@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

The thing is, Trump does not consider it a bad thing at all. He's not saying "I'll retaliate and then we'll negotiate that nobody does this thing again".

And the thing about that is, how long have we seen politicians selling votes? When was Social Security implemented? Medicare? Medicaid? 7 zillion welfare and various pork barrel spending programs no one has even heard of? I too dream of a politician coming in and, dare I say, draining the swamp, but this has been going on for a century or so. At that point it's just standard warfare, rather than something that calls for international tribunals.

a previously-conscious child has a future expectation of consciousness (barring an unrecoverable coma), while a never-previously-conscious fetus has no such future expectation.

But we very much do expect fetuses to become conscious? Or is the idea that previously-conscious people are the ones expecting to become conscious prior to the events leading to their unconsciousness? If so, how can the unrecoverable coma exception work? I don't think anyone actually expects their coma to be unrecoverable.

Sorry, was reading too fast and parsed "my" as "the". Feel free to explain to me why you think you're sentient when you're unconcious.

You don't meet the definition either when you're unconcious.

Sure, also.

By that logic, why not go full Murray Rothbard, and declare children to be the parents' property?

In a democracy buying votes is a weapon. Specifically, the type of weapon that tends to get banned by international treaties, that's the whole reason why it's such a taboo / is seen as "burning of the commons". I don't think civilian infra is a good analogy, unless it can be show there's a direct connection of it to performance on the battlefield. It's relatively easy to take the high road and not retaliate against pointless cruelty, it's another thing entirely to take the high road over something that gives your enemy an actual strategic advantage.

I also disagree this is not a war, and I don't think it's specifically an American thing, the entire western world seems locked in the same conflict. Oh, and I'm not a burger.

Go listen to one of these lizardmen elite conferences like the WEF / IMF / etc. That's literally their plan.

It would be strange that the US has the fifth largest incarceration rate and isn’t incarcerating enough people.

No, it wouldn't. It would be absolutely unremarkable with a high enough base crime rate in the US, and/or dysfunctional enough criminal justice systems in other countries with high crime rates. All the "the US has (one of) the highest incarceration rates in the world" are meaningless because of this.

and for convictions the system still seems to work: The US has the 5th highest incarceration rate, under El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda, and Turkmenistan. Obviously the US needs crime reform but in enforcement, changing trials won’t fix the main problem of low-level nuisances because they’re not getting arrested in the first place.

I don't see how any of this follows. The conviction rate is not the same thing as the incarceration rate, so just saying "look at how many people there are in prison" feels neither here nor there, and if the low-level nuisances aren't getting arrested, you don't know whether that's the cause of low convictions or it's effect.

Again, I have to say they do look good, but IMO they don't really suit the style of the sprites. Too realistic, I think?

Good news is they're easy to replace, I just have to keep poking at them. The assets I see floating around the web tend to either lean into the realistic, or the cartoony style, so it's a bit tricky. Maybe I can apply some filter on it, let's see.

Money is fungible, so the fundamentality of the difference is definitely overstated here.

You have failed to mirror

How? I agree that the Hottentot Morality criticism would be just as incoherent if it was about Russians defending themselves from a Ukrainian invasion, adding that would just be reduntant.

"My side is good so anything we do is good and justified, the other side is not-us and thus is bad, anything they do is bad and unjustified, even if its the exact same thing we do"

I don't see where this is happening.

That's odd, I distinctly recall lots of people being killed not just as a direct result of, but in the name of the Enlightenment.

And while I'm sure extreme pacifists existed among Enlightment thinkers, I don't think "it's morally wrong to repell an invading army" was a representative view among them.

There is endless material by conservative economists and other such experts on the matter. You can disagree with the likes of Hayek/Friedman/Sowell/etc but to act as if no coherent arguments exist whatsoever is simply a skill issue on your part. Why be proud of your lack of knowledge?

It's been a while since I read them, but I don't recall any of their material about why it's bad to redistribute money, that will get redistributed no matter what you do, to your preferred social causes, instead of to the causes preferred by the social liberals. Can you perhaps post a link or two where they've made that case?

I'm a reaganite libertarian, "my side" has been for belt tightening already.

Reagan did not tighten the belt.

"When Russians shoot Ukrainians, that's bad; When Ukrainians shoot Russians, that's good". Such Hottentot Morality.

On top of that, there's the question of comparative advantage. Early Rats really wanted to brush it off, something something we did not do comparative advantage for horses. For a long time, we kinda did, actually. Maybe one day everything gets automated, but simple accounting dictates that we fire all the lawyers, and hand them a broom first.

I finished the switch to flipbook based explosions, and it does look a lot nicer. I found another flipbook for explosive rounds, and I kinda like it, but there's still something about it that I doesn't sit right with me, and I'll have to keep tweaking it.

I replaced the projectile sprites with some ai slop, and I think it does look a lot nicer, I'm still not sure about the grenade, though.

I also played around with particle render ordering for the projectiles and set it to youngest particle on top. Surprisingly this actually gave me the effect I wanted. I was under the impression that the particle age has no relation to the actual projectile age, as the projectile simulation is not done in the particle system, but somehow it works. One unintended effect is that the grenade comes out on top when you're still covered by the previous one's explosion, but that's actually quite helpful as it shows you where you are, and where the next explosion is going to be. I'm thinking of coming up with some filter that would show the player position even when covered.

Next stop: I'll try to finally add some UI.

How have you been doing @Southkraut?

Oh, you got me there. I read the factoid from a book written by their first post-soviet PM, I don't think be mentioned that, but I read it ages ago.

that will likely stick through the next Democratic President.

Why is that a requirement? Democrats have the right to implement their own policy they win. It's their decision, and not the Republicans job to cast magical spells that are supposed to stop them?

Which Spanish law are you talking about?

The recent-ish migrant legalization decree.

I think most people take "mass deportation" to mean of migrants, not citizens. So you can say that.

I'm sorry, I've just been through a similar process with trans activists telling me I shouldn't use "woman" as a biological catheogry, because it's a social construct that refers to gender, and that I should use "female" for that instead, and, a few years down the line, telling me I shouldn't use "female" because it's offensive. I have decided not to give much stock to people policing my language since then.

This is not just my position, it's the position of even some immigration hawks like Farage, who pushed back on Lowe for much less radical claims than full remigration.

Farage is not particularly credible on the issue, and either way, what does the spat between him and Lowe have to do with what "remigration" means? Why should I trust your interpretation of the word, over AfD explicitly saying what they mean by it?

This is going to shift the pendulum back towards "trusted" "publishers" and stuff, where there is some sort of quality gate.

People have been saying that since Unity first came out. It won't. We have user reviews, no one needs """trusted""" publishers.

you have to file formal paperwork and pay a fee to your prior country to de-citizen yourself there, after you've become a US citizen, if you so desire

Most countries are actually fairly chill about this, and said fee is the usual price of pushing through the paperwork that you have to pay to get literally anything done. Ironically it's the US that's rather strict about it, and hits you with pretty heavy exit taxes, though more countries are starting to talk about implementing something similar.

Do we…not?

I actually thought we required renouncing other citizenships before letting someone naturalize.

I think there are some words to that effect that you have to recite when getting the citizenship, but no, they're dead letter, and the U.S. is perfectly happy with dual citizenships, as far as I know.