Yeah you’re still not even contradicting what I’m saying, you just think you are. You’re arguing against positions I don’t hold lmao.

But in unequal measure with unequal power dynamics.

You’re missing my point and arguing against a strawman here. All I’m arguing is that the things AAA studios focus on (like hyper-realism) are not the things that make a game fun, and AAA studios sound be putting fun as the focus.

If AI is even halfway decently aligned with human morals, then it’s gonna do a better job than the ruling class does.

Many people (including me) consider the best game of 2024 to be Balatro.

Balatro. A game made by one guy who legitimately didn’t even think anyone other than his friends and family would buy it.

AAA studios do not understand what people enjoy at all.

They didn’t convert anything to anything, and the 1.010010001… number isn’t binary

We need to start teaching formal logic in grade schools I’m going insane.

deleted by creator

That’s so elegant. I love it.

Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it’s all made up.

Made up, sure, but still very useful to understand because so many people believe it.

I’ve run a full DJ setup with speakers, a mixer, soundboard, laptop, etc. off a single line of 6-8 daisy-chained extension cords more times than I can count.

…uh…how have I never learned of this.

In terms of formal logic, this…

Since Pi is infinite and non-repeating, would that mean any finite sequence of non-repeating digits from 0-9 should appear somewhere in Pi in base 10?

…and this…

Does any possible string of infinite non-repeating digits contain every possible finite sequence of non repeating digits?

are equivalent statements.

The phrase “since X, would that mean Y” is the same as asking “is X a sufficient condition for Y”. Providing ANY example of X WITHOUT Y is a counter-example which proves X is NOT a sufficient condition.

The 1.010010001… example is literally one that is taught in classes to disprove OPs exact hypothesis. This isn’t a discussion where we’re both offering different perspectives and working towards a truth we don’t both see, thus is a discussion where you’re factually wrong and I’m trying to help you learn why lol.

Its not stupid. To disprove a claim that states “All X have Y” then you only need ONE example. So, as pick a really obvious example.

This is why I knew I found the right therapist when she asked what I’ve been stressed about and I said “the current state of politics” and she just said “oh yeah, fair” and we started working on how to manage it while understanding that the root cause is still truly as bad as it is.

Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can’t we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as “right” and “left?”

I don’t think x y z thing is true because I’m “on the left.” I think it’s true because it’s my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as “left.” If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I’ll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don’t just think “oh that’s leftism I don’t agree with that,” instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.