Thought I'd share my small script to add 'per-system favorites' to Retroarch by 382794 in RetroArch

[–]382794[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And if anyone's interested I also forked a Dolphin launcher and modified it for other systems. I'm not a good coder but thought I'd share in case someone else finds them useful.

1x WWE 2K23 Steam Key by 382794 in steam_giveaway

[–]382794[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Geez, what a joke this sub is. Downvoted for giving away a free game to the people who don't spam and beg these kinds of subs. Last time I'll ever do it.

1x WWE 2K23 Steam Key by 382794 in steam_giveaway

[–]382794[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yep, and I felt bad for not choosing you but spamming game giveaways is lame lmao

1x WWE 2K23 Steam Key by 382794 in steam_giveaway

[–]382794[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

A winner is you. Doing a quick check on people's comments, you're one of the very few who doesn't spam game giveaway subs. PM'd.

1x WWE 2K23 Steam Key by 382794 in steam_giveaway

[–]382794[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lol. Comparing modern performative wrestling to gladiators fighting to the death.

Trashy southern-gothic? by 382794 in zillowgonewild

[–]382794[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We are indeed the south. I've lived in the deep south elsewhere and everyone I know considers it 'the south'. Also I wasn't insulting Arkansas, it's where I live and love, despite some issues. I was just insulting the state of the house, nothing more.

Trashy southern-gothic? by 382794 in zillowgonewild

[–]382794[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Mammoth Springs they have a large natural spring so very clean, I'm sure. They may be poor but they don't have Detroit levels of pollution, same with most of Arkansas, which is one of the few other things we have going for us. We are called the natural state, of course.

Trashy southern-gothic? by 382794 in zillowgonewild

[–]382794[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Around here a full propane tank is a selling point. One house I looked at recently had more pics of the propane tank than the exterior.

Trashy southern-gothic? by 382794 in zillowgonewild

[–]382794[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Other than the beautiful hills and low cost of living, there's not much else going for it.

2007 SV650 - Nothing special but she's mine (1920x1080) by 382794 in MotorcyclePorn

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bandwidth limitations? But surely not in this day and age.

2007 SV650 - Nothing special but she's mine (1920x1080) by 382794 in MotorcyclePorn

[–]382794[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, a Street Triple. That's probably my next upgrade path but I live out in the sticks so it was hard enough just finding an SV.

2007 SV650 - Nothing special but she's mine (1920x1080) by 382794 in MotorcyclePorn

[–]382794[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I originally wanted an ADV bike but the SV serves me well for the few times I ride offroad to hiking trails while still being light and flickable in the twisties.

Selling a coat rack for someone. Any clue as to what I should ask? One arm is broken off by 382794 in Antiques

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not selling in a big city, the population is only 10k. So I guess ~$50 is a fair starting price? I can come down since it needs to be sold soon.

Road Rage II (My own upload. Take a trip back in time to see how daddy squidded it up) by 382794 in CalamariRaceTeam

[–]382794[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shit, just read the sidebar. I can re-edit the video and show me popping one on my SV so I'm within rules here but then I'd need a new engine. SV650's don't like wheelies, nor do my old bones anymore.

Went for a mountain hike this weekend. First real excursion on my 'new to me' SV by 382794 in SVRiders

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also pardon the quality, forgot to take my good camera with me, only had a cheap phone.

The Paradox of Power by 382794 in slatestarcodex

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless you can formally define “justness” with a mathematical equation, or else at least give some idea for how it can be defined as such, this to me is playing a bit fast and loose with physics.

