Tartas1995 @ Tartas1995 @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

1

Comments

450

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't know why you are talking about Saudi Arabia. Qatar is not Saudi Arabia.

While you are right about it being an issue, it is very different to rent a Vroot server and having to move the server and moving your game from engine to engine.

And I wouldn't give shit to unity devs for choosing unity. I just don't think hosts and engines are equal.

I disagree with the meme but mostly because I think all programming language are fucking clowns at times. I Don't think that you should use typeless languages for huge projects but I also think that for a little Js library, Js is fine.

Honestly it is fine.

You realize that I never said that I would correct people's English, right? You realize that I have a mother tongue, right? Maybe you shouldn't be so arrogant and complain about dumbing down shit when you don't understand that non-native English speakers have a mother tongue. Also societal context??? Dude, you understand that societal context is dependent on the situation. If I am exposed to something as a non native speaker on e.g. the internet, that something doesn't exclusive exist in the societal context that the author might intended it to be. And also if I am a non native speaker but I live in the country for 45years that my understanding of the societal context could easily be equal or better than a native speaker's understanding, as e.g. I was able to contrast the 2 contexts that I am familiar with and that might exposes social notions that a native speaker is not actively aware of. What I am trying to express, your response seem to be pretty dumbed down.

For those in doubt, there are video games logos and peta. While Peta is killing animals, what would they be testing on animals? And what would video games like doom be testing on animals?

I think on steam, like most social media, people have more friends than close buddies that are cool with it. So...

I don't think so. As a non native English speaker, I am happy when people help me to improve my English. So I totally would do the same for other people, I don't think that makes me a racist but rather someone that cares about language as it allows me to better understand intention, such as racist ones.

Oh maybe I haven't looked into it. I just had some bottles with fixed cap and talked from my user experience.

No. It just prevents the lid to get "lost".

You seem to misunderstand my points.

And I don't think you want to.

And what is the alternative? How do you handle any non trivial load in any other language? Without a second thread or while loop. Because apparently you dislike both. You like it sync for your database -> while loop somewhere, but while loops are bad. But asynchronous is bad because it adds complexity to your code when you use functions to reduce the nesting.

On nodejs, the platform that you talked about earlier, they are literally called worker_threads". So they are different? How? Why can't you use them?

It is not really tangential to the discussion. You claimed it is because Js single threaded. Also it is not single threaded from the "users" perspective if you mean the developer. There are workers.

If your issue is asynchronous function calls, just call synchronous functions. You might be stuck in a while loop somewhere but if you prefer that, use it. There are sync functions for everything in Js and/or you can easily create them yourself.

Yeah and you can void nesting there just as easily and you have the same issues in any other programming language. You just need to create functions. Also JavaScript is not single threaded... you only have access to the dom on one thread, for obvious reasons.

Please explain to me how you do e.g. file downloads without a callback in your favorite language. If you solution involves having the main thread being stuck in a while loop, I am not sure if your complain about nested code can be taken seriously.

Well my Js isn't looking like that and it is really easy not too. But bad people write bad code.

Yes and no. Any programming language encourages nesting as in the end the computer does nest your code. So it is only normal and predictable that languages would reflect that. BUT! Nest logic can often be inverted and by doing so, reduce how much nesting you need to do.

    
If (data is not null) {
    If (data has field x) {
         Return data x
    } else return null
} else return null

  

Can be

    
If (data is null) return null
If (data hasn't field x) return null
Return data x

  

So culture is literally everything. Every human action within a society is part of the culture of the society. So I can say something like "the USA has a communistic culture" while the USA is by far more capitalistic than communistic and that sounds like your definition of culture makes the word mean nothing.

Yeah a good definition defines what is needed and not more, but your definitions don't define the essentials.

You are confusing my challenge again. My argument isn't that there aren't currently no differences or that those differences will ever disappear. My argument is how and why do those differences matter in identifying whether or not they are conscious. Which is important and essential in understanding consciousness because it is literally about what is.

I am not confused but you seemed easily confused over my criticm of your poorly expressed views and ideas (and art).

I already disagree with art being a medium of express of ideas or emotions. Art might have been constructed with an idea and even with emotions but the artist might not try to express them at all. Additionally, if I would agree with you, then I have following question. if the art piece produced by someone in a society is expressing an idea, e.g. pedophilia is great, is that idea now part of the culture of the society? How many people need to agree? It should be irrelevant in your opinion otherwise art isn't part of culture unless enough people agree with the idea in the art piece. Also if you want to argue that it is not art, there isn't really an agreement of what art is. Famously so. So yeah, you can argue about that it wouldn't be art but then you would disagree with yourself and you would have to provide a working definition for art.

