Diff

Only if you can't see the relationship between clearly parallel events. What you are failing to see throughout all of this is the internal mechanisms of the in-game universe. Again, alternative explanations are possible, but: This sure ain't it. This isn't an explanation. There's no in-universe mechanism for this. It does not engage with the themes of the game. The returning point is the point where the seraph returned to the world. That all ties together nicely. Internal universal consistency is not circular. Nothing here is sacred or unchangeable. And it's not like the game doesn't have holes in its universal mechanics. Just keep from ripping open any new holes in the universe. Separate objects could work fine. Anchors found in ruins sound workable in terms of in-universe mechanics, although the mechanics around discovery like you describe sounds dreadful from a gameplay perspective. And on lore, what are anchors capable of holding a seraph doing in ruins from a time before seraphs? That has a fix, but what is it? All Jonas tech is far too end-game to be useful and IMO don't address the fundamental differences of seraphs. Temporal gears have the same weirdness seraphs do. That's aesthetically nice. Respawning in-game and respawning in-universe rhyme. Having the same explanation is aesthetically nice. It makes a world feel more cohesive and real. I can't speak for others but when I point out lore it's rarely because I'm clutching my eldritch game bible and preaching. I'm pointing out elements that depend on or support whatever it is we're talking about. If that element updates, its dependencies should update as well. And it shouldn't be done by reducing the number of links. Or, again, toss it in as a non-default worldconfig and forget about it. Only the defaults need to worry about lore at all.

Has very little to do with the specific words "energy" or "flow" so that's not so surprising, but you did find the end of Chapter 2. That's (mostly) what I'm referring to. There are a few scraps of lore before the main story though. And beyond temporal gears allowing you to temporarily move your returning point, there is one other game mechanic that interacts with them. The base return teleporter teleports you to your returning point. That makes little sense without there actually being something physically distinctive about that location. When they die, seraphs always return to the point they first re-entered the world. You can re/write lore to make that make sense some other way. I'm still eager to hear any alternative lore ideas you have for sleep being tied to respawning. And of course it can always be a convenience/configurable option. But the current mechanic makes internal sense and ties nicely to the lore.

Nah, this lore is established in other ways in the discoverable bits of lore you dig up. Seraphs are immortal because they are anchored to a point in time and space. The temporal gear lets you exercise some influence over that returning point. But the returning point and the seraphs' immortality are the reason seraphs exist at all. The logic isn't circular, it's closed. No loose ends. Can it be changed? Sure. But offer another closed alternative. What logic is there to taking a nap altering a point in time?

Rainbow's saying that you will starve faster if you are hurt.

Edit the existing release and it'll let you re-select the versions your mod is compatible with

I think it would work, it worked for me with Terrain Slabs, but with more severe changes to worldgen I think there would be a visible seam between any new chunks and old chunks.

if nobody's on, shouldn't hurt a single thing to let your laptop take a break.

I think it's lore-related. Seraphs are immortal and are anchored to a specific point as part of their nature. You can alter that returning point with a temporal gear, but you are temporally anchored to your returning point and will always respawn there until you take action to alter it.

We do it all the time with products. Provenance is important. A lot of people loved Fairlife milk not for the milk, but for its provenance until it came out that they are actually beating those cows. Nothing physically changed about the milk before or after that news broke, or before or after they started beating their cows. Blood diamonds, "Made in the XYZ," "locally owned," Fairtrade-, Utz- and Rainforest Alliance-certified chocolates, responsibly sourced conflict minerals. It's a very, very common and routine thing to choose and identify products by provenance of their component parts. And AI does have its own ethical issues. You may ignore it, others choose not to, but it's not difficult to imagine at all. "WHO" is also an easy discriminator. If someone consistently releases poor quality mods, you may choose not to engage with any of them, rather than waste more time investigating. AI is that someone for many. As mentioned elsewhere in previous topics, practically, AI mods have a higher failure rate for performance, for bugs, and people may choose to avoid the whole class. It's not that human-made mods are immune to having problems. But the rates are far different with 100% human-authored code vs AI autocomplete vs vibe coded nonsense. With no disclosure, it's impossible to tell how AI was used in a mod, and it's often less of a headache to just skip the mod.

Why avoid something largely beneficial that will decrease overall bad vibes and conflict just because it won't solve every instance? This kind of behavior is likely already covered by the rules, as evidenced by how these topics always get locked.

You see echoes of that on the forums. The discussions often get heated so they're quick to act on the forums.

Isn't that at odds with the part of the flavor text that says "even when resisted?" Them being very durable is also at odds with them being relatively easy to shatter to create a returning point, unless the shattering isn't like physically based.

You can probably do it but it's likely to be more effort than it's worth. If it's a recent version, it's probably more reliable and easier to go the downgraded-flatpak route like hstone's thinking.

I don't think that's right... it's typically only pushing that's privileged. If nobody can pull, I don't think you'd be able to install the app at all. I found some hints on the internet that you just need to initialize Arch's keyring. This also doesn't entirely make sense to me, but there's multiple people saying it works so the incantation for it is: sudo pacman-key --init && sudo pacman-key --populate The other advice I see is removing and re-adding the remotes: latpak remote-delete flathub flatpak remote-delete flathub-beta flatpak remote-add flathub https://dl.flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo flatpak remote-add flathub-beta https://flathub.org/beta-repo/flathub-beta.flatpakrepo

On occasion: https://www.vintagestory.at/jobs.html/

I might be misreading the thread because it looks like the two of you are saying the same thing at differing levels of detail and not contradicting each other in any way so yeah both of your comments still apply. If there is a larger point/contradiction here please illuminate.

