nope, you are not. You are only trolling by affirming false things. And thus you fail to understand what was the point I brought.
And now you are calling me dumb because you have nothing else to add.
No. I’m calling you dumb, because you lack common knowledge of the English language, which is a requirement for participating on this forum, and you refuse to be corrected on it. There is no pretty way of telling you.
2 Likes
All implants can be purchased from LP stores, all implants purchased from LP stores cost ISK also, therefore all implants are isk sinks.
Weather or not it is in a persons best interest to purchase them directly from an LP store is up to there discretion.
I have been in an instance where it was more beneficial to purchase an implant, which was normally cheaper from the market, at an LP store.
All semantics aside, market orders remove isk in the form of broker fees and taxes.
2 Likes
Is it me, or does it seem to others that ripping out implants causes damage?
1 Like
See that right there is what’s causing an issue, people saying ‘All’.
Not all implants are available in LP Stores, some implants are only available as reward from specific missions while other implants are only available as a loot drop from NPC’s or structures in Deadspace sites.
So no, not all implants are an ISK sink. Only ones bought from LP Stores are ISK sink.
As for the OP’s idea, I think it would be a great ISK sink. However that ‘Implant Extractor’ should only be usable on Corpses, not Clones.
And those extracted implants would also have to be repaired thus creating another ISK sink, especially since Clones are damaged and killed when their pod is destroyed,.
Emu and ostrich can fly, if they sit in a plane.
Right, but how would you know that given the example: “cars that use gasoline produce toxic byproducts”?
Seriously is your reply to someone pointing at a car and saying “This car uses gasoline.” - Anderson: “Not if it is never driven.”?
When something is true enough it’s fair to generalize and just point out exceptions. What exactly “true enough” means, is of course matter of discussion. 50/50 would not be true enough, 67/33 not either. 95/5 mostly is, unless there is an extremely important reason to not generalize.
We always generalize when we have the opportunity to do so, meaning a large enough set of unbiased experience/data that shows a strong significance. The question is not “should we generalize”, but “when should we not generalize / what are incorrect bases for generalizations”. For instance if you have a biased approach to something, as often in politics, generalizations tend to be wrong and even dangerously so. The issue here is not the existence of generalizations, but the wrong use by someone.
If used correctly, generalizations are absolutely necessary, heck your brain generalizes all the time in order to keep you alive.
Otherwise what you do is to take away the impact of objective significance. Exceptions are called exceptions for a reason.
Remember, taken a correct use of generalization (unbiased data, objectively high significance) there is always the possibility to name exceptions specifically, to make them visible if needed.
(*) not all exceptions have always to be mentioned though. It depends on the context. If I tell a kid “don’t put a knife in your stomach” and you intervene with “unless it’s made from plush”, that’s a legit exception, but really not needed.
“True enough” means that when looked at with maximum scrutiny, a very high percentage of cases will be A instead of B. B is the exception and can be mentioned as such. A will be the base for a decision we make. If B, despite it being insignificant in terms of overall cases, has a significance due to the influence it has when it happens, B - as the exception it is - should of course be always mentioned and also be included in any decision C that derives from A/B. If not, B is certainly not equally important to mention and doesn’t deserve the same influence on C as A does.
Seriously, you can’t work without generalizations.
Take yourself and what you write here. How can you even think, even write, without generalizations? Some of your words have more than one meaning and you expect us to use our power of generalization to guess what you mean. Even more, what we see as words in English may actually mean something else. Why don’t you declare after every single word that this is English (the language, humans, earth, ) and also explain the signs that you use as letters to actually be letters (that form words, in english, the lnaguage, humans, earth…) for each and every single one of them?
Implants in EVE Online (the game, using letters here to form words, in English, a human language, humans as some semi-correct definition of species, on a planet, gravity, earth, blablabla) as a group are an ISK sink, because enough members of that group are (the majority). 2nd, they are an ISK sink, because LP are not an ISK sink. You can’t buy LP from NPCs. If you buy from a player, this transaction is never an ISK sink, because at the end of it, the ISK lands in the wallet of another player. Only afterwards, if that player buys from NPC, the ISK is sunk. Why does he buy from NPC? To acquire LP? No, to acquire stuff that he needs to pay LP and ISK for.