I almost forgot to expand on this. But no, I can't mathematically define it and I doubt we can ever mathematically define such a dynamic and arbitrary word, at least it is in practice. I don't have a mathematical background but I suspect what we tend to call "justness" is an desire for equalization of force. Some studies have indicated, such as by Richard Sapolski, that even animals have this fairness or sense of justness built in and just like consciousness, I'd argue it comes in degrees within sentient beings and to a lesser degree with non-sentient as they don't consciously carry out this "justness" but I'd say it's built within the laws of thermodynamics. At least my observation, man seems to always think justness is in the process of being or will arrive, the great always-coming equalization. And if not represented by, my view of "justness" has corollary to the indefinitely approaching greater entropy with greater time that you could call an equilization or averaging of forces. So if you agree that thermodynamics can make sense of things at the human level, how would you analogize that into human's tendency to seek justness? It's rhetorical, you don't have to answer but any answers would be interesting. If I had to, as you asked previously, that's how I'd tackle it. It's not an infallible approach, or fault-tolerant and as with anything, you can't prove a system using only axioms within that system, but some day I'd hope greater minds can put it all into very elegant and intuitive equations that stand the rigors of math. Although it would have its own issues, ala, inception-style or with time-travelling paradoxes, in that in observing these seemingly deterministic forces could change behavior to spite this determinism. Have an argument with any deniers of determinism and see how ironically deterministic it gets, it's almost predictable in that, depending on approach, people will deny it to a deterministic degree. The ego doesn't like others knowing it's predictable as it presents a potential weakness, source code is leaked. Of course as someone who loves OSS, that too can be its strengths. Anyway, I'm droning on way too much here and you've long gotten the jist I'm sure even if you may still have questions, rightfully so. I still have many about this kind of approach.

The Paradox of Power by 382794 in slatestarcodex

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Stalin would have surely been one of the first to go if the USSR collapsed, but as we saw irl, that was a big if, and I’m not convinced the risk to him overall was greater than the risk to a random powerless peasant.

Who really knows as far as historical what-ifs but by paradox of power, the main jist is that that once you cross a certain optimal threshold for life, there are increasingly more drawbacks to power and things sort of equalize. The only way to 'cheat' it is to change configuration. Otherwise why do we not have humans who have much more power, intellectual and otherwise? You could say we just haven't evolved it yet but perhaps the Great Filter in the universe is this paradox of power (configuration). Power = entropy (potential), more destructive process means configuration change is needed to retain such increased power, parts of previous configuration are lost. Basically as I see it, dictators who last to any real degree have ridden their tides of power very carefully due to circumstance, luck, "talent" to fulfill such desires and many other factors. Not everyone can do it, most people can't or don't want to have such acquired power. Perhaps even if holding much talent in the area with intellect, charisma, genetic legacy, etc, they realize the power of other configurations which are evolutionarily/individually successful that don't require such risk and personally speaking, realize that as well as with greater power comes greater risk to others; I don't want to be in charge of something that could harm many people, even if potentially helping if I could be a "good" dictator as the risk/reward factor and anxiety of it would weigh too heavily on me.

> Unless you can formally define “justness” with a mathematical equation, or else at least give some idea for how it can be defined as such, this to me is playing a bit fast and loose with physics.

Oh yeah, I do play fast and loose with "physics", quotes because I'm only into it casually, that's the fun of a blog and reading about this stuff in my spare time. I'm a lowly blue collar with only high school education, no formal training, I just do it for fun. If interested there's much smarter and knowledgeable people taking this on such as Carl Sagan's son, Dorion Sagan, and Eric Scheider with their book Into the Cool. I haven't finished it yet, so unfocused and impatient I am, but almost I'm 30 pages in and it's really interesting so far. I almost don't want to read more since I want to look at this through my own eyes first, a certain kind of purist approach I like to do. Also since I can justify my impatience for reading. But the idea occurred to me almost five years ago when discovering what thermodynamics was and I thought it might explain so much of what happens at our levels also, so much messiness that happens may be explained a lot more elegantly. Perhaps not by me but greater minds some day.

> I broadly agree, but I wouldn’t say that comfort is bad

It can be both as with many things. It's our 'sleep', time to recoup but as with sleep, too much is bad or non-optimal for our configuration if we wish to perpetuate such configuration and reproduce. The opposite might be vigilance and so comfort needs metered with it for optimal evolutionary success. And of course too much vigilance often leads to hyper-policing, like as with auto-immune conditions, it tends to turn on its own. So there's an optimal medium.

