The jam theme this year was "Once More With Feeling", which made me think of that Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode where everyone's breaking into musical dance numbers in the middle of their day-to-day routines.
Actually you can hit any key. ;) I'm calling it a "freestyling rhythm game", where you can improvise any dance pattern you feel like, as long as you time it to the beat.
Was gonna watch The Lorax just to see what they did with it. First 30 sec the people in the town jumped out of their houses and said "OOOOOOOOHHHHHH" and I turned it off.
it's ridiculous to think just because one generation has all seen something (which they haven't) it means it's ok to ruin things for the next generation
I saw a movie from 1948 that was AWESOME but had it been spoiled, it would not have been half as good.
And then you get people who then, to prove their superiority, start spoiling things because they can. And they laugh at you because they have this power over you.
One of the best things about some movies is that their screenplays take on completely different complexions between seeing them the first and second times.
Interestingly, I saw a study once showing that folks who have had a piece of media spoiled actually report higher enjoyment of that media. I think it was specific to books though. Might be that knowing where the book is going helps you appreciate the setup the author is doing on a first read, that normally you wouldn't catch till the second.
I once talked to someone who always read spoilers first and then watched the movie. Reading the spoiler for the story and then watching the movie for the visuals. He was unable to understand that someone would not want something to get spoiled and I couldn't help that understanding either.
I know some folks find the sensory experience of a movie overwhelming, so knowing the plot in advance might help them follow it, and be better prepared for what's coming.
Yes, however I think that's something people like about books.
user92578
This profiler I've been integrating is so cool, I've now got memory allocations (already found one memory leak), lock contests and a bunch of other misc FMOD/BGFX stats tracked
Visual Studio's profiler is great for diving into why things are slow since it gives me full callstacks, but a frame profiler like Tracy is great for getting the general lay of the land and thread usages etc.
I saw a talk about it recently - I think it was from CPPCon. The idea was to simulate many possible speed-ups in different places in the code (simulated by putting delays elsewhere), so instead of finding out "what part of my code takes a lot of time" you find out "what part of my code would make the program faster if changed"
To a first approximation, of course. There's no guarantee the virtual speed-up being simulated has a real-world equivalent. But it sounds useful for finding bottlenecks in multithreaded/concurrent code in particular.
I manage our condo building, and I called today to have someone mow our lawn. The lady said "we can't take more clients, our employees won't like us" "ah, I presume they like the money but not the overtime?" "oh, well, you know; we're in 2021, people don't like to work"
I heard a lot of that lately.
And yet people complain that we have to hire people from Mexico and Guatemala to work in the fields.
Minimum wage is around 13.45$ here. A sugar-shack owner was offering 18$ but could not find anyone because "oh it's too hard, oh, it's not what I thought it would be".
@Vaillancourt Either one works. There are some lawn mower robots that are probably not worth it for the area you have. Alternatively just give up mowing lawns. People have given up on servants that put your clothes on as well. It sucks, but all things considered it seems like the most reasonable option.
(That said, you can't ask your clothes store clerks to come to work without their cell phone, you'll find no one to work at your shop. That's the same problem, IMHO.)
@nwp Things would probably be a little different if it were my own terrain, but now it's the terrain of the condo syndicate and it should be handle in "the normal way--but don't spend a penny on anything".
I think the pandemic has a lot of people looking more critically on what's being demanded of them and what they're getting in return, and realizing that those two things have been out of proportion for a long time now.
In my experience (which proves nothing) people prefer having something to do over not. There are tons of reasons people can or cannot get work.
The answer is just support people at a basic level no questions asked. Basic Universal Income. No paying an army of people to gate access to assistance.
I'm sure at least some of them got bored and started doing things. Like streaming on Twitch or writing or various other things that have some value but are not compensated enough to be viable.
(I was referring to the money given by the government during the pandemic, not the general situations where someone relies on welfare.)
@nwp I'd be worried a robot does the lawn; I mean.. people have had their dogs stolen when left unattended for 10 minutes, I can't imagine what happens to a robot-lawnmower...
I can't blame people liking getting paid without having to work for it. I'd go for that too if I had the option. And making people's lives so bad that the shitty 18$ job starts looking good seems terrible.
Given that we're still riding our third wave, we didn't do enough in that regard. Both my roommates work in the service industry, and neither of them were able to stop working, despite being in not-really-essential roles.
@Vaillancourt Make someone watch the robot, but allow them to keep their phones. You probably can convince someone to do that for 18$ an hour, at least while the weather is good.
I think everyday tax evasion by the richest probably accounts for a far greater dollar value in abuse than everyday folks getting a little generosity during a global pandemic.
Like when Florida did drug testing of welfare recipients. They spent (can't remember numbers but this is close) like $40 million testing, and saved $100k in withheld payments.
The weirdoes still insist that's worth drug testing because they have a moral problem with welfare recipients buying drugs, not a practical problem with it.
