Aceticon @ Aceticon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,627

Joined

2 yr. ago

Actually all of the game mechanics should be stopped when the game is paused.

The most likely culprit is the graphics pipeline still being busy assembling and sending data to render to the GPU every frame, since even though the 3D world is paused, the thing has to keep on operating because of the UI.

It should be possible to make it less of a problem if the UI you're interacting in during pause is on-screen 2D and all the 3D stuff is fully static (i.e. no autonomous movements such as simulated wind on leaves or running water) but depending on the graphics pipeline implementation being used, it might be too much trouble because you need to somehow have it stop rendering the 3D stuff and only do 2D.

Also, EA being as they are, I doubt the programmers had the time to go after a "cosmetic" (lowest priority) issue that probably has system design implications.

It's tradition for Nazis to criticize France.

True - the US of late has been a great inspiration for what NOT to do.

That explains the US, but that's about it.

For example Europe there are no movements towards making abortion illegal, quite the contrary.

That's because when talking to tribalist types, you're seen as either with them or against them and in a system with 2 political parties "against them" means "supporting the other guys".

There is no independent thinking amongst the "party supporter" masses, only following and parroting of the party messages, so the idea of somebody being a genuinely independent thinker guided by personal principles rather than following some tribe or other is anathema to them.

Liberalism isn't the same as Left. It's not even in the same political axis.

You can't really read "more liberal" as being the same as "more leftist".

Left would be something like: "I want the greatest good for the greatest number".

Liberalism would be something like: "I want people to have the most freedom to do whatever they want".

You might notice that these two things collide in things like the existence of the super-rich, were for a liberal that's a good thing (they have maximum freedom) whilst for a Leftie it's a bad thing (wealth concentration reduces the access to resources for the many hence it directly goes against the greatest good for the greatest number).

Similarly centralizing control of part or the whole of the Economy (which decreases trade freedom) to achieve greater equality is absolutelly valid within the Leftwing principles and entirely against Liberal principles.

it's only in places like the US, were the entirety of Leftwing is about 4 congressmen, that Liberalism gets confused with Leftwing.

Yeah, the 1 in 4 billion seemed exaggerated on the low end when I read it. I went ahead with it anyway since, even if there are 1000 people with an IQ at or above 200, that by itself would not pull the curve upwards much (because it's 1000 out of 8 billion people) and hence your original claim that the mean is not the same as the median "because the distribution is skewed as IQs can be higher than 200 but not negative" was bollocks.

My point stands untouched that the justification you originally gave backing your claim that the IQ mean not being the same as the median was mathematically unsupported or, as you so colourfully put it: "opinion dressed as fact".

As for this paper you linked, it curiously doesn't back your claim either. From the abstract, we get that whilst the mean is 100 and the mode is indeed 105, the statistical distribution of IQs is NOT a Normal Distribution but rather the sum of TWO Normal Distributions. This means that you can't in fact make claims about the median from the mode (as you would be able to for a normal distribution, were mean = median = mode) because a sum of two normal distributions has TWO peaks so you can perfectly have one at 105 and another one below that which can yield a median which is equal to or even below the mean.

Again from the abstract those two distributions are "one reflecting normal variation in general intelligence and one refecting normal variation in effects of genetic and environmental conditions involving mental retardation", which seems to imply that the second has a peak at an IQ value below the first.

That said, I don't even disagree that your claim that the median is above the mean might be right. What I have yet to see from you so far is something other than "opinion dressed as fact" or quoting of papers which don't mathematically back your point.

Technically, yes.

In practice there are but a handful of people with an IQ at or above 200 (the rarity of that is less that 1 in 4 billion - source ).

Even if we do take in account that the bottom of the IQ in live humans is in fact a bit higher than zero, because the extremes are so incredibly rare, the deviation of the mean from the median is in practice minuscule.

In this day and age, accepting cash payments is the least shady and most customer friendly thing of all.

It's the ones who want to know ALL about you and partner with payment processors who want to know ALL about you that are shady.

Surelly the right answer would've been "Go back to Europe".

(Mind you, as an European, please don't).

The Neoliberal ideology, with its core principle of making Money the greatest Power, above the State which is the Power controlled by the vote of citizens, was always meant to destroy Democracy.

Whilst the theatre used to distract us has been different, we've been going in the same direction as Russia when it comes to the vote: making it a meaningless act whilst we're told it's "democratic".

Unsurprisingly as people felt more and more powerless, pushed around, exploited and unfairly treated all the while being told this is Democracy, they turned more and more to those selling something else than Democracy.

It seems the natural end state of Neoliberal Capitalism is Fascism.

Books, lots and lots of books.

Mate, the horse whip and the wheel were Technology back when they got invented.

It's a massivelly generic word.

Absolutelly some Technology has reduced drudgery. Meanwhile some Technology has managed to increase it (for example: one can make the case that the mobile phone, by making people be always accessible, has often increased pressure on people, though it depends on the job), some Technology has caused immense Environmental destruction, some Technology has even caused epidemics of psychological problems and so on.

Not only is there a lot of stuff in the big umbrella called Technology, but the total effect of one of those things is often dependent on how its its used and Capitalism seems especially prone to inventing and using Technology that's very good for a handful of people whilst being bad for everybody else.

One can't presume that just because something can be classified as Technology it will reduce drudgery or in even that it will be overall a good thing, even if some past Technologies did.

Best Windows built-in way to open files with Unix end lines.

Pfew ... I moved to Linux just in time!

I spontaneously curse at it, in 4 different (spoken) languages even and abundantly so at times, but I don't feel the need to actually write down the swear words.

Writting it down just doesn't feel the same as merelly just letting out those expletives that naturally arise during the making (and, especially, testing) of software.

Is that but on the side of the head. It can also be tapping on the side of the head.

The Dutch gesture for intelligent is touching the side of the head with the index finger, which can be confused with the second version of the Portuguese one for crazy.

Mind you, I just realized I'm not sure about those things anymore (I lived for over 2 decades abroad) and had to google to make sure.

Related to that, the whole physical signalling stuff is quite a mess.

For example there are cultures were waving your head up and down back and forth does not mean "Yes", it means "No".

I found this kind of stuff out when I moved from my homeland, Portugal, to The Netherlands: it turns out the signal for "he/she is crazy" in Portugal is the same as the signal for "he/she is intelligent" in The Netherlands. Mind you, for me it was a great source of humour.

So by Israel's own standard of discourse, they're "using human shields" and hence any amount of killing of Israeli civilians is perfectly justified not matter how great the disproportion of civilians to non-civilians killed, their age or gender.

I suspect we're running with different versions of "middle-class".

In Europe middle-class used to be about the kind of work one did and roughly correlated with doing or not manual work - those doing manual work were considered working class and those doing office work were middle class.

This tended to also match incomes, so middle-class usually had a middle range income, higher than the working class but not as high as the rich.

This all sorta matched because non-manual work was generally either some kind of management position or some position requring higher education - such as, say Medical Doctor, Engineer or Architect - which very few people back then had.

It wasn't about what an income could buy, it was about the kind of work people did, their level of formal education and the level of their income compared to others.

Things have however changed a lot - a much higher percentage of people have higher education, most of the income advantage of higher education is gone and in general all layers but the rich have fallen down in the income ladder - were there was a middle class there is now mostly a gap and essentially the working class and the middle class have been squeezed together.

IMHO, what we have nowadays is a two class system:

• The Owner Class are people whose income is mainly from the ownership of things, not work.
• The Working Class are people whose income is mainly from working.

However we were talking about the 60s and I do belive there was actually a "middle class" back then, at least per the definition we had in Europe.