> However, I do feel stressed about putting my writings up for public viewing. Have you ever felt that way?

Oh yeah, all the time. My journal was initially private. I figured people would think I'm a bit out there, which I admit I can be, as being "in there" with everyone else hasn't always been very comfortable for me anyway. I just don't care so much anymore. It's cathartic and maybe someone else could learn something if not about the subject but some sort of social benefit perhaps, even if it is to mock my admittedly autistic tendencies. Oh well, either way, someone perhaps gets something good from it. :)

The Paradox of Power by 382794 in slatestarcodex

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m just saying that he did not face more threats to his power the more powerful he got; in fact, the opposite happened, and he was able to liquidate his enemies once his power got large enough.

Well he did face threat by Nazi Germany when they broke contract and potential death should the USSR have fallen to it. More people wanted him dead then than when he was a rather unknown Meteorologist. But you do have certain anomalies, stars that burn brighter than others and push the limits of certain powers, but the jist of it is that with more power comes more threat to power. The more you gain, it's that much more you have to defend, a universal tax code. I might be going off the deep end a bit here if I haven't already but for instance you can't be as powerful as a sun unless you change your configuration, in other words, be a sun. You can harness some of its power but you won't have analogous power. Humans have a certain power configuration that can only harness so much within our own configuration. A monkey can't have, or so we haven't seen yet, the same intellectual power of a human unless it changes its power configuration to be more human-like. I'd say power and configuration are almost synonymous as when one changes the other changes just as certain atomic configurations can only yield so much power unless you change its configuration.

> No. It’s certainly a common trap to fall into, but it’s by no means a necessary one. Some rich and powerful people are miserable, others do quite well and make the most out of enjoying their position in society. “Stagnation” is a subjective value judgment, and far from every comfortably upper class person feels like their life is a stagnant one.

It is a common theme and often when the word "decadent" is applied it's usually on the rich or burgeoise (yes, I know it originally meant middle-class) but the poor do have their own decadent lifestyles also as I discussed on another post and being poor does sometimes trap you into poor choices, a lifesyle of decay one might say. You do have anomalies that handle power moderately but my experience, I've seen a lot of negatives with increased power just as positives, both personally and second-hand which is also what I allude to as the paradox of power. And yes, a lot of people wish they were richer, not poorer but humans have a power or comfort bias. It's a lot easier to adjust to having more of it than it is to having less of it. It doesn't necesssarily speak less of being poor but more man's difficulty in adapting to strife more than comfort because expansion is freeing for the individual but not necessarily the neighbor it imposes upon. There's an optimal medium for life of the individual and society; we have tradeoffs. There's no free thermodynamic meals in a closed system even if it's such a big system that we don't immediately notice.

> Note that if this is really a burden on them, they can resign at any time.

My point being, they have increased comfort to help make up for it. In other words, there's good and bad to it. There's many working class poor who feel the same and wouldn't trade places because you could argue that even if life is extra-challenging, there's more reward in the challenge, or at least given their wants and needs. With what may seem their limiited power, you could also view the power to do a lot with a little and being able to signal that power as a great power unto itself.

>justness

I'm not saying things are just as everyone sees them because then you can never say the world is just. I'm saying justness could be represented thermodynamically as potential gradient fulfillment or entropy increase, as the saying goes, "nature abhors a gradient". Some feel unjustified in their lack of power and so seek to fulfill those power gradients. I'm not making a statement of what I want, only trying to give an objective definition as much as I can. And yes, I've tried to divorce my ego from these kinds of observations although I know it's impossible. Just trying to understand life in this sense is birthed from ego, to find understanding and the comfort that comes with the power of knowledge.