That seems to be a pattern. Across a range of social programs, I've seen reports that measures to try to restrict access to those who "need/deserve" it actually costs more than just trusting people to act in good faith and prosecuting the few instances of major fraud when they crop up.
If I script, I make the models, and I make all the stuff happen in Unity, while my brother makes music and sound effects, what should the shares be? I'm asking because I can't just search that up on a search engine, and I have no idea what kind of things should get paid with what amount.
@Wasabi What matters is that the deal is agreeable to both parties. There's no one standard compensation formula that everyone uses.
You could look at game industry salary surveys to get an idea of the relative valuation of different types of work. Though I'd say that strictly measures mobility moreso than the intrinsic value of the labour.
huh. Entirely unrelated: I kept on theorizing for hours the other day and came to the conclusion that it is impossible to transfer a human's memories and consciousness to a robotic body while benefiting that person who transferred to the robotic body (to extend their life by hundreds of thousands of years)
yeah. I'm not saying that it is impossible to transfer, though. But anyone who either disagrees or doesn't understand, here's why: When you transfer your memories and consciousness, and then die, sure, the new you is just like you and thinks that the transfer worked. It has all your memories and your consciousness, so it'll be exactly as if it had worked. And is is that way to the others around you. But there's a problem.
See, the original you died. I discovered that among memories and consciousness, there is also another thing, which I call "instance". If you make a new you, but don't kill the original you, you aren't just going to see out of two heads. You're still going to be the original you, while you just made a duplicate of your mind into a robotic body. But the original isn't the new you. So by killing the original, you just died. You experience death.
By killing yourself, you don't magically "transfer" to the robot body. No, you died, and you're dead forever. Whereas the new you thinks It worked. But you aren't the new you. You're still the old you. It is like this: Clone a cube in unity. they are both exactly the same. but, they aren't. see, cube 2 isn't cube 1. It will never be. Cube 2 is the clone of cube 1, and cube 1 is the original. That is a difference. And, cube 2 isn't the same exact thing as cube 1, or there would be no cube 2.
It's not obvious that this you should be privileged and special as the you. You yourself have been multiple yous in your lifetime already, and will yet be many more.
Yes, actually, it is. Because making a new you and then killing yourself will end your life. You, the still-fleshy-human, will die. The new you will be fine, but you still died, and now you don't experience what the new you experiences.
It would only work if you were literally born as the new you, not the old you.
In both outcomes, something that has the characteristics we label as "me" lives.
As I said, this is a very well-studied concept and you're not introducing a new proof or argument here. What I'm doing is pointing out that there are perspectives on this topic beyond the one narrow version you've thought through so far.
Think. By transfering yourself to a robot body, you just made a better you. But the important part is that you aren't the better you. you are still old you. You made a better one that gets to live nearly forever, but you're still the same. Life as you know it ends when you die.
You don't become 2 people by making a new you. You made a new person, but they are different from you. They live in a different perspective. You see from your eyes, they see from theirs. They experience the world from their body, while you experience it from yours. Still following?
So by destroying your body, you no longer experience the world, and you die.
In point of fact, I don't agree with the idea of "the" me in the first place. ;) I think our singular perception of self and continuity of self are illusions.
Wasabi, you're still not understanding. I reject your claim that the me I am right now is a special frame of reference. Continuing to argue founded on that special frame of reference will not sway me, unless you can demonstrate a reason why that frame of reference should be special.
For now, it's just an unproven assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But once you're dead, or shall I say After you're dead, the new you still exists, being a better DMGregory, still bringing A DMGregory to the world. Your friends and family still get a DMGregory. But you, the original DMGregory, does not get your family because you died.
No no, the part that is special about you is that you are the DMGregory that you see and live in the world from. You won't live and see the world from a different DMGregory if you made one. You aren't making another set of eyes for yourself, you just made a new set of eyeballs with it's own, unique brain to use them.
So When you die, you die.
That is unique to you. If you die, the other DMGregorys won't die.
No, the point is to extend life, but if you die, there's no point. You still die. So the only ones who benefit is the people around you. But dying isn't good for the original. We may need to look at this from the perspective of the new DMGregory. Think. If the old DMGregory dies, he dies. But you still live. You feel bad for the original, because he died. But you still live, and move on. But what if you were the original? Well, you'd die, and the new DMGregory will take your place.
Let's try an analogy. With mecha-suits, for awesomeness. 😉 In your model, my current physical form is the mech-suit, and there's some kind of conscious component - the pilot - riding inside it. Someone takes the blueprints for the mech-suit, and makes an exact copy. Then the original mech-suit is destroyed, killing the pilot.
Wasabi believes that the pilot is "me" and that in this process, I am dead. I believe that the blueprint is "me" (in as much as anything is). And so in this scenario, "I" am not dead.
