ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
Thanks for the hint, I saw some people doing cartoony shaders, maybe I'll give a few of those a shot.
I'm a complete zero when it comes to visual design.
Same... to the point where I'm often oblivious to issues until someone shows me a better version.
No offense, but it still looks heavily pixelated. I assume that's still Work In Progress?
Including the ones in the later parts of the video? It has 3 explosion types: 1 texture-based, and 2 shader-based.
That's you taking (additional) responsibility for your own behavior, and therefore categorically different from you taking responsibility for other people's behavior.
My parent's statement rested on the assumption that other people are responsible for my behavior. If we accept that no such responsibility exists, what they said is nonsensical.
"You're representing your country" is part aspirational, part practical, not moral.
"Part aspirational, part practical" is pretty much what morality is.
If you misbehaved abroad and then another countryman of yours comes in, the locals might distrust him (because you represented your country in the minds of the locals), but if they try to hold him to account for what you did, he'd be right to point out that you don't actually represent him.
In my opinion the OP is about the former, not the latter. He didn't say "I don't get why people do this thing where they hold someone legally liable for crimes they didn't commit, just because someone from their group did it".
As applied to groups that aren't communities (but are sometimes thought of as communities when considered as identity groups, like "men" or "women" or "blacks"), it goes in the wrong direction.
I don't think I agree. The first time I went abroad my parents told me to be on my best behavior, because I won't be just representing myself, I'd be representing my entire nation. Were they wrong to tell me that? Or is an entire nation analogous to a community?
That sounds pretty backwards relative to what happened. The blue-hair campus activist didn't use the taboos around sex to argue for political censorship, they spent the better half of the last century using the principle of free speech to take apart all taboos, including the ones around sex, and once that allowed them to get strong enough, they turned around to impose their own taboos on people they promised "liberation" to.
Even outside of that, they don't limit themselves to demands of being protected from views they find disgusting, they demand the right to impose their views on people who find them disgusting.
I added collision detection with the player, and the grenade launcher. One thing I didn't like about the latter was the look of the shockwave / explosion was pretty ugly when it got big, as the sprite was only 64x64. I didn't like the idea of shoving a bigger texture into the particle system either, but then it hit me - why not use shaders here as well? Still haven't settled on anything, but initial results are promising. Might even change all projectiles (with the exception of the grenades) to be shader based.
How are you doing @Southkraut, still on vacation?
The Monroe Doctrine says all foreign powers must stay out of the hemisphere. China and India are trying to sink their claws into Canada, and so is Europe. No, they are not allowed.
I was told that Russia operating under the exact same logic was being Literally Hitler.
What about modern society gives you the impression that it is capable of working on that scale?
That I remember it working in a large city under a communist government that was high on modernism. This isn't a technological issue, it's a social issue.
Talking about communities is missing the point. The groups in question "men", "women", "migrants" aren't communities at all, can't be or shouldn't be.
I don't see how it's missing the point. Men and women tend to act in pretty distinct ways, and healthy communities tend to recognize it,and set up social rules that take the differences into account. This becomes doubly impossible under individualism, first because it forbids you from even recognizing there's a difference between the groups, and secondly because it dissolves the community structures that would allow for setting up these social rules.
It's not completely reddit's fault. There's an automated socmed link rewrite on this site. Twitter gets rewritten to nitter, reddit to old.reddit, etc. The link should work fine if you deactivate it (it works for me).
Elon Musk's web app from the 90s that was merged and acquired and never seen again just wasn't impressive to me.
I don't recall ever bringing up his app from the 90's.
I think people only find him impressive because they wish they had the money, have just world bias and construct a narrative where he's a better man than them so he deserves the money.
I don't find him impressive at all, and I don't think he deserves the money. I'm saying that because of how he chose to spend it, he's had a massive impact on the shape of the world we're living in. That's all we've been arguing over.
Meanwhile they undervalue more impressive things like brilliant philosophy because there's no sex or money to be jealous of there.
