Cethin

The people should start buying this data to identify ICE personnel involved in incidents. It’s not like you need to be law enforcement to get access to this. You just need money.

Knowing America, it’d probably be a free round (gun not included) and you’re required to end the life of your device with it.

Sure, there are probably some examples where it’s not true, which is why I didn’t say it was 100% the case. Even Tiananman Square wasn’t the absolute end though. There were some other protests following it. Even today it’s still a rallying point for dissidents even with all the suppression. That’s why they’re suppressing it. If it didn’t work to turn others against them, and only worked to keep them from rising up, they’d want everyone to know about it. They’ve done everything they can to prevent this though, so the knowledge must be seen as dangerous to them.

That doesn’t really work. If you know history, that is usually the beginning of the end for them. It only breeds hatred and resentment. If they start shooting people then people will actually stand up. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where the authorities shoot a fairly large number of people and the people don’t rise up and fight back. They may not win, but it pretty much always leads to a fight, not just rolling over.

That, and by class I’m sure there’s disparities too. It’s also likely higher in families that already have members.

That said even at the present numbers it means every third family or so has a party member.

This is assuming an even distrubution. I have seen no reason to believe this. Certain segments of society are likely far more represented, which means the others are far less represented.

Yep. I don’t care if a president is smart. I care if they listen to the experts. I don’t want one who thinks they know everything, because no one can.

I don’t disagree that there are ways to add protections. It’d require strict compliance still though or things could fall through the cracks. Even when using the classic placeholders things have been missed on occasion. The only 100% reliable way to avoid shipping any generative AI content is to never include it in the project.

Again, I don’t think the usage here was bad. I think the reaction to one piece of generative AI art, which was replaced within a week, has been too severe. I’m just saying that if you really want to make sure you don’t ship any of it, just don’t ever include any. The old methods were perfectly fine, even if they made development look less pretty.

They used it to create placeholders during development. It wasn’t something they decided not to use before. It’s just something that was meant to be replaced. Usually these placeholders are a missing texture image or just a magenta texture, but they used generative AI to create something that fit into the world. Because it fit they forgot to replace it.

Honestly, I’m not opposed to this usage. It’s not like it’s replacing an artist. No one was going to create a placeholder to be replaced. However, it is obvious to see that occasionally you’ll forget to replace items with this technique, like we saw here. The old style of incredibly obvious placeholders were used for a reason; so that you can’t forget to replace them. It’s probably smart to keep doing this.

You should finish Deathloop. I have two major issues with it, and the first is that it’s too short. By the time you really get going you’re about done. My second issue is there’s only one correct solution. There’s a lot of alternative solutions that allow you to accomplish different goals, but, for completing the game, there’s only one path.

It’s sad that Arkane made Prey (which is one of the best games ever made) and then Deathloop (which is a very good concept, if flawed), and then we’re forced to make Redfall. I think they lost most of their talent over that, so I don’t suspect we’ll ever get anything like those again from that studio.

This is notably not soviet Russia.

Well, it was built for KDE, so I’d hope so.

You’re right, but that’s not what they did it seems. They didn’t just restart it. They did things like requiring the red team to leave their AA radar on, so they could be targeted. They required them to not use AA against certain targets. They made them not use certain weapons systems. They also didn’t allow them to use tactics freely.

The point is, like you said, to learn. It isn’t to re-enforce doctrine. It’s to find out where it fails so it can be fixed. They wanted a show to say the US military can’t be defeated, not to learn how to fight an asymmetric war against a gorilla force.

It’s actually not as simple as that, assuming they’re connected to the grid. Power transmission is costly too, which needs to be accounted for, not just the power consumption/generation. Them being off-grid also isn’t really reasonable because they’d need a lot of redundant power sources and backups, which would be better as part of the grid.

They should still be paying for all this, but estimating the real cost is non-trivial.

I agree with his premise that the knowledge and ability to manufacture stuff needs to be maintained. Not from a xenophobic/sinophobic position, but for practical reasons. If it’s forgotten then no one can compete to make a cheaper or improved/different product. There’s also an issue of if a war breaks out and supply lines are stopped (whether that’s war with China or someone else who can attack supply lines). It’s best if everyone in the world has access to manufacturing so people can have access to different jobs they may be better at or having the capability to create things that they couldn’t otherwise.

