ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
New: There are many agents. All these agents have goals and sets of possible actions. Some of those agents have physical bodies. But the actions and interactions of the agents only account for their physical bodies in the broadest sense, i.e., usually just location. Those physical bodies that are very close to the player's location are actually rendered and physically simulated, but the abstract behavior of the agents has priority over the physics simulation, and they can interact with non-rendered, non-physically-simulated agents just fine.
Yeah, makes sense, that's how I like think about my projects as well, though back to the engine question, I get the feeling that Unity / Godot is often an obstacle to it. It's like they really want you to think agent == scene node, and decoupling the game world from the scene / physical simulation often feels like a pain in the ass. Is this an issue you ran into, or did you come up with some cool way around that (alternatively - can't relate with the issue at all)?
How did your similar situation turn out?
Much like yours. It was a step down financially but that was unavoidable, for all the misery the old job was causing me, it paid quite well. Otherwise nothing but upsides - better management, colleagues I get along with better, a more up-to-date tech stack (which was a big relief, I felt I was in the danger of becoming a fossil with the old one). I also relate suddenly having energy after years of dragging myself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell
What? No, I asked my question because it's relevant to my claim, which is - if the Brooks photo was deleted and had licensing information, nobody could tell.
How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?
Yes. The way to get a position of influence in an organization is to actually do gruntwork.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Yeah, I've never seen an image on Wikipedia without licensing information, and I've never seen an image on Commons that is copyrighted.
How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?
Yes, this user regularly does what seem to be (based on the rate and uniformity of log messages) semi-automated deletions of photos without licensing sections, including those illustrating such hot button issues as some kind of "flag map of Embera-Wouanaan", the logo of Sporge-Jorgen, and of course, the accursed demodex mite.
How is that evidence of anything?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
If you upload the image to Wikipedia and state that it's free use (similar to the Charleston example), I do not think it will be removed due to missing licensing info (which is what happened last time). Will it stay up forever and ever? I have no idea.
You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures. We're claiming that the photo was removed because the Wikipedia editors don't want it to be published on Wikipedia, and are using any procedural rule as an excuse. A way to disprove my belief would be to reupload the photo and address the issues from the previous removal. What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?
By the way, it seems that the image was not even deleted manually, but rather by automation.
Maybe? This doesn't explicitly say anything about what could have happened to the image.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I don't understand the question
If someone deleted the Charlottesville photo, and kept the mugshot, would you be able to tell that the policy was misapplied? If not, how can you tell that it was applied correctly here?
There is licensing information, hence the section entitled "Licensing" in large print, which is the requirement (see policy linked above).
And you have evidence no one bothered writing such a section for the mugshot?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Copyright is obviously a license.
A copyright is the right of the copyright holder to decide who can publish a copyrighted work under which conditions. A license is a document written by the copyright holder that specifies those conditions, and who they apply to. So no, copyright is obviously not a license. "Fair use" is an exception in the American copyright law that allows people to publish a copyrighted work if certain conditions are met. "Copyrighted image under fair use" literally means "we have no license for this, but we believe the fair use exceptions apply".
However, as I mentioned, nobody actually did this.
Do you want to make a bet on how long it will stay up if I reupload the image, and state that it's fair use?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I don't understand why you find this hard to believe considering that's plainly the justification written for the deletion.
Because they can write whatever they want. If someone reversed what's written under which photo, and it remained unquestinedd by other editors, would you be able to tell something is amiss?
This is not one of the (many) rules that can be bent
There is literally no license for the Charlottesville photo.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
"Copyrighted image" is not a license, and neither is "fair use". If this fulfills the requirements, they could just write "fair use" under the mugshot.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
The Charlottesville photo he mentioned has no license submitted with it, only excuses for why it's fair use.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Turn off airbags, unfasten seatbelts, enjoy.
I think there was a case of this in 2020, guy got a delivery truck and drove it into a crowd at a parade.
First case that brought this tactic into "public consciousness" I'm aware of is the Nice truck attack of 2016, it triggered a bunch of copycats to the point where, for a while, any European hearing "vehicle drives into crowd" would have "oh, another Islamist terrorist attack" as his first thought.
