Not to mention that "the cost is small" is in the eye of the beholder. I've known people who spend a significant part of their week on religious activities, and that's a huge opportunity cost.
Granted, if your belief is based on Pascal's Wager, and is only to hedge your bets, presumably you wouldn't spend much time on religion. But that also raises the question of whether that style of "belief" would be good enough for whatever god might exist.
Granted^2, spending half of your life devoted to a religion could be deemed a small cost when weighed against the eternity afterward. But then you have to think about the idea that you'll have wasted half of your one and only life if the afterlife turns out not to be real.
At any rate, Pascal seems to have failed to consider that there are thousands of religions to choose from, and that a hypothetical god(s) might punish you for choosing to believe in the wrong one. And might even prefer that you believe in nothing, rather than the wrong one!
That’s the fun thing about the Wager. If the reward is infinite then any finite cost is worth it for any finite probability of obtaining it.
Pascal did actually consider other religions. He just concluded that they were definitely wrong. In his view, either (his brand of) Christianity was correct, or god doesn’t exist.
I haven't played the game, was interested in it (I've heard of it before, just haven't gotten around to playing it yet), and I was a bit bummed to read about this unusual game mechanic without discovering for myself.
I'm not sure how you can give the flamingo win to Qwen:
* It's sitting on the tire, not the seat.
* Is that weird white and black thing supposed to be a beak? If so, it's sticking out of the side of its face rather than the center.
* The wheel spokes are bizarre.
* One of the flamingo's legs doesn't extend to the pedal.
* If you look closely at the sunglasses, they're semi-transparent, and the flamingo only has one eye! Or the other eye is just on a different part of its face, which means the sunglasses aren't positioned correctly. Or the other eye isn't.
* (subjective) The sunglasses and bowtie are cute, but you didn't ask for them, so I'd actually dock points for that.
* (subjective) I guess flamingos have multiple tail feathers, but it looks kinda odd as drawn.
In contrast, Opus's flamingo isn't as detailed or fancy, but more or less all of it looks correct.
Seems like the right way to display them, no? If the buns (and all the layers of ingredients) were stacked perfectly, you wouldn't see very much of the ingredients inside.
The US site doesn't use this placement strategy, though. The Japanese one looks better. No surprise there.
Fair, but I don't think it's likely that SCOTUS would invalidate any of Trump's presidential pardons, assuming a future president decided to prosecute someone he pardoned. I doubt even the liberal members of SCOTUS would want to touch that.
Most people in the US did not choose to become citizens until the mid 19th century. The process was much easier than naturalization today, though, presuming you were white and in some cases might be required to own property.
US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle. You had to go into a local court and show you lived in the US for a couple years, who would swear you in as a citizen. But most people didn't care about voting or holding office enough to bother.
> US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle.
Actually, my understanding is that the US did largely follow jus soli. What it wasn't was unconditional jus soli, but the principle was birth in the bounds of the US conferred citizenship except if positive law existed not conferring citizenship.
reply