@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

I made some progress with the background generation, but we're not quite there yet. What's happening now is that if the player moves off the current grid cell, more cells are generated, the old cells get copied from the shader memory, and normal textures are initialized from them, and assigned to the background sprites (this is when you see them turn pink). The new cells get assigned to the texture array that sits on the shader.

I've hit some issues on the way, as expected copying the textures from the GPU to the CPU slows things down, so I spread it out over a few seconds. This probably won't be enough though, because still have to shuffle the shader texture array around (if you move off-grid to the right, each cell in the array has to be moved left, and blank ones need to be created on to the right). Doing this on the CPU won't be feasible it would require 6 more GPU-CPU copies to read them and 9 more CPU-GPU copies to set them in their new positions, so I'll try to do the whole thing on the GPU. It's a lot of pixels to copy, but it should be a lot simpler code than the bug simulation, so I'm hoping I can do it in a single frame without affecting performance.

How have you been doing @Southkraut?

Agreed. However if the dissenting members (or some other subgroup) are accused of hypocrisy based on the stated views of some other subgroup, that's the sort of group responsibility I am talking about.

But has he done that here? I thought the accusation was that he isn't being specific, which would preclude from attributing views to people who dissent from them.

In this case, the Jew hater identified (1) "Jewish thinkers" who are allegedly responsible for pushing various norms of conduct on the world; and (2) "Zionists" who allegedly carve out an exception to violate these norms.

Sorry, the last comment I saw was about "Ethnostate for me, infinity zogs for thee". It's a reductive and snarky way to phrase it, but I think this view is actually shared by a majority of Jewish people.

This seems to assume that the Charlottesville rally would not have occured had they not been in touch with a single member of the larger group chat behind the rally.

No, it doesn't. I don't have to assume that a particular supporter was critical to an even to call him a supporter.

Consider in just the five years from 2012 to to this hearing in 2017 the ATF and DEA alone paid informants almost 260 million.

Yeah, glowies are also known for creating situations that would later allow themselves to swoop in, and call themselves heroes.

If his characterization of a specific case is correct, none of what you said is relevant. It's perfectly possible that on average things are more or less lime you describe, but people make an exception for Trump.

Keeping Israel as a necessarily majority-Jewish state, while promoting diversity in any state they're a minority in, for one.

By majority-supporting progressive policies for other nations, while opposing them for their own communities.

Note also how for the anti-Semite, each and every Jew is responsible for whatever is said by every other Jew.

A general statement about a group does not imply even it's dissenting members are held accountable for the majority opinion.

Come up with a better name for it, if you want, the dynamic seems the same, and the point was to show that saying a reaction was caused by something, does not actually justify the reaction, unlike what you were claiming.

Doesn't this strongly suggest that Group A's antipathy towards Group B really has nothing to do with Activity X, and it's just a convenient pretext to ostracise a group they wanted to harass for unrelated reasons?

You could say that activity X has nothing to do with it, but not in the way you wish to imply. The actual issue was the dynamic where an activity is seen as corrosive to society by both groups, so one of them bans it universally, and the other bans it only within the ingroup. I don't know how you can claim it's a "convenient pretext", one group is clearly defecting, and has no right to whine about their defection being recognized as such.

The activity being no longer recognized as harmful due to changing socio-economic circumstances does not change the fact that one of the groups was defecting. And even though that particular activity is no longer controversial, the defection dynamic causing the conflict is still observable today.