Stuff, such as Implants, the vast majority thereof.
p.s. another example of a valid generalization:
“The sun is hot”. Well, it is not always. If you manage to move both fast enough and for entirety of the particles you consist of to not collide with any of the particles or rays of the sun, it’s not going to be hot for you nor for any instruments that would behave in the same way. (btw i mean “hot”, the stupid oversimplification that humans do regarding temperature)
Are you happy now?
If I order a coffee and they ask me “how do you like it?” … you expect me to say "Assuming that you speak about the coffee I just ordered and that we - by chance - speak the same language and not accidentally just said things in two different languages that have a completely different meaning, assuming furthermore that you are capable of hearing, assuming furthermore that this was not just a question out of personal interest, assuming that we speak about the present time, here, assuming that you are going to bring me that fking coffee, i would like it black, and please note that i don’t mean that you should first artificially extract its pigments and replace them with other black pigments, i also mean that you please shouldn’t mix it with anything, despite technically the dark pigments still being there, if you were to put milk in it, in that case i would like a black coffee pretty please.
Because I’m stupidly generalizing person, they will of course bring me the coffee in a leaking sock, because stupid me didn’t mention anything about a mug.
1 Like
Seriously, that is exactly what YOU are doing. I just say that doing so is logically correct, not that this is an interesting way to discuss.
That’s a bias. Our brain is hardwired to infer causations out of correlations, eg pavlov dog.
It does not mean that doing so is right.
We are full of biases acquired by evolution. It does not mean that those biases are a good thing in society (which our species has not yet evolved genetically to be adapted to). Those biases are actually expression of “anti-social” genes, that is genes that procure an advantage in an non-social environment but reduce our intelligence in a social environment.
TLDR your argument is invalid. Generalization is indeed a natural thing, but not a good thing.
Indeed it depends on the context. On human scale it is always true, the internal temperature of the sun is always much more important than what we perceive on earth.
plus on this particular case, this sentence is a statement and not a generalization. ie. your example is invalid.
nope. This is just nonsense, so either humor (in that case okay) or troll.
1 Like
Nah, you’re just cherry picking. Logic always depends on - at some point if you go back deep enough - presumptous generalizations. Furthermore in my example this wouldn’t even be logically correct since “Not if it is never driven” is the wrong assumption that a car which uses gasoline could not use gasoline when it is not driven.
You know, everyone can cherry pick the ■■■■ out of everything. It doesn’t make you smart and certainly not coherent.
Oh, what are you talking about? Pavlov dog shows that you can connect the drive for survival (in that case hunger) to some form of signal. It absolutely doesn’t mean that we are hardwired to see causation where we meet correlation. We are very well able to distinguish in many cases, especially where there is no involvement of hunger/thirst/…, between correlation and causation.
I don’t like it when things are partly true and partly completely untrue. Yes, there are some bias by evolution, but explaining human behaviour today with the completely bricked and historically totally wrong assumption that prehistoric humans were anti-social is just … you know dumb, single-minded, trying to find simple explanations for complex issues. Our economic system today is probably the strongest force that drives us apart, certainly not our genes.
TLDR you ignored all my reasoning and try to cherry pick some parts, turn into esoteric pseudo-scientific explanations for human behaviour and since you even fail to be coherent when you chose your own, wrong, preconditions, you quickly switch to TLDR so your can forget about being not able to grasp a thing I tried to tell you.
Again, without Generalization you wouldn’t even be able to live, let alone post here, let alone be understood.
Think about that again and then let’s talk. You essentially try to make a difference between “statement” and “generalization”, whereas both can absolutely be the same thing. Also, I don’t know how much you know about basic physics, but in my (admittingly mocking example) it would show you how humans wouldn’t in every last case experience the sun as hot - just as you like it: no generalization ever.
Just showing you that we always generalize and you expect it from me as I expect it from you.
You expect me, when you said the thing about the ostrich, to generalize from my experience and assume you mean their natural capability of flying. But of course, they can fly - in a plane, if we turn them into cyborgs and so on.
I’m trying to make you understand that your absolute statement against generalizations is wrong and that you can find the proof for that not by listening to me, but just by watching yourself and ask yourself, what would truly happen, if we didn’t generalize anymore.