So your definition of consciousness wasn't precise enough and you had to express your actual idea more clearly. Strange, it is almost as if having a conceptual idea of something and being able to express it well are too different things. So you caught on to my point about ai but you failed to see it to the end. Yeah a current ai wouldn't be understood by people as conscious but my point was to express that you have to draw a line about what is conscious and what is not. Which is why I picked a face recognition camera. It is literally like saying, "if you think animals can be eaten, then are you eating human?", obviously the person doesn't expect you to eat humans. It is a rhetorical question. The real question would be "what is the difference between humans and animals? And why does it justify eating them?". In this case, At which position does the meaty neural network that is my brain become conscious and different than the neural network in a program? Where is the line? Without that line your definition is vague and people will maybe agree with your definition without agreeing with your conceptual idea that you try to express. In other words, your definition doesn't work. I really had to spoon feed you that one? Using 🤦‍♂️when you aren't even able to understand rhetorical questions.

If you think you have now defined the difference between an ai and a human, why humans are and ai is not conscious. Your Wakefulness definition isn't making it clear when you would grant something the title of consciousness. I mean when is something wakeful or is actually perceiving the world. (I mean interact with the world is obviously already the case, chatgtp has written poor legal defenses and cause some good laughter, there are cyber security ai products that try to identify and report attacks on a network,...). At which point does "detecting Malware" become "perceiving Malware"? That was my point. So you haven't answered it at all.

What? "Ghoti" is not a real word and it is famous for exposing the fact that for most people would pronounce it correctly as "goti" while they couldn't explain why it isn't pronounced "fish". In other words, how e.g. most people don't know why the "GH" in "enough" is pronounced "f" and not "g" like in "ghost". So I am speaking about spoken English as I am talking about pronouncing words. So I don't know what you are on about "going off topic and strawmaning". Well if anything you are strawmaning me. My argument is clear if you are worried about bio women and bio weapon confusing non native English speakers than isn't the fact that most native English speakers don't know why "ghoti" can not be pronounced "fish" while "GH" in "enough" is f, "o" in "women" is "I" and "ti" in "nation" is "sh". GH O TI => f I sh => fish. How confusing is that for non native English speakers? Or how you pronounce "bomb" and "womb"? I am pointing out how ridiculous "bio women" "bio weapon" is compared to real daily English, when talking about non native speakers confusion. My point being "what are you even on about?"

I am cis. I used cis multiple times by my own desire in this conversation. So... there are cis people who use the word cis. Also you can't seperate your arguments like that. If you are concerned about non native English speakers having trouble with cis, then you probably should be concerned about how fucking weird English in general is, and my question was, as in your other argument that you are supposedly holding, as we can't fix the language by replace "bad" words with confusing spelling with "good" words with easy to understand spelling, as it would be artificially introducing words, What are you doing to do about the weird stuff in English that is confusing to native English speakers too? You can't seriously hold the position that English should be easy for non native speakers and in the next, not care about it at all, because then why do you care in the first one?

Based on your definition of culture, music and art is not culture, as those aren't ideas, nor customs nor social behavior... i don't think people will agree with your definition.

Based on your definition of consciousness, only covers the idea of someone being "awake" and "aware" and not the idea that while sleeping, we have an understanding of a "ourself" and the "door". So do you mean "someone being awake" or "someone being aware"? If so, is an "ai" camera that can identify people based on their face conscious? It is "aware" of it's surroundings as it is identifying people. So could you be more precise in your definition?

When did I say that someone shouldn't try to give it a definition? I am saying that even without one, it has utility. We might not agree with what women means precisely but it probably would still work for daily conversations. In other words, having no precise definition isn't really a problem. As if needed, you can always add information to express yourself more accurately.

I didnt address the bio weapon because honestly that is just insane. Like what is that argument? People with bad listening/reading skills will mistake words? Let's not use the word word, world is too alike ... but "enough" is fine, so is "nation" or "women". Google "ghoti" and be honest to yourself, would you have been able to explain why "ghoti" isn't read like "fish" in English. If you couldn't, maybe words that sound similar, aren't the biggest issue. And as you are against "artificially introducing" words, how do you fix the mess that is "ghoti"? How do you make it understandable to at least the average native speaker? Not with new words with understandable spelling rules, that is for sure, that would be "artificial".

my point was, your whole native English speakers and non native English speakers thing is completely incoherent. In one section, you express that cis got "artificially" introduce into English, then you say that it is a word already in english to be specific scientific English, then you express how cis is confusing for non native English speakers. Like what? Make Up your mind. Was it part of English already or did it get "artificially introduce"? If it isn't English as it got "artificially introduced" why are we worried about the non native speakers? They might speak a latin language like Spanish. If it got "artificially introduced", are you also mad about its usage in scientific language too or just in "normal" english? Should we drop Latin words from scientific language? Or should we avoid scientific language in our daily life because it has latin in it? Also is scientific language not English? If it isn't, again, why are we worried about non native speakers? Help me on that one.

The whole "definition of the word" thing is a stupid talking point of right wing reactionaries. The reality is that even without a complete and accurate definition of the word, the word could have utility and would work just fine in daily conversations. If you doubt me, give me a definition of the word "culture" and/or "consciousness" that everyone agrees with and without making it seem meaningless. And that is assuming that there isn't a good definition that would work in every way.

Seriously, sit down and argue with yourself your own point. Like play the devil advocate to yourself, then see if your arguments even remotely work for yourself.