@thrownaway24e89172's banner p

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

				

User ID: 1081

thrownaway24e89172

naïve paranoid outcast

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1081

Hanlon's razor begs to differ. It seems much more likely to me that they didn't even realize they were publicly insulting their core customers until it was too late.

This would seem to be a question about the hypothetical God's capacities, saying that he's not omniscient, and possibly degrading his omnipotence by his incapacity to aim or direct his absolute power. But saying that this would make him unable to lift a rock seems like linguistic confusion; the simplest way of describing this scenario is that he can lift the rock, what he can't do is find it, or notice it, or however we describe it being irretrievably outside his attention.

I don't think I explained what I meant here. It's not that He is incapable of finding or noticing it in my formulation, but that He chooses not to because for whatever reason He doesn't deign to grace it with His attention. Now that I say it like that, I guess I'm asking if an omnipotent/omniscient God can have free will.

If I create a simulation of a human society on a computer, am I an omniscient God relative to the simulated humans? In some sense I am--I could instrument the simulation as much as I like, inspect every aspect of it in a debugger, etc. In another sense, the amount of data involved likely overwhelms my ability to focus on every little detail. There'd almost certainly be things about the simulation that I was completely unaware of not because I was incapable of knowing but because I had no reason to put in the effort to do so. Do you think there an analog to this with omnipotence? Does a rock that God is "incapable" of lifting because the mere existence of that specific rock is so beneath Him that He can't be bothered to distinguish it fit?

Ah, the limitations of our text-only medium strike again. It can be so hard to judge such things without the indirect cues of in-person communication. I'm glad it was just my misunderstanding then.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I mentioned it because there is usually an expectation that women don't have to face that particular issue and I thought you were underselling what women faced in this situation for not bringing it up. Women may be much less likely to be tarred as creeps, but that's only because we tar them as whores instead.

This is entirely for fun, as I'm pretty happy with my current job in a very different area of programming. I'm mostly interested in being competent enough to write code to scratch itches like this one for the games I play, so I guess I'd say the tool-creation side of things.

EDIT: Particularly tools for automating detection of "problems" or other kinds of batched analysis. I'll also note that my current job regularly involves numerical analysis in Fortran, so I'm not unfamiliar with floating-point accuracy issues.

I'm probably not using the right terminology here. Consider the real-world example of a bowl turned upside down and lowered into water. The inside of the bowl is painted red and the outside blue. My goal is to identify whether any red is directly accessible from the outside. Because the bowl is upside down and in the water, the (EDIT:) directly accessible surface of the water only intersects the blue surface of the bowl, and thus the red is not accessible from the outside. If the bowl were on its side instead, the red surface would be accessible. Most static objects in Skyrim (and probably the other games as well) are topologically similar to bowls in this sense, where they are only partially textured with the intent that the non-textured stuff (corresponding to the red part of the bowl) is hidden behind other textured surfaces.

This is true, but static objects (eg, boulders on mountains) intersect that heightmap and thus would be traversed by my search, and if they don't intersect it properly a surface without a texture on that object would be found.

Yes, though I expect for interior worldspaces it'd wrap around to cover the walls and ceilings as well.

Yeah, you can do that (and in fact I distinctly remember Morrowind having a scripting function for it), the issue is that you can cast an infinite amount of rays from any point.

I don't think I communicated the intended algorithm well. This is just intended to be a batch program that you point your load order at and it spits out a file listing all the "holes" it found. I would only cast a single ray per worldspace, straight down from the (first, if more than one) spawn location to identify a surface to start the breadth-first search. My assumption is that this initial surface would almost certainly be part of the composite surface surrounding the playable volume of that worldspace rather than something floating within it, and thus "flooding" over it with a breadth-first search would suffice to identify holes.

EDIT:

Well, even then you need some criteria to try identify them. Otherwise you'd be showing people the entirety of the game map.

I do have a criteria to identify them: a surface with a texture adjacent to one without a texture. It is classification of them that I defer on. The definition of "adjacent to" is a bit complicated, but basically shares an edge with and if you rotated them around that edge they'd come together without intersecting another surface.

Does Skyrim scripting let you do some vector/matrix math (other than you implementing it by hand that is)?

I don't know, but I was planning to do this as a separate (probably C++) program that just loaded all the resources and analyzed it rather than doing it in Skyrim itself. The idea was to start off learning how the assets are stored, how the data structures for the models work together, etc and build up to being able to run a "simple/naive" analysis on them.

How would you decide which surface is supposed to be hidden, or a hole is not meant to be there?

It wouldn't, it would just try to identify all of them and leave it to someone/something else to decide if it is meant to be there or not.

What does "visible" mean?

I don't know much about 3d graphics at the moment, but I believe a naive algorithm for detecting what I'm looking for would be to cast a ray from a spawn location straight down until it intersects a surface, then do a breadth-first search of all adjacent surfaces recording any that are adjacent to (roughly, share an edge with) one without a renderable texture.

You'd run a sweep through the entire room?

