@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

Thanks! It's this one for anyone else who's interested.

Which podcast? I scrolled up the conversation but I'm not seeing any links.

The voices told me to kill my family and I did it but I knew that wasn't the right thing and couldn't help myself = guilty.

The voices told me to kill my family and I did it because if the voices told me to do it must be the right thing to do = NGRI.

That's what I assumed, and my argument is that we are in the former scenario, implied by Clancy attempting to hide her actions. Of course, if the state operates under a different framework than the argument does not apply.

The field has some limitations of course but doctors are doing this every day all over the country and it works fine and is a standard part of the legal system.

You can say the same thing about transgender healthcare, that doesn't mean it rests on sound assumptions. Everything you said here only reinforces my impression that this is more of an art than a science, and the whole thing is based on trust, which I don't have a lot to spare at the moment.

if someone is pretending to have cognitive deficits to avoid blame you can ask them a question that even someone with severe retardation or dementia can answer like "what's 2+2." Anyone who can't answer that is going to be highly suspicious.

This in particular sounds like the whole thing rests on "the experts" having 20-30 IQ points on the people they're investigating, and being reasonably confident they'll be doing the manipulating, rather than being manipulated. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption here, and I'm really not seeing anything that's supposed to catch this case in particular.

"She has some planning elements to it" insanity doesn't have to mean complete irrationality.

Like I said in another comment, even if this is true (and I'm not sure this is actually established), I'm having trouble seeing the "not guilty" part of "not guilty by reason of insanity".

I thought that the idea behind "not guilty by reason of insanity" is that the culprit was in a state where they had either no control of their own actions, or were unable to tell their actions were wrong, and so can't be held liable. Having a mind organized enough that you're capable of planning, and being aware of the necessity to hide them, seem to strike at both of these assumptions. Even if there is a form of psychosis that works like this, I'm having trouble seeing the justification for a "not guilty" verdict.

In the case of a crime of passion you know what you were doing is wrong, if you try and pretend you were briefly randomly psychotic you'll get "by what mechanism" "oh so you chose to do drugs knowing that drugs are illegal and bad."

Except these days it's trivial to get prescribed drugs from a doctor, which you can then use as an excuse.

I'm more open to the psychosis explanation than most people here, but I feel like "the experts" are on shaky ground on the issue, and are pulling a "trust me, bro".

-It seems like actual experts in this field are landing on a psychotic process (most likely postpartum psychosis) as the explanation of events. That is to say she is legitimately not guilty by reason of insanity. This moved the needle for me. How can I criticize women for being retarded and not listening to actual information if I don't listen to experts and people with specific knowledge of the case.

What's the expert explanation for her preparing for the act by sending the husband away for chores, and even biding her time by calmly picking up the phone whem he called?

I've been meaning to ask for a while - does anyone know anything about the guys behind it? The show's great, but I can't shake the felling that it's all set up for a rug-pull in the finale.

Donald Trump was still on twitter until 2021!

Is "we didn't ban the sitting / former President of the United States yet" really an appropriate example of how lax the censorship was?

You aren’t American, are you?

Nope, European, easterner living on the west side.

Anyway, my point is that you don’t “allow” others as if you’re the sole force dictating other nations’ and peoples’ will.

Some countries have more weight to push around, and they use it to their advantage. Europe does it too, I'm sure Chine will too in due time, if it's not already doing it. You can see that sort of thing happen even between individual people.

Why haven’t Africans built their own countries if what mattered was whether you allowed them to develop?

There's obviously more than one factor involved, being in the good graces of the Americans is not a guarantee of success, but it sure helps! In case of China, I'm sure you guys could reach your current level all on your own, but surely you'll admit that being able to sell goods to the west sped things up?

Complain to the them in your country.

I'm doing what I can...

Are the super rich, powerful etc neoliberal elites in power, in Britain or the US, now or in the near future?

They are, and even if they are finally sidelined, it's an open question whether the opposition has a meaningfully different vision, or is just using the population's grievances to get into power.

by “allowing” us into the WTO to “flood” their market with cheap stuff, by “allowing” Chinese peasants to make their T shirts

Why the scare quotes? Your country is perfectly aware of the importance of protecting it's own industry.

Very ungrateful of course, our labor subsidized their lifestyle or they’ll pay as much for grocery and electronics as their plumbers and nannies.

But that was the very point of the critics of the current system: "we're getting fat and lazy off the backs of Asian labour".

The top level is already AAQC, but the two of you and @georgioz deserve a nomination of your own. I don't have a dog in this fight (never even read HP), but I'm really enjoying the conversation.

