XT-248 wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 12:40 am
The issue was one of understanding my point.
Maybe, i'm still under the impression that you are comiting the same logic mistake, presenting the 3 same ideas in a different order. I must not have understood your newer explanations
The reasonning that conclude :
XT-248 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 9:53 pm
If a piece of software and quality control of mass production do not deserve the 'legendary' treatment, then Factorio's official naming scheme shouldn't.
To me is flawed , the comparaison is invalid and called an illict major :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_major
This fallacy has the following argument form:
All A are B
No C are A
Therefore, no C are B
Example:
All dogs are mammals
No cats are dogs
Therefore, no cats are mammals
What you keep asserting is roughly : " i have an argument against legendary being used in factorio".
( no "legendary" (C) should be applied to (B)(things from factorio) )
Why ?
Because no software deserve it ( what i quoted )
( because nothing called legendary(C) is a software (A))
So far there is no relation between A and B, yet you seem assertive in the conclusion against legendary, you keep repeating it, what are your arguments that make the link between factorio and software programming that would justify it ? :
XT-248 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:27 pm
I am sure some of you would argue, but what does software programming have to do with quality control in mass production in Factorio?! I will state the obvious: Many consider gaming in Factorio similar to software programming.
Software making(A) feels like playing factorio (B)
That make the link between A and B, and now we have all the pieces of the example from wikipedia of the mistake in reasonning.
XT-248 wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 12:40 am
When you think of me describing a physical, tangible object (as in the quotation you made), I was describing the non-tangible process/technique/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that improved from a Q1-only mass-production line to semi-better mass-production that occasionally yield Q2 and Q3.
That doesn't make it better. You are describing a technique that is used by players when playing, you are describing "improving one's factory", you are therefore not changing the structure of the reasonning, you have actually repeated the exact same thing for me.
The structure of the reasonning is still as invalid as before for me for the same reason. That's not a point of contention i hope, it can happen that people are not convinced by your arguments, maybe my logic is different, maybe it's not worth your time to keep repeating your point of view in an attempt to convince me because you said you didn't like repeating yourself, and i am under the impression that you do not realize when your sentence are (for my logic) similar despite my attempts at highlighting why for me i consider them as being repetition of the same argument. Argument which doesn't adress what i consider a flaw in logic which subsquently prevent me from being convinced by it. It is a bit saddening for me to see your attempts, that i feel are bound to fail at convincing me if you don't see now how there are not getting better from one iteration to the next.
Maybe you can convince other person that will read those long message you send quoting me.