Or like terminating one instance of a program isn't the same as deleting the program. I define "me" to be the program I'm running, not the particular thread of execution that's running it.
There's a big disconnect between the two. Wasabi, you keep trying to claim something as true, when DMGregory has already stated that they reject this claim.
"will both you and your clone be the same person?" Definitely not. Which is one reason why I don't thing the idea of a singular "true" me is a meaningful concept.
But, my point, is that the original you that died cannot experience the continuation of yourself form his perspective anymore. But this doesn't mean that you don't continue. It just means that the Original doesn't continue.
Making another of yourself makes them both "DMGregory", but they also have their own unique traits. The second is "The Second", or "The Clone"; whereas the original will always be "the original"
But the sad truth is that when the original dies, it cannot see the continuation of DMGregory. Only the others around DMGregory, who still live, can experience it. But there is no benefit for the original, because the original will still die like a normal human, though
"The original" DMGregory died last night. A neuron cell died, irrevocably altering the pattern of brain activity forevermore, resulting in DMGregory v.913484346.1. Then this morning, DMGregory v.913484346.1 died, upon learning a new word which formed a new synaptic connection, irrevocably altering the pattern of brain activity forevermore, resulting in DMGregory v.913484346.2
The original will spend billions of dollars to put them self into a better body to live longer. They do it to live longer. But instead, they created a new them that is what they wanted to be. So they still die, whereas the new them gets to live longer. The Original doesn't get to live longer like he wanted.
Yes, I think the "counter argument" here is that once "the second" lives, the "second" will have no connection with "the original" other than shared memories and names. Yes, it's sad, but ultimately, nobody cares?
Because the clone is exactly like the original except it is the clone, not the original. It has been alive in the universe for less time than the original, which are 2 distinguishing things between them.
see the difference? DMGregory, sure, the Original will change itself. But when you change yourself, in your brain, you don't die, do you? You still continue to perceive the world. Making a new you and then killing yourself will end the world for you. You will still die, the same way as if you never made the clone.
You're missing the key point here. If every neuron in your brain died in an instant, and then made itself again, you won't see what happens next. it is because only certain neurons replace themselves at a given time.
You could have scooped out my brain and replaced it with a computer overnight when I was sleeping, and the person I am now talking to you today would not know the difference.
Ha ha, you missed the point again. Your brain? It is what you see from. It is what you think from. Ending it will cause you to see the world no more. That computer-brain-you will see the world now, but now it sees the world instead of you.
I don't have any way to prove that there's some "inner perceiver" that is the same in me today as it was yesterday. I have memories of what "I" perceived yesterday, but those could be notes left for me by the guy who was on shift then.
It's not that I'm missing the point, it's that I'm trying to demonstrate to you that your assumption that there is a continuous line of perception is just that: an assumption. We can form a consistent model of the world and perception using different assumptions.
Cells. Okay? Super small. If a cell goes through mitosis, there is now two of them. When the OG dies, it is dead. It doesn't get to control what happens in the world anymore, its "child" does.
Gah! No no. Let's look at this from a different way: You see the world. Yes? Kill the brain. What happens? There is no brain to see the world. Make a new brain. That brain sees the world. But that is a different brain. You replaced it with a new brain that brain isn't literally the same brain as the OG, it just shares the same qualities. So, it perceives the world yet again, but using a new brain. In using a new brain, the old brain doesn't get to see the world anymore.
You don't even need the extreme of brain computers. I got drugged for surgery. Some version of me was conversant during the operations. But this version of me has zero record of the event. It's not just something I forgot, I was chemical inhibited from forming memories of the event. So did it happen to me or not? It depends on how I define myself.
What you're doing here is called "begging the question". You've built into your assumptions - your definition of what "you" is - the conclusion that you are drawing. I don't agree with your assumption, so I am not swayed by your conclusion.
No no no. I need to know this to make things easier. When you make a new you, then you die, do you think that you'll automatically begin perceiving the world through the eyes of the new you?
You're using "you" to mean two different things here. One, the body, and two, the continuous experience of consciousness. You're asking whether I believe my continuous experience of consciousness will switch tracks to the new body.
I don't believe there is such a thing as the continuous experience of consciousness, so that question is meaningless to me.
Okay okay. When I say "You", I mean you yourself. Not your brain, not your arm, just... what "you" is generally used for. That is what I am using "you" for.
You're assuming there's something like a soul or essence or an "inner observer" seeing and experiencing your viewpoint in the world, and that this thing is continuous in time - if it had a position we could trace it like a thread connecting one moment of perception to the next.
This "thread" exists. I can prove this in the point that these threads are what keep us from being someone else. You observe the world using your brain. That is the inner observer. But, there are multiple parts of the brain, most dedicated to movement and functions of your body, Make a duplicate, and I see some key differences: Your brain is dedicated to make your body function, not your clone's body.