Ideally it'd sweep over every worldspace in the game.

Since no-one has commented on the technical question, @ZorbaTHut do you have thoughts here? Is this a reasonable first step into 3d graphics programming?

I agree that almost every parent on the planet would prefer to have their child saved than not. I don't know that that preference implies I should try to save them though. I've never saved a kid's life before, but I have been an important figure in one's life and have seen first-hand how quickly people go from thankful to "never contact us again" when they find out, no matter how innocent your intentions or how careful you were to avoid even the hint of sexual behavior. That hurts, a lot, and I now find it hard to feel motivated to risk going through that again for the benefit of people who in all likelihood have nothing but disgust for me. The younger, less bitter me had the will to be somewhat altruistic, but that seems to be fading as I get older.

and I guess anyone else who checks my comment page, hi there!

Or usually browses the global comments feed (www.themotte.org/comments) rather than specific posts...

This rule is going to be applied with delicacy; if I can find not-low-effort comments about three different subjects within your last two weeks or two pages of comments, you're fine.

How would this work with something that strongly influence your thoughts on a wide variety of subjects? Would commonly referencing it in your comments make you a single-issue-poster even where you are commenting on different subjects?

I don't begrudge you that position. But similarly, I see no reason to care about people being intolerant of you--supporting your group is not something I can afford. Hence my original comment.

I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.

For a close to home example, I don't think anyone at The Schism "hates" white people in the way, say, Hannah Nikole-Jones or Tema Okun does, but I think many of them would engage in a lot of hemming, hawing, and sanewashing why those attitudes make sense in context, or why they should be tolerated (but the opposite equivalent wouldn't be, a la the fiasco last month with Impassionata- I strongly doubt the mods would've tolerated a right-wing rant half as long), etc etc. Or why slurs are so much worse at certain targets, but basically don't matter towards others.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I find that the mods there are very hesitant to give out bans at all or even warnings for that matter, and as @drmanhattan16 notes, there's been plenty of right-wing or at least anti-progressive ranting in the sub over its lifetime. I vaguely recall @gemmaem discussing this hesitancy in a comment early on, though I'm having trouble finding a link to it with the reddit api fiasco making searching for old comments a bit troublesome at the moment.

I'm referring to arguments such as the one made by Mark Greene in this article that homophobia prevents platonic physical intimacy between men.

What about that is an upside for someone who hasn't committed a crime and doesn't intend to?

With the baby goats, right? In that big war? The morality of winning a battle is tricky, I guess.

There's a difference between winning a battle and slaughtering a routed army. He could easily have won the battle with far fewer casualties, even with his additional goal of intimidation. He intentionally chose the slaughter.

...really?

It's been a while, so maybe I'm misremembering. I thought that was implied for at least some of the treasure seekers who "invaded" the tomb.

I do enjoy the show, but Momonga doesn't ever seem very evil to me. Which is fine, I just find it interesting how often I see others recommend the show as being about an evil overlord.

I thought this was the entire point of the show? Momonga is "evil" in the sense that he is responsible for some horrific outcomes, which he had the ability to both predict and avoid while still achieving his goals if he so desired. While the show portrays him sympathetically, it does not attempt to explicitly make him the "good guy", leaving it up to the audience to judge.

[Shield Hero season 2]

I thought season 1 was a bit too fast-paced, jumping from action sequence to action sequence without spending a lot of time building up the setting, so I found season 2's slower world-building more enjoyable. I'm also a bit biased in that one of my favorite characters got a lot more development in season 2, including a scene that resonated with me quite a bit (~13:20 in Episode 12).

Is it intended that the 'janitor duty' link only seems to appear when you view threads directly and not when browsing other pages like the comments view (https://www.themotte.org/comments )?

Well that's what I'm saying, if you use AI work in your commercial product, the law states now that the whole work is public domain.

Do you have a citation for this? That sounds extremely unlikely to me and would completely upend my understanding of copyright law. Which isn't to say you're wrong as I'm not well versed in copyright law, but a lot of people I work with have been including AI-generated material in their commercial products for a while now and I'd be shocked if their legal teams okayed that if it made the whole work public domain.

EDIT: Nevermind, I missed that this was a hypothetical.

nothing I have said was meant to be a statement about you, about victims of abuse in general, or about sexual offenders.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear what I meant by that. My frustration is that I take it that way, regardless of your intent, because of those experiences. It's not your fault that I take it that way, which is why I said it was 'one last "fuck you" from the people who abused me'.

EDIT: Fixed quote and grammar.

I don't see it as being the opposite at all--I predict that men having more options for dealing with their sexual desires that aren't gated by women makes them "less of a simp in attitude", whether that is indulging in masturbation or making a conscious effort to focus on other things instead.

Have you seen /u/TheTinMenBlog's posts on reddit? I don't think he considers himself an antifeminist though and they might be a bit too shallow (in the neutral sense of that not being their primary purpose) for what you are looking for. The studies he cites in them are probably of interest however.