greentea101

I had not actually considered checking the source of other tools, so thanks for the idea (I'm not sure why I didn't think of that myself). I've looked at how NMM does it, and I think I've got everything I need.

This is not really a modding question, but I'm hoping someone here knows the answer. I'm working on a modding tool, and I'm not sure how to best get the install location of FO4. I'm currently reading the uninstall key from the registry (HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\Steam App 377160), but I'm not sure how reliable that is. Is there a better way of doing it?

Thank you for the update. I've stopped playing FO4 about half a year ago, because while I don't want to play with the default spawns anymore, I also got sick of WOTC crashing all the time. Looking forward to Spawns of the Commonwealth!

I am massively hyped about this mod, and I can't wait to get my hands on it. Thanks for taking it over, the changes sound amazing (especially the lack of CTDs)!

I haven't read the other replies, but my own objection against paid modding stems from my belief that a free ecosystem is healthier for the community (including end-users), because authors freely sharing assets and knowledge is more of a benefit for the system as a whole than said authors trying to make modding into a job. Also, the co-existence of a parallel marketplace of paid mods can be damaging to the free ecosystem if not administered and curated properly (for example, money incentivizes people to steal assets from free mods to make a buck, which in turn aggravates authors of free mods and causes them to pull their mods and stop modding altogether). That being said, what Bethesda is trying to do now is not paid modding. In this context, these people are not modders, they are subcontractors working for Bethesda to create content for them.

I got tired of games not minimizing their borderless windows when I alt-tab out of them, which results in them popping up in the background whenever I activate any other window that doesn't fill the screen. As a result, I wrote a program that automatically minimizes these borderless windows when those games run. You can check it out here: https://github.com/ErrorFlynn/Borderless-Window-Helper The program uses the Nana C++ GUI Library, which you will need if you want to compile the source (if you're just a user, you don't care about this).

Hold down the "activate" key/button for about a second.

First you said that they're afraid of backlash from the public, now you say that they're "politically correct", implying that they themselves are against the use of swastikas. Which one is it? I'm not familiar with the situation, so I'm going by what you're telling me. In any case, thinking that one totalitarian symbol (swastika) is much more offensive than all the others (to the point of making its use unacceptable) does not make one a hypocrite. What would be hypocritical, is if they were using swastikas themselves, while forbidding it to their users with the excuse that they find it offensive. I know you're angry because you can't use swastikas in their game, but you're completely misusing the concept of hypocrisy as part of a false accusation. If you're trying to convince me that those people have wronged you somehow, you're doing a piss-poor job.

There is no hypocrisy in those people's behavior, according to your own description of the situation. Their actions are in keeping with their fear of being associated with Nazism, and with their belief that symbols other than the Swastika are safe to use. That's being earnest, not hypocritical.

It doesn't give you any high. I never used any substances, but smoking isn't like injecting or taking a sniff. It doesn't make you feel like being king of the castle. And yet it's an addiction. If required I can go for a lot of hours without lighting one. The craving's there, but the bodily discomfort isn't. Having a smoke never gave me a high, nor anyone I know. It's just a habit and I would like to see the details of that study and what was involved besides nicotine that gave that guy the feeling. Nicotine is a dopaminergic drug, like meth and cocaine. The high isn't as intense as meth and cocaine, but it's definitely there (at least in the beginning, it fades as time passes and the brain develops resistance), and the withdrawal symptoms can be very unpleasant. The thing is, different people may have different responses to the drug. I knew a person who only smoked "socially" during the weekend, and never touched cigarettes the rest of the time. I don't know why, but he didn't seem to be affected. There can also be a psychological addiction (as is often the case), but that's a separate issue. Generally speaking, smoking is more than just a habit or a psychological issue, with chemical dependence being a big part of the problem in most cases. Withdrawal symptoms can vary, with some people (like myself) intensely experiencing a number of symptoms, while others experiencing barely anything at all. It can even vary with time for the same person (if you relapse, the second time you quit may not be as easy as the first time). Speaking from experience, scaring people to stop smoking doesn't work, but cautioning them to not start does, so I'm with the OP on this one. If you're not smoking, don't start, you're not missing anything. Nicotine is a horrific drug, with 1% reward and 99% punishment.

I stopped smoking in 2008 because it had become unbearable. I was essentially forced to inhale smoke every 20 minutes just to stop feeling shitty, which was a nightmarish experience. So after about 10 years of smoking, I just stopped, endured five days of intense discomfort, and then I was finally free. Best thing I ever did in my life.