And just to remind you:
p.s. yes, Humor can help us see where we are caught up in our own presumptions or half-correct ideas, which we don’t want to question, because it is so comfortable staying within their boundaries.
for instance I think it is funny that you generalize how generalizations are wrong. do you laugh as well?
another p.s. this topic is important to me, so if i sound like a dick, you should know its nothing personal (e.g. not directed against you, just against the way of thinking you’re presenting here)
Sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me. However the next,
Is completely false. Logic depends on assumptions, which are not always generalizations.
In some case you will assume a generalization to be true.
Our brain is not making logic, it is making inferences, which are generalizing correlations into causations.
Logic is a cultural construction. Maybe in several thousands of year we will have “logic genes” but not yet.
It’s nowhere near what I expressed. I said Pavlov is an example, not that it means anything or prove anything.
I did not say the opposite.
That’s life. Sorry to break your dreams.
You took it completely backward. YOU have the same biases as your prehistorical ancestors.
And it’s not a question, it’s not a theory : YOU have biases, I have biases, that’s facts.
Again, Generalization is indeed a natural thing, but not a good thing.
Meaning you don’t understand what I am saying.
Took already too much time reading at your nonsense, bye.
1 Like
I remember when you had to insure your clone for skill points to not lose them. Death had meaning back then. 
1 Like
Anderson_Geten I am pretty sure that you are in fact the troll in this thread. Implants that are not isk sinks are such a small percentage of the whole that they are out layers, they don’t count in a generalization.
2 Likes
Do you have any source for that ? If no, you are the one trolling.
1 Like
This thread is my source, for you being a troll.
3 Likes
You hence admit being trolling. thank you, bye.
1 Like
Sorry bro but you’re wrong.
The truth of the matter is when someone states that implants are an ISK sink, they should say Implants from LP Stores are an ISK sink.
In fact I have a lot of Implants and Hardwirings stashed away in assets and none of them are from the LP Store. They were all gained either as a mission reward or a PvE loot drop.
I have a clone for each type of ship I fly. Depending on the mood.
Omega for Armor + Armor + Missile Focus
Omega for Armor + Armor + Turret Focus
Omega for Shield boost + Armor + Missile Focus
Omega for Shield boost + Armor + Turret Focus
And the day CCP releases Omega shield for boosting total shield amount I will most likely have a set of that as well.
People that have fit for purpose clones (and people that keep getting podded) keep the implant market healthy. What I would not mind though is the ability to instantly swap between clones as easily as I change ship types.
The ability to just unplug implants removes the idea that you made a choice and now you need to either pay for a mistake by potentially loosing an expensive implant for something else or be happy because your are minmixed for what you fly.
1 Like
How about we NOT provide another service that uses PLEX? Implants are not that expensive, I would argue by far that rigs are more expensive and we aren’t unplugging those intact are we? I would also like to point out that this is a Future Feature/Ideas thread and should go in that forum, not General Discussion, you may elicit more responses.
What is your idea of a cheap implant?
Correct… the implants that give you 5% on abilities are cheap. But count everything up and you are running in a clone worth 3-4bill. 
For many that is cheap but I assume you are talking about rigs being more expensive than implants so I assume your are talking about peasant implants?
No, you are wrong.
As I’ve explained already is the meaning of the group of implants implied. The only implants for which the statement is true are those that lead to the removal of ISKs.
The failure is yours when you cannot see the truth in the statement and accept it as a part of the sentence.
Sentences have meanings. They are not strings of logic. Logic is a late human invention and at best found logic popularity in the last hundred years. However, our use of language is far older.
The simple fact that there are several people who quite well understand the meaning of the sentence should give you something to think about. You should be asking yourself, how can they see it as true, but you cannot?
All you’re doing now is to go around and to tell people what they should be saying, because of two people being too dumb to comprehend a simple sentence. You might as well run through a foreign country and tell all the people there how to talk, because you lack to comprehend their language.
1 Like
The failure here is you not wanting to accept the fact that you and others are incorrect when making specific statement that ‘Implants are an ISK sink’. To make that statement correct, the parameters in it need to be specified, not generalized or implied. The reason for detailed statements is because nobody here is a mind reader.
1 Like