Redot
With the limited amount time that I have recently, playing around with Redot feels like something more doable than slogging through bigger Highspace features I got stuck on, so it looks like this is what I'll be doing until my brain resets and/or I'll have more time to push through the block there. Contrary to @Southkraut's pessimism, it looks like they're pulling through. Last week I took it for a spin and saw that everything seems to work pretty much like with old Godot, so I dusted off some old projects to see what I can do with them. Ages ago I took a GPU programming course, and made a little simulation of a swarm chasing the player, while respecting some basic rules of physics (like collisions with each other). This was still done in Unity, and while it mostly worked, I started running into some performance issues as complexity grew.
Years later GPU programming is still a niche, but it looks like there's more experience around it, and I can strip-mine other projects for insights. Specifically what I'd like to do is see if I can adapt this into Redot, and push my old simulation to really high numbers (aiming for millions, go big or go home).
@Southkraut, you mentioned you probably wouldn't have time over the past week, but I'll traditionally ask how are you doing anyway. Also, last week you said:
Looking back upon my Unity project and comparing it to my current Godot/Stride iterations, I am struck by one fundamental difference that wasn't even intentional. My old project is primarily a physics simulation, and whatever abstract logic or behavior happens is a consequence of physical entities interacting. In the new version, everything is abstract entities that possibly project into the physical realm. Huh. I'll need to do some more thinking about this.
Can you elaborate on this. I think I know what you mean, but I don't know what consequences, if any, it would have on picking an Engine, for example.
Also, congrats on the new job! I recall you posted about being burned out with the old one a while back. I've been in a similar position not long ago, so I'm glad to hear you took matters into your own hands, and hope the new job is a better fit.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Why? They don't need converts, their communities are growing just fine on their own, incorporating an outsider would be a pain-in-the-ass years-long process with a huge dropout rate, and taking them in would expose them to the possibility of having hostile values smuggled in, either deliberately or subconsciously. Literally, what would be the upside for them?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Sure, it's not just "lives for the sake of lives", the child's innocence of any wrongdoing also enters the picture. Responsibility and the wisdom of having casual sex is mostly orthogonal to this issue.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Isn't that still a decent salary for a governess?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Don't know how it happened in Korea, but a lot European countries ended up borrowing it too. The native word for sex often feels (extremely) vulgar, and the non-vulgar alternatives are either vague euphemisms, clinical multi-word phrases or compound words in languages like German. "Sex" by comparison is pretty handy - short and neutral.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Are we arguing that the value provided by sugar water delivery and DoorDash makes up for the cost of putting their kids in school
Yes. While this may be the price tag, there is no way in hell it takes $6000 per month to teach a single child. For this money you could literally hire a governess for each child (well, +/- the sudden spike in demand for teachers), and operating at scale is supposed to make things cheaper.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Yeah, me too. I'd much prefer it if the Democrats' response to 2016 was equal to that of Republicans' to 2020.
You accuse me, first, of hypocrisy-- of not understanding how you create definitions, even as I accuse you of not understanding the gender-ideologist’s position. I would instead characterize that as disagreement. I think either we are using the same word (‘definition’) to point at two separate topics, or your definition of ‘definition’ rests on an incoherent theory of mind and therefore incomplete self-understanding.
Don't get me wrong, a disagreement between us most likely exists as well, but if you understood my position you'd be able to describe it in terms I would recognize as accurate, and you haven't really done that yet. This is much broader than the disagreement over my approach to definitions, so far, whenever a second person pronoun was followed by a description of an idea or behavior it has failed to match thoughts I have or approaches I take, which is why I believe you don't understand where I'm coming from. You've been informed of that repeatedly, and instead of trying to correct any misunderstanding between us, you're confidently claiming I lack self-understanding. It's quite clear you're not living up to your own standard here.
Funnily enough the position you describe as yours is much closer to mine than the one you describe as mine. I don't believe there's anything fixed, or platonic about concepts, and if I depend on "objectivity" of any kind it's only to the extent I believe there's a physical reality external to us, which doesn't much care what we think of it. You're right that the lack of various lanes and sidewalks would not affect how I see vehicles and pedestrians, but I hold that you're wrong it makes no sense to talk about changing definitions. Definitions are necessary to express ideas, and if you're using the word "car" in some other way than I am, it's pointless to fight over who has the "correct" definition (and I'm pretty sure you were making that point yourself), and much easier to just switch over to yours, express my ideas with your concepts, and make-do with pointing fingers at objects when all else fails.