Carry on, chaps.

After playing around the flipbooks from FC, I ended up scrapping the shader-based explosions. I really like playing with shaders, but sampling a texture is way easier and more performant, so there's no justification for doing it procedurally.

So I refactored the projectile material - originally it had a single texture with various projectile types, and I'd sample the correct one based on the type stored in the current particle, but I noticed that uniforms (shader variables that can be imported from "outside" / the scene editor) accept arrays, so each type will have it's own texture, and I won't have to worry about differing frame counts between types.

One thing I still need to do is add another transition to the grenade. If I play the whole animation when it's in the exploding state, it'll keep killing the monsters way longer than warranted, so I want to split the animation, and play the latter "smoke cloud" part in a special state where collision detection is turned off.

How have you been doing @Southkraut?

The general Artist position on AI is a skin of intellectually-bankrupt blather on top of an ocean of naked self-interest

I actually thought they'd be a fair bit more self-interested, and suddenly find it fine and dandy when it's the code monkeys that are getting replaced, so kudos for consistency, I guess.

Safety classifiers are exceedingly frustrating

Can you post (or DM, if you prefer) some of the text that's been tripping it up? It started as a gimmick, but I have a system prompt that gives me feedback on how much thought-crime I'm committing, and why it's considered a thought crime. It doesn't have much use other than making me giggle, but I thought it might actually be useful for getting around the safeties, and wanted to put it to a test.

Also a general thought: if you can actually get working code, I think you could solo-dev a pretty kickass game. I really liked the writing you did for HighSpace, and since you're an artist, there's not much more you'd need.

It's because they think they need more workers or else everything will be even worse

I don't buy that, because a cursory look at the relevant numbers shows that immigrants are a net financial drain. That made some sort of sense for intra-European migration, but makes zero sense for the sort of immigration that people create drama over.

And if they really actually believed that argument, they would have a public debate on it, not lie and scramble to control the conversation.

It's not that deep, but looking at everything that's happening in Europe, I find it hard to believe this is happening as a result of naive optimism and/or a misunderstanding that was cemented by our leaders being sclerotic and indecisive. Any native pushback is being coordinated against with military-like precision and discipline. Media are deployed to create hit pieces, information is censored, vast resources are deployed to ensure things go the way they are going now (orders of magnitude more than it would cost to prevent them from happening).

Simply put, I'm taking the "treason" side of the "stupidity or treason" dillema.

Europe is sclerotic, incapable of decisive action, in fact actively disposed against it, has no claim on Leitkultur

I'll take the other side of statement, and say that they are perfectly capable of it, and what you've been describing is a result of that fact.

Americans waking up?

If they used a fraction of the lobbying power that they have accumulated, they could secure citizenship in a rich Western country of their choosing for every one of their people, generous starting package of funds included.

I don't think that's a reasonable alternative in any way.

How is your own prime minister explicitly declaring your nation to be over not a "boorish bully"? How is submitting to outsider coming over and appropriating everything from realestate to government resources any more of an epicycle than consider submitting to Washington?

One doesn't impact the other.

Sure, and it would make sense if people were upset about both, the issue is they are upset about one, and call you a Nazi for talking about the other.

I can channel @ThisIsSin and say that there's actually nothing particularly arcane or hypocritical about it.

I'm not saying it's hypocritical, I'm saying it's insane. I honestly don't see how one is supposed to be a cause for a freakout while the other is not.

The "post-national" state is still ruled by the powers that be in eastern Canada

One way or the other you're still being displaced by foreigners.

Never give up clay if you can help it. Very old law.

Nations lost territory and survived, or even thrived. Full-fledged demographic replacement didn't usually end half as well.

I don't see the similarity. For one, Christians aren't actually that sure they will go to heaven. But more importantly, post-nationalism is not a promise of a utopian future, it's a policy of depriving the native populations of their sovereignty that is being implemented right now. The only argument I can imagine why it would be preferable to becoming a province of another country, is that it is happening more slowly, and gives you some hope of turning it back around before it actually happens.

On the other hand once it does happen it's a lot harder to reverse than loss of independence, and (again) more importantly, no one upset at the prospect of losing independence is upset at the prospect of having their nation deconstructed from above.

The actual analogy would be a Christian being afraid of getting shot in the face vs. a Christian cheerfully signing up for euthanasia.

and not just terror and anger at the idea itself.

Someone has to step me through the terror and anger at the idea itself. Canada is actively suicidal and self-hating, I honestly don't see what a postnational country is supposed to fear about losing independence.

The European reaction to the Greenland affair is similarly deranged.