I wasn't arguing for free will, I was arguing against your argument, and, as you can see, it is flawed.

When it comes to free will - in a situation where you have to make a choice it doesn't matter that post-factum you can say that you couldn't have chosen otherwise due to internal and external factors, what matters is that in the moment you still have to make that choice, and no one (oftentimes not even you) can really predict the outcome.

Also, determinism is flawed simply because quantum mechanics exists, which is decidedly indeterministic and deals with probabilities, and there are phenomenons where it affects things on a macro scale.

Well, I neither have to nor have any strong desire to wake up early on a Saturday, but I still do because of a force of habit, how does that fit into your definition?

The problem is with you definition of want. You've formulated it based on the conclusion you've wanted to reach - that there is no other reason to do things, not based on what you actually think it is. That's why I asked for your definition - to try to find a counter example, without you moving the goalpost and saying that that's actually a want as well.

If by "want" you mean "everything you do that you don't have to" then your post is kinda useless. Yeah, you do things you have to and things you don't have to, that's obvious, cause there is no other category of actions.

The point was to illustrate a counter-example to your coffee example and that you can control (at least some) of your wants (which you previously said that one can't do). I would be curious to hear your definition of want (and have to, for that matter). You seem to be using it as an umbrella term that covers everything from physical urges to something a person thinks would subjectively benefit them.

It still was your choice, people regularly go against the societal norms and desires imposed from the outside. Like, I never started smoking, although both of my parents and a lot of my peers did.

I mean, you chose to taste it again when you knew you didn't like the taste. That's how acquired tastes work, you start liking something after repeated exposure.

if you ignore the scales, this could be a bizarre Mad Max chase scene

And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?

I think they've meant world's view, not worldview

So?

Don't leave this dude home alone again, he comes up with some weird stuff

If you care about this - the developer Unfrozen is russian in origin (although they are trying to make everyone forget about it), one of the investors that funded their previous game (Iratus), GEM Capital, has ties with the russian gas and oil business.

I guess you're right. Although I've never heard the TV series to be referred by its full title, it has decent reviews (and it was my first introduction to the character).

I'm kinda confused. Why do so many people (including this article) treat this as a reboot of the first movie, when the creatives have said that it's another adaptation of the original graphic novel? And why is everyone suddenly so protective of the legacy of Brandon Lee, when there's already been a direct sequel to his movie and a separate TV series?