|
Post by Isildur on Nov 27, 2022 6:02:23 GMT
There appears to be an error. From the context and the pink shading, it appears that Annie is the one to whom the "Did you find anything out?" speech balloon should be attributed, but its tail is pointing at Kat. Annie is getting better at her ventriloquism = Darker interpretation: Kat isn't actually there and Annie has to fill in both sides of the conversation. Hah! But joking aside, I see it's been fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Isildur on Nov 27, 2022 8:19:29 GMT
Seems to me like "Not only would I have to leave you and Paz, all our friendship and love would be erased from your memories" deserved to get an "especially since" mention, too, Kat...
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Nov 28, 2022 6:16:07 GMT
Then going back and asking her must mean the Court is really really clueless on how much ether she's involved in
|
|
|
Post by basser on Nov 28, 2022 8:24:27 GMT
Also also the fact that the Star Ocean is literally called metaphorical could easily mean it doesn't actually do anything. Down in the deep dark dungeons of physics, where the quantum sausage gets made, and where describing things with words is like trying to use two telephone poles to eat your Chinese takeaway, processes we think of as "physical" hold hands with the "theoretical". The actual, physical world works the way it does because of how numbers fit together. This is not some sort of sciencey poetry - a friend who is a university professor in what I think of as "advanced research maths" once told me, in the same tone of voice that Teresa of Avila might have used to recount her latest vision, "Numbers make things". Forgot to check the forum for replies until today haha. Anyway, yes, I know about the quantum tomfoolery. I'm an experimental physicist working primarily on x-ray spectroscopy systems design, quantum nonsense complicates my day on the regular. In this case though I actually meant that the Star Ocean is potentially an outright misdirection - they said it's metaphorical and they might literally mean that, in that it only "exists" in the sense that the concept of it will push events to their desired end state.
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Nov 28, 2022 16:56:38 GMT
Down in the deep dark dungeons of physics, where the quantum sausage gets made, and where describing things with words is like trying to use two telephone poles to eat your Chinese takeaway, processes we think of as "physical" hold hands with the "theoretical". The actual, physical world works the way it does because of how numbers fit together. This is not some sort of sciencey poetry - a friend who is a university professor in what I think of as "advanced research maths" once told me, in the same tone of voice that Teresa of Avila might have used to recount her latest vision, "Numbers make things". Forgot to check the forum for replies until today haha. Anyway, yes, I know about the quantum tomfoolery. I'm an experimental physicist working primarily on x-ray spectroscopy systems design, quantum nonsense complicates my day on the regular. In this case though I actually meant that the Star Ocean is potentially an outright misdirection - they said it's metaphorical and they might literally mean that, in that it only "exists" in the sense that the concept of it will push events to their desired end state. Interesting. So if that's the case, then does it imply that when Kat adjusts her matter transference stuff based on what she's learned, that it will stop working?
I'm wondering if we aren't about to see Kat expose the scam.
|
|