Now, there is an argument that a reliance on international trade prevents war. That is something to consider. China and the US are reluctant to go to war because they’d both be crippled by it even without considering combat. I don’t think this is great justification though, but it is something to think about.

All animals want to keep living, that’s literally why animals evolved brains in the first place, to keep their bodies alive for as long as possible.

Absolutely not. Brains evolved because it gave an evolutionary advantage. They developed from just sensing light, giving an adavtange to finding food, into more complex forms, but every stage is just because it allowed them to survive long enough to reproduce usually, and, for most animals, not much longer. Most animals don’t have an advantage to keeping elderly populations alive. At best, they’re a drain on resources and can’t contribute with fighting, hunting, foraging, or whatever else. Humans are special in that we can pass down information, and elderly people have amassed a lifetime of information. Animals in nature don’t really survive that long, so there is not an evolutionary pressure for what you’re claiming. Their bodies failing is literally evidence to the contrary.

As far as I know, no animal (at least the animals we keep as pets) have an instinct to just give up and stop going through the motions of life past a certain age. Doesn’t that imply they always want to live?

This isn’t totally true. Some things will cause them to stop going through the motions that keep them alive. Regardless, performing the actions that are baked into us evolutionarily does not equal a conscious choice. We (animals) will almost always eat, drink, sleep, etc. even if we want to die. If not, suicidal people would just decide to stop, instead of having to do more extreme things. Evolution has baked behaviors into us that are hard to overcome, even if we’re conscious of it.

I consider the decision to no longer live past a certain age and certain number of health problems to be a uniquely human thing…

I find this weird. It may be (unprovable either way), but you’re ascribing so many human traits to these animals, but then refusing to entertain the idea that they may want to die in order to stop being in pain. Why? I feel like you’re showing some biases here, and if you really want to understand your opinion you need to figure out what that is.

But if they don’t die right after taking them off life support, you can’t just straight up kill them, they need to die by themselves. Why isn’t this philosophy applied to pets, who can never consent to euthanasia?

The difference is the pet will never be able to consent. I assume the rule of taking them off life support exists to require it to take time. This way they have a small window where they could come to. I don’t know though. It could also be a morality thing of not wanting to actively take a person’s “life” (if you can call it that). I suspect this could change in the future, with increasing acceptance of assisted suicide, for example. Making them die from (presumably) dehydration seems much more cruel to me if they can feel anything.

I don’t have a strong opinion either way. Do what you think is right for your pet. In my opinion though, suffering is something that should be minimized. That’s true for raising animals for food, for humans, for pets, etc. It depends on the pet, but if they are in constant pain and can’t really live life on their own (which would cause them to die in nature) then I’d consider euthanasia. I would at least not consider doing any expensive or invasive healthcare to keep them alive.

Sure, but nothing protects you from Fascists if they want to go after you. There’s so many laws that are malleable enough that they can always come up with some excuse. You should be legally protected for doing what this person did, but they’ll still try. We’ll see if their bullshit holds up in court I guess.

Yeah, I think it should still be legal. I don’t think the government should be given the responsibility (and authority) to be people’s doctors. We need laws that prevent you from doing harm to others, like DUI laws, but them determining if it’ll harm yourself? I don’t think that should be for them to decide. If we do that then you end up with Puritans saying something like “clouding your mind is causing harm to yourself” or something like that and it’s all illegal.

Not everyone is going to do it. That’s a slippery slope fallacy. Regardless, it’s going to be done anyway. Making it illegal only pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. I’d rather it be done openly where people can make informed decisions and not feel endangered by asking for help.

Honestly, in my opinion, even the “illegal” use should be legal. I’m not a drug addict (besides caffeine), but I have a very progressive opinion of drugs. People are going to use them whether it’s legal or not. All that making it illegal does is pushes it into the shadows. Instead we should be providing education and testing, and helping people who choose (or have gotten stuck) using the drug to use it safely.

Fentanyl isn’t evil. It’s just a particularly strong opiate. It has the potential to at least be a cheaper option for people using opiates to self medicate, and, at least with testing kits, they could get whatever fix they want more safely. The biggest issue with fentanyl is that other drugs are laced with it, and you don’t know what, or how much, you’re getting.

They had gags before, but they were part of the video. Now it seems like they do videos to have the gags. (Well, I don’t know about now, but many years ago.) It went from informative videos only into a content mill that sometimes creates informative content. Gamers Nexus is much better if you just want the information.