ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
30d ago
If it's for "anybody but whites" it still illegal, fits right into the memeplex it's invoking, and fulfills the promise.
"This won't actually happen" is a poor argument. If you don't want to be criticize for your proposals, don't make them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
30d ago
@Southkraut, how are you doing?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
30d ago
Highspace
On one hand things are moving, but on the other I feel a bit stuck. Last week's task was to create a "save game" feature, at least on the backend, to make future testing a bit easier, however:
- A few weeks ago I decided it might be time to bump up the version of the FS2 binary. Since most of the project is is LUA, I figured it shouldn't be an issue. Turns out I actually had a bugfix there that made the in-mission "tactical view" even possible (FS2 forgot to reset lights when rendering a frame from LUA, causing them to accumulate, and performance to drop). I didn't open a pull request with FS2, and no one else noticed the bug, so updating the source reintroduced. Oops.
- Then I noticed that the game gets stuck in tactical mode. At first I thought it must be an issue on the LUA end, but after some amount of painful debugging I thought that maybe it's also a result of the FS2 binary update - yup! So it looks like I'll have to roll everything back to the previous version for now, because I'm not in the mood for debugging the FS2 source.
- Found another bug in the System Map that causes everything to disappear if the time compression is set too high, and enemy ships run into you. I'm still on debugging this one.
Redot
Somehow I got excited for the Godot fork and wanted to set it up, but it looks like their compiled binaries are incompatible with my distro, which either means:
- upgrading the OS (which I'm not really in the mood for either at the moment)
- compiling Redot from source, which I might to if I have some spare time.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
30d ago
I might be misunderstanding the intentions in your previous comment, but I was under the impression you're trying to come up with some objective measure to see if this statement from Naraburns is true:
By the mid 1990s at the latest, National Review was much, much closer to the "common man" than anything the New York Times had on offer.
If that's what you're going for, looking at the demographics of each paper seems like a pretty bad approach.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
30d ago
Thanks for picking that year, as that is the earliest Press Kit I can find for NR easily available online. It gives a breakdown of what their readership looks like* for the purposes of selling advertising
You probably could have saved yourself some time, if you agreed on this metric ahead of time. Personally, it seems like a pretty bad approach to measuring who's more in touch of the common man.
That's not the issue. I recognize that some claims to asylum are legit, but I don't think these claims should enable mass population transfers. I also think such a mass-transfer is a greater violation of rights than a denial of a valid asylum claim.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Trump needs massively beefed security, immediately, whether you like him or not.
The good news is that after the first attempt, they seem to be catching the would-be assassins before they get a chance to do anything.
Governments are vastly more powerful than most humans. This is why we limit what governments can do to people
Where? Governments assert broad rights to deploy mass surveillance, control speech, terrorize people with the police for political disagreement, even arrest people on completely arbitrary grounds if they're deemed to be enough trouble.
For example, even if most criminal defendants are guilty, we still want trials to follow due process.
Of course a lot of people claiming asylum in European countries are in fact economic migrants. And of course many of them will not be swiftly deported. But none of that affects the rights of people with a legitimate claim to asylum.
There's nothing in the constitutions and refugee conventions you keep citing, that would prevent a European government from refusing entry to African "refugees", while following due process.
Should this give another EU country the licence to just confiscate property of some other party at gunpoint, because 'taxes are already suspended in the EU'? Clearly not.
All taxes are "confiscating property at gunpoint", and countries clearly can decide their tax policy.
At the end of the day, the migrants in Belarus were shipped there with the explicit goal of annoying the EU.
This complaint seems a bit incoherent. I'm constantly being told that immigration is a benefit to the host country, how can that be annoying?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
next yearscratch that, it's a shit show, next couple years.
I appreciated the laugh, thank you.
unreasonably impatient.
Maybe, but I'm not the one that set the deadlines. You said yourself, we were scheduled for next year to go to the moon, and I won't even mention Elon's private Mars ambitions.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space
Admittedly that's a tough number for me to debate. I will notice that this is the number of launches, and not their cost, but I am aware of the implication that such a number would not be sustainable if the costs weren't appropriately low. That said, I would one day like to see an independently audited cost breakdown of these launches, because I do actually think what we're seeing is unsustainable, at least as far as the public-facing part of the company goes. For all I know SpaceX is a front for launching Black-Ops satellites without raising too much suspicion, and is appropriately awash with money.
You are seeing what the early part of an era of exploration or expansion looks like.
(...)
Then given that we are literally on the 5th test flight ever of a new degree of capability, historically speaking 50 years from now would be very soon, let alone 15 or 5.