I like the idea of the brain as a supervised classifier, nothing you said about the mutability of definitions goes much against anything I believe, and I don't think there's any one true way to classify things, but where it falls flat for me is the insistence that definitions are derived from goals. I believe that not only is it possible to have the same goal while having different definitions, or different goals while having the same definitions, I believe it's not even possible to talk about goals, unless you have a set of coherent definitions to begin with.
You call them an idiot, they call you a bigot,
maybe they really are stupid and/or evil.
There’s no doubt in my mind that plenty of gender-ideologists are stupid and malicious.
That's great, but the words "stupid", "evil" and "malicious" never left my virtual mouth, so you've been essentially talking to yourself throughout the train of thought. This was a particularly egregious example of not meeting me where I am.
If you choose to hurt yourself… okay? It’s not like taking drugs, where by hurting yourself, you become more likely to hurt other people too.
So to take another example, if a patient goes to a doctor and asks for an opioid prescription, not because he's sick, not because's he's in any sort of unbearable pain, but because it will make him feel good, and the doctor runs his clinic by the motto "the customer is always right", you'd see absolutely nothing wrong with that edit: you would not see that as a valid case for government intervention?
It’s reasonable for the government to set up guardrails when it comes to medicine. And verifying that patients (and if applicable, the parents) are giving informed consent and that the drug or procedure given will be successful at giving it to them is extremely non-trivial. I suspect a “perfect” implementation of the system would result in a lot fewer minors ultimately getting medically transitioned.
I don't think you have to go as far as "perfect". A very basic implementation of the system would result it that, and it would likely limit many adult transitions as well.
And yes, it’s true that you and I were able to discuss this issue without reference to the definitions of “man” and “woman”, but that’s because we more-or-less agree on those definitions in the first place
If you believe that having a discussion this way requires to have the same definitions in the first place, why did you say this:
If you taboo'd the words 'man,' 'woman,' 'male,' and 'female,' you could actually have a productive discussion with leftists about whether people should be empowerd to advertise their sexual preferences via their mode of dress...
?
Therefore our disagreement probably hinges on the definition of “government” and “intervention” and “right” instead, and we will almost certainly go around in circles if we aren’t careful about making sure we’re talking about the same things.
I'm pretty sure I share the definitions for all of those 3 words with you and I simply disagree on whether government intervention is actually wrong in this instance, or whether people have a particular right. This is a good example of why it's backwards to claim that you need to have a goal in mind when creating a definition.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Hinging an argument on an accusation of dishonesty is precisely why I feel it is reasonable to request evidence of dishonesty, lest that accusation of dishonesty also be dishonest.
But no one accused him of dishonesty. Nate never said "I didn't get any contract", that's my entire point! It's his opponent that exposed himself to an accusation of dishonesty if and only if he didn't send the contract. This, and the fact that you thought it's his reputation as a better that's at stake, makes me think you're not really getting the logic behind my reasoning, but I don't know how to explain it any better.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
If it was actually 50-50, why did he take down his real time election result projection?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
That would not be fair. In the absence of Nate confirming that he refused to sign a contract, a claim of having sent the contract is just a claim absent further evidence.
I disagree. All Nate has to do is say "no you didn't, you fucking liar", and if Keith can't provide evidence of sending him the contract, he's the one that's going to suffer reputational damage. On the other hand, if Nate says that, but Keith promptly provides evidence, this will look even worse for him. Since Nate knows for a fact whether or not he received the contract, his decision on how to react to the claim tells us something about the truth value of the claim that he was sent the contract.
There are also scenarios that would explain a lack of reaction. Maybe after the spat Nate blocked Keith, and has no knowledge that he's now going around claiming that he sent the contract. So while the lack of reaction doesn't outright prove the contract was sent, I maintain that the potential reputational damage that can result from the claim is a weak form of evidence in itself, and thus it is the demand to provide hard evidence that's unfair.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
To be fair, in the absence of Nate denying it, I don't think he necessarily needs to provide proof.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6d ago
Did the other guy send the contract?
It would be an interesting experiment, but I'm not interested if it turns out a prompt deletion for another made up procedural reason wouldn't change anyone's mind.
More options
Context Copy link