I've given up on "discussing" this with RattleAndGrind, so this time I'm going to aim my thoughts in the general direction of the thread readers. To summarize the essence of RattleAndGrind's position, as I understand it and as it relates to the OP's morality question, he's saying that actions that would be immoral when done to a human being are not immoral when done to Synth Shaun and gen-3 synths in general, because gen-3 synths don't meet all the criteria for qualifying as animal life. And since animal life is the only life that current "real-world" science recognizes, then gen-3 synths are technically not alive, and THAT is the single most important factor in determining morality in this scenario, overriding any other considerations. MY position is that no, there are other considerations that are clearly more important and relevant, such as the fact that gen-3 synths are obviously sentient and experience physical and emotional pain (the game makes that clear enough). To ignore that and instead cling to a technicality is unreasonable to say the least (stronger words I might use are "callous" and "deranged"). I don't know if anyone cares about this at this point, but I wanted to make my position clear.

You keep ignoring my arguments, and keep responding to imaginary versions of them. For example, you say I want to change the definition of "alive", when my argument is that if the Star Trek or Fallout 4 universes (or approximations of them) were reality, then in that context, science might change the definition of life, not me. Science might expand the definition to include artificial life alongside animal life, while leaving the definition of animal life unchanged (considering the existence of artificial entities in that universe). You could have argued that it wouldn't, giving reasons why you think that, but instead you've been throwing straw man arguments at me. The only thing you've said that even comes close to addressing this point, is mentioning that this debate has been going on for decades in the scientific community, and that was only in your latest reply as I write this. That is just one example of you not hearing me, and I'm not going to go into the rest. Talking to you is like hitting a wall of dogma and contrarianism, and I'm done wasting energy on addressing what you have to say.

No, not really. And the reason is simple. By definition, neither Data nor Synths are living beings. The dead end for both is: Reproduction The ability to reproduce and pass genetic information onto their offspring. Without this ability, even a sentient humaniform machine is just clockworks and battery. Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. The page you link to gives a purely technical definition that is meant to separate the animal kingdom from the mineral kingdom, and is not suitable as a basis from which to derive morality. According to your logic, a sterile human being is not deserving of moral considerations. You also ignore the possibility that that definition would be expanded if we had Data-like androids running around. That definition only defines life as we know it, for the purpose of categorizing what currently exists in our sphere of experience, which excludes sentient androids and gen-3 synths. As far as I'm concerned, you are unjustifiably re-purposing that definition to fit your preconceived idea, and you are irrationally hanging on to a technicality that is irrelevant in a world that has non-animal sentient beings. Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend a simple premise. Neither am I bound by your contortions of my comments so they affirm your lack of understanding. Nor can I be held accountable of your attempts to dismiss a scientific article entitled "Characteristics of living things" because is does not fit what you wish to be true. You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better. But such convolutions do not conform to the reality of biology. I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact. I eschew the existential and esoteric. You are allowed to do otherwise. When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology. >You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better. You're making a caricature of what I said by grossly exaggerating it, effectively putting words in my mouth. My first argument was that your rigid use of a scientific definition to inform your morality is unreasonable, when we're talking about intelligent, sentient, self-aware entities (especially when they're capable of experiencing physical and emotional pain). Apparently it's my second argument you have a problem with here, which states that science has not yet had the chance to seriously consider the issue of artificial life because it doesn't exist at this time, and that the definition of life might be different if there was such a thing as sentient artificial intelligence interacting with the environment through an artificial body. I did not twist any definitions, and I agree that the definition of life that you linked is correct. >I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact. I find that hard to take seriously, when on this thread you just gave your opinion on the morality of a fictional situation that happens in a fictional story set in a fictional universe. >When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology. OK, but what I've said violates neither the laws of physics, nor the nature of biology. I can't imagine how you figure that it does.

No, not really. And the reason is simple. By definition, neither Data nor Synths are living beings. The dead end for both is: Reproduction The ability to reproduce and pass genetic information onto their offspring. Without this ability, even a sentient humaniform machine is just clockworks and battery. Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. The page you link to gives a purely technical definition that is meant to separate the animal kingdom from the mineral kingdom, and is not suitable as a basis from which to derive morality. According to your logic, a sterile human being is not deserving of moral considerations. You also ignore the possibility that that definition would be expanded if we had Data-like androids running around. That definition only defines life as we know it, for the purpose of categorizing what currently exists in our sphere of experience, which excludes sentient androids and gen-3 synths. As far as I'm concerned, you are unjustifiably re-purposing that definition to fit your preconceived idea, and you are irrationally hanging on to a technicality that is irrelevant in a world that has non-animal sentient beings.