Huh, just checked and realized don't have the little pop up hints like a lot of other plants do. To get berries, right click to pick them off the bush. If you left click you'll break the bush like a regular block, destroying it and leaving only plant matter. I think you have to use a knife to take a cutting that you can use to propagate the bush.

Unless you're purposefully wanting to jump through hoops, yeah, Flatpak's that's certainly the easiest way. Performance while running in a full VM would be probably definitely awful.

If a Bell was ever to wander all the way up to the surface for some reason it'd make an excellent candidate. Or maybe just a bell head.

Maybe a luddite in the true sense, as in someone who's not a fan of owners eliminating swaths of jobs with automation and siphoning their paychecks up to themselves while burdening those left with even more work. It's the stance I'd like to take if I could afford to right now, especially since these new machines are explicitly built using people's own work, unsactioned, to replace them. Thing is, AI still isn't capable of actually replacing any human jobs. It doesn't produce correct code. AI images are unusable for print, and uninspiring and difficult to work with for digital. AI video still tumbles deep into the uncanny valley. The vast majority of real world use for both is just to generate nonsense online, whether it's for bizarre entertainment or manipulative disinformation. Data's still coming in on this, but in the workplace it doesn't seem to actually boost speed or productivity in the short term. And in the long term, it seems like "use it or lose it" is in full effect for the tasks offloaded to AI. Right now AI investment is propping up the entire economy, and the only way that makes sense is if LLMs rewrite the face of labor. But they're not doing that, they're letting people write bloated emails and fling freakish LinkedIn posts at each other faster. They are falling so short of their promises that even AI execs are talking about when the bubble pops. It's 2026 and they're still using the exact same tricks they have since GPT-2, "LATEST MODEL is so advanced and so dangerous that we can't release it openly, you'll have to just buy access from us." (EDIT: A claim that still in 2026 completely falls flat on inspection). It's a research project being sold as a guaranteed post-scarcity future that will far more likely just turn into a capitalist nightmare if it ever succeeds. So shunning the whole mess seems pretty sane to me.

You could do a different data directory for each world/modsets, is this kind of what you're thinking?

This isn't the first I've seen this claim, and I can see how it could be true of some artificially intelligent system... but I don't see any present evidence for it. Instead, my own experience hints at the opposite. LLMs are blinded by a magnetic pull into well-worn ruts in the training data. Which to me makes immediate sense based on how these models are trained and operate. Way back you mentioned its struggles with recursion, and I think that's a good indicator of what I'm talking about. Like a lot of people, I have a few troublesome tasks in my back pocket I use as benchmarks when a new model comes out. One of those is having it toy around with the Gleam programming language. It knows Gleam, it's not a tiny homebrew language. It can tell you all about Gleam, recommend popular libraries in the ecosystem, tell you about how it interacts with the BEAM. It can tell you the exact rules it will then go on to violate when it comes to generate code, even with precise rules, tools, tips, and reminders in the context window. It fails to reason about something it knows about because the probabilities point elsewhere in the distribution of training data. This goes also for projects in common languages (JavaScript) with atypical ways of doing things. One of my pet projects is a 3D engine that renders to 2D SVG. From SVG it inherits many quirks that are deeply atypical in a 3D world. AI is quite helpful as a research tool here, because the things I'm doing are not unknown mathematically, they just violate convention. But those broken conventions means that when it comes time to write, it constantly gets pulled off the rails by stronger signals in the training data.

"It's inevitable" only according to the people who desperately need that to be true to get their bonuses at the end of the next quarter. I see no reason to trust them when I look out at what AI code hath wrought. Even after all the hype about what agentic coding can do, look at Cursor's web browser and Anthropic's C compiler. These are flagship research projects completed by the people most familiar with their own tech, and they're staggeringly lackluster. Some smaller projects have better luck, like Ladybird's LibJS rewrite, but especially combined with what send to be diminishing returns, I don't think there's any guarantee or even likeliness that we're looking at the end of horses or horse drawn carriages. Especially when this new car relies on ground up horses to fuel itself.

This is a lot better phrased than what I wrote, and is largely what I was trying to say. Only thing I'd push back on is that it's always a discipline problem. Sometimes you just don't know better. Sometimes AI is being used to skip work, I saw that all the time when I was a teacher. But even as a learning tool, it's hazardous. AI sounds confident. It's easy to be taken in. Most recent job I had was at a print shop. Boss had no prior print shop experience and had taught himself a lot from AI and YouTube. But he also trusted its answers and its own confidence in its ability way too much. Some of it was small stuff, like thinking "welding" and "hemming" were the same thing. Other things were actively destructive, like thinking he can buy this roll of material for hundreds of dollars when it would actually be incompatible with our equipment because he didn't know to ask a question that he didn't know. Or getting ready to print a graphic that AI says is 300dpi at 84" across when it's actually 21dpi because he doesn't know AI can't do that. If you know how AI works, it's easy to label this is all silly user error and easily avoidable if you understand, but the average person doesn't know how LLMs operate or what they're good or bad at. People can think they're learning when they're actually just being taken for a ride with nobody at the wheel.