.

Here's one:

Tactics Ogre Reborn came out in late 2022 for Switch, PlayStation 4 and 5, and PC.

That game is a remaster of another title called Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, which came out for the PSP in November 2010 in Japan. This puts it 12 years before Reborn.

But the PSP game was itself is a remake of a game with the same name that came out originally for the Super Famicom in October 1995, 15 years before its remake and 27 years before the remaster of that remake.

It was one of four games I backed on Kickstarter years ago, and now it is the last one to come out. I haven't played Suikoden, so I only know vaguely what to expect. I do hope I like it more than the other games I supported, though.

House of Wacks has you covered.

I see where the disconnect is now.

I, and presumably others, associate obsession with religious minutiae with religious fervour. I have a lot first hand experience with this, as some of the most ardent Christians I knew were also the ones who were eyeballs deep in apologetics and church history (and also adult converts). It makes a certain amount of logical sense too, as you wouldn't expect a casual church-goer to care that much about all that.

With that in mind, it isn't a big leap to connect the original post to the phenomenon of the zeal of the convert.

What it comes down to, then, is that the original post has more than one layer to it. Rather than focus on the difference between charity and dogmatism, I chose instead to highlight contrast between the simplicity [of charity] and the convolution [of dogmatism]. Once again, my personal experiences informed the way I approached this post.

I'm completely lost. How and when did this become about religious people behaving badly? I am 99.9% sure that the point of the original topic was a commentary on how recent converts tend to be more enthusiastic about their faith than people raised in the church, regardless of what the individual beliefs actually are. The example beliefs from the original post ("feed the poor" and "women shouldn't drive") are just examples to help characterize this dichotomy in an amusing way.

In fact, that second example, about women and driving, is almost certainly not an actual Catholic doctrine. Any search for the full phrase leads only to reposts of this image, and I'd wager it was made by just stringing together some Christian buzzwords for humorous effect. While I don't doubt some Catholics do believe women shouldn't drive, I also very much doubt they'd use the phrasing and justification found in the original post.

Why would I need to be more specific about the different branches of Catholicism? The author in the screenshot doesn't do that either. They simply point out their observation that lifelong Catholics tend to value broad teachings that aren't necessarily specific to Catholicism, while adult converts become fanatical about doctrinal minutiae. In other words, the former is relaxed about their faith, while the latter is zealous.

I then related that to my own experiences, where someone who is raised in a belief system tends to be less aggressive about those beliefs than someone who converts to later in life - i.e. the "zeal of the convert." This observation isn't exclusive to Catholicism, it's just being made into relation to it in this instance. This phenomenon isn't even exclusive to religion, as one can observe it with political beliefs as well.

I don't think anything here requires a differentiation between branches of Catholicism, because the observations are about the act of converting, not about what specific belief system the converts moving to and from.