That's all fine, but shouldn't we then leave declaring new eras of exploration to historians? With everything you've written, it sounds like something that won't become apparent for quite a while.
For example, the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo program to the moon had a LEO lift capacity of 118 tons, and about $5.5k per kg. The Starship is expected to have a LEO lift capacity of 100-150 tons, with a forecasted cost of around $1.6k per kg... possibly falling to $0.15kg ($150/kg) over time due to to reusability reduce the cost per flight as you don't have to keep re-making the whole thing.
There's a few issues here. One is - wasn't Saturn 5 optimized for the flight to the moon? It could deliver 50 tons to the moon in a single shot. Starship might have good (forecasted) performance to LEO, but it simply cannot make it to the moon, and even according to best case scenario projections will need a dozen or so refueling launches to reach the moon.
The second problem I have is the "falling over time do tue reusability", why hasn't this happened with Falcon 9? I consider it's announced costs to be a bit sus in themselves, but even taking them at face value, you don't see them dropping over time.
Finally, the third problem is that it's a forecasted cost. Musk's entire MO is announcing some product promising insane performance, falling way short, but acting like he delivered because you can buy something that looks vaguely like the announced product. Wasn't self-driving supposed to be safer than a human driver 7 years ago? Wasn't the Cybertruck supposed to be nearly indestructible and cost as low as $40K? Wasn't the Roadster supposed to be in production in 2019, and offer some insane range like 600 miles? Wasn't the Semi supposed to beat Diesel trucks in terms of costs, be competitive with rail, and be guaranteed to not break for a million miles? Wasn't the Boring Company supposed to cut tunnel costs to a fraction of what they were? What makes you so sure he'll deliver on Starship any better than he did on any of those?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I really want to contradict you and drop a lizardman joke, but even at my tinfoiliest I have to admit you're right on this one.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Huh, the only comments on it that I can find right now are this one in response to you, and this one in response to @self_made_human. I swear I shook hands with both of you on something like 50 USD.
Unless we made the actual bet later, it seems like there's 2 years left.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
No? Every single launch to date was on a suborbital trajectory. It made it to orbital altitude I guess, but that's not an orbit.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Independent watchdog NGOs routinely declare elections flawed or invalid because of censorship
Do you have an example? I don't really follow election watchdogs, so I never heard of one complaining about censorship, but it would be funny to compare and contrast with western elections.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I think it was "Starship makes it to orbit". Can't remember if it was 5 or 3 years, but have the posts saved somewhere.
While it's looking 50/50 on the first bet, I'm like 90% sure the moon thing isn't isn't happening, unless they pull a switcheroo and it turns out they can do it on Falcon Heavy or something. Starship, according to the official docs, will need something like a dozen refueling launches to go to the moon, and that's the optimistic scenario.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Yay, I love bets! $50?
And just to be clear we're talking "back to the moon on Starship", or at the very least one of SpaceX' rockets, right?
Also: this will either need to be a" donate to charoty " type bet, or we'll need to find a convenient way to send money anonymously.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I don't know how to compare these, when the books for one are public, and for the other are not.
And if it's so much cheaper, where is the new era of space exploration? Weren't we supposed to be well on our way back to the Moon by now? Do you think we'll get there any time soon?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I think it's wrong to call that a "lucky" catch, but at the same time - so where is the new era of space exploration? Wasn't Falcon 9 already supposed be rapidly reusable? You're not worried that they haven't bothered putting even dummy cargo on the upper stage? Or the fact that they were supposed to be half way to the moon by now?
It seems from animal models that growth hormone increases growth speed but not where you end up? Not sure why you hope this is a silver bullet. People are probably dismissive because it doesn't seem to be something that is currently possible.
I never got around to reading up on it, but apparently you don't need to look at animal models, as trying to control human height with hormones is a thing that actually happened IRL. If you want a summary, and don't mind reading someone with an axe to grind, Mia Hughes wrote a chapter on it in the WPATH Files (it starts at the bottom of the page: "Engineering Children’s Height With Hormones").
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Correct!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
They were remarkably impartial. Every single user was getting the exact same amount, regardless of the their politics, or any other factor for that matter.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Well, it's not the Mongolians either.
I thought "Hallow" basically means "Saint" / "Holy"?
Yeah, I do.
As much as I think the "Trump campaign is in disarray! They were not prepared for Kamala! Coconut-couchfucker-joy!" offensive was fake, I'll keep repeating "it's not over until it's over". Someone else also pointed out back then that relying on pollsters' past bias might be risky, because you never know when they might decide to correct for it.
More options
Context Copy link