Brilliant philosophy is brilliant. It's been a while since anyone has come up with any, but far be it for me to diss the one that's already produced.
Are those billionaires me?
That's not relevant, the question shows the flaw in the general logic of "Otherwise we ought to talk about the making of money and not the buying things with it."
That was not the premise.
If you didn't mean "if he hadn't stolen that money from me", maybe you should say that other thing you actually meant.
If he behaved fully justly some philosopher-king would have the money and we'd have cool things with it instead of a buggy social media website, increasingly censored.
We were talking about whether or not he's a great man of history, not whether or not he behaved fully justly. Genghis Khan was a great man of history. Stalin was a great man of history. Hitler was a great man of history. They are not what I'd describe as behaving fully justly.
The premise is if I did have that money
No, the only premise was that Musk is not given any money at your expense. So outside of a tax reduction equal to you contribution to the subsidies he received, you'd have no extra money regardless of how much he received.
Otherwise we ought to talk about the making of money and not the buying things with it.
Why? Lots of billionaires could have ought Twitter, and didn't.
How do you know that?
Because you wouldn't be in a position to, not even if Musk stole no money.
What do I need to clarify for you? It seemed quite simple to me.
How, specifically, would you purchase Twitter, even if Elon Musk stole absolutely no money from you.
Obviously not what I meant. There is no point unless you engage with what I meant.
What you meant made no sense. You wouldn't have bought Twitter even if Musk got absolutely no subsidies.
No it's obviously a trivial action
It most likely determined the result of the American election, so it had a huge impact on the world.
And even on your metric he falls short of what I would do.
You wouldn't do anything.
If that's the way she meant it, then it's basically taunting people. I don't see how it's more charitable than the OP.
It's the position Britons have allowed to dominate in their name so it is what Britishness is.
The reason we are having this conversation is that the statement is controversial among Britons, so I don't see how they allowed it to dominate.
Melanie Phillips didn't invent the 'Britishness is queueing and Paddington and chicken tikka masala' model of national identity, she's just describing it.
She's not describing it. She's not saying "this is what a bunch of people believe about Britishness", she's saying "this is what Britishness is".
I would have purchased twitter and more if he hadn't stolen that money from me.
Damn, you had $27 billion dollars? Sorry for your loss.
Writing a check isn't a great action.
Sure it is, as long as you spend it on the right thing. If he spent it on yachts, or parked it in an index funds whatever, that wouldn't have been a great action. But buying twitter and changing how it was run had a massive impact on the world, so it's a great action by definition.
Rofl also. You have it backwards -- these men aren't grand enough. I see them at their core as peasants, although really greedy ones that stole a lot of money. As far as I can see neither has ever had an intelligent thought, it's all chase current economically valuable thing to try to cheat money out of the stupid hum*n socio-economic system.
Great men of history aren't men with interesting thoughts, they're men who's actions change the trajectory of the world. Purchasing Twitter alone was enough to earn him the title, and I say this as probably the biggest Musk skeptic on this forum.
Congratulations, you're a healthy young male! Do not try to put that into remission in any way, as annoying it might be.
I thought you meant "the west" in general, or on average, not "in one of the western countries".
Yup, though come to think of it, I'm not sure how much one can expect in either country.
That's the whole reason people cross the channel.
I'd say the whole reason is money. Immigrants who actually want to integrate are a pretty rare sight. Even in intra-European migration.
- Prev
- Next

Not just them, my fellow countrymen in general. Otherwise they'd be giving me the "don't bring shame to the family name" talk, which I also got on completely separate occasions.
I don't see how. Morality is very often the exact same combination of exactly the same kind of aspirations and practical matters that you just described.
Doesn't "retribution" mean the kind of distrust that you've been talking about? Otherwise I haven't a clue what he's talking about. Reparations? That's the only issue I can think of that fits a stricter interpretation of "retribution", and it's a niche issue which to the extent it has any support, it's to a large part from self-styled liberals.
More options
Context Copy link