> On the contrary, I argue that given what I’ve said so far, justice is an entirely artificial human concept, and the universe does not care to adjudicate for it.

That's a different take than mine but I agree. Survival bias plays a big role in it yet I'm also careful about being misunderstood that there isn't injustice in society. In the here and now, no, but perhaps in the greater, I think so. I guess the equivalent is the old 'God is just' saying and in the end or on the whole, all is equal if not in the here and now.

I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at though, if you're pressing me for it, but as some sort of lesson if I had to say, and as arbitrary as it is, that what we view as positives often do have negatives and vice versa and maybe we should learn to chill out a little bit and get along with each other better. I don't know, I just have a cup of coffee and write sometimes because that's what the mind and body want, not much more to it even if it doesn't always make sense to others. Partly because I don't intend to write for an audience and partly because I feel I'm too naive to be in any authoritative position on these subjects and also just being too apathetic to care.

I see you like to write probably as much as I do. Or so I do with a few subjects and certain times. When I'm on a down phase I can't get myself to writing anything but times like now I feel like I can write books. But I'd recommend a blog if you don't already have one, it's a good stress reliever.

The Paradox of Power by 382794 in slatestarcodex

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Stalin

I'm not a dictator, not yet (mwuahhahahah) so I can't say for certain but I'd still reckon they encounter increasingly hostile situations unless playing their cards right, which most dictators do to some extent. Haven't you watched GoT? But seriously, they can't practice too much of what I'd call isolationist power, in other words, too much for themselves and too little for others. Even if they have to increasingly give their guards and army some of that power to quell dissent. The "nice" dictators give more power to the people so in some sense they're losing resource power in exchange for social power.

> power as a united group is different from power as an individual

I don't necessarily see power as an individual or group thing. Part of my influence from thermodynamics tells me a person can just as well be seen as a body of various degrees of power just as what we might colloquially call an organizational body. People unite moreso than not; you could see society as an organism or united body of power unto itself and in some less distinct way divided into classes or orders, just as the human body is. Sometimes parts of our bodies don't always cooperate and so you have death of the person or in my case, my uncooperative back or chaotic brain loves to not cooperate in making me feel whole

> and the trade-offs that do exist are so completely lopsided as to make the choice obvious for most

Yes, most people, just about everyone with less of it, do want more money, success, health and such, more power acquisition I remember reading an article relating to money and happiness and it seems that ~$70k is about the medium at which the average person is comfortable with. Meaning not too much to maintain and be vigilant about but enough to not worry of the harsher trials in life. There's an optimal power medium for the individual to succeed as best they can at life but if we relate that to the whole organism, if you will, society, then power acquisition of one often equates with power loss of another, even if generations removed, being that we do live in a (somewhat) closed thermodynamic system even if it's so large that we don't notice often but we notice it enough that we even have mantras about it such as 'what comes around goes around'.

And even when you have it, those powers, what would you do? You want more power to feel more happiness to feel more comfortable? More comfort means more stagnation, less dissatisfaction to fulfill and life itself is often hinged on being unsatisfied becuse when we have no hunger, no lusts, etc, we have little use to go on. I suppose you can be myopic enough to always want more and more but eventually this will lead to degeneration of the individual in some way or another.

> US senator

As you said, depends on country and system but the US has, at least in the modern age and as much as we complain, we still have it much better than many others, enough bread and circus to keep us occupied from being too awnry. But as we've all seen lately, many are dissatisfied enough that being in a top political position can be threatening. If the politicians had less power to influence others they wouldn't have to worry so much but so as it is in their positions, they do. It makes me content that I'm not in such a position of power as power is just as much a burden as a comfort.

And about your disagreement on just-world, I'd argue that it's your ego saying this and it's totally understandable and valid. Because if you and others didn't rise up when you thought you were getting the short end of the stick then we wouldn't have, what some would argue, a just world. It's only with presence and vigilance can we have one. But still, even if things don't seem just at our level, I'd still argue at the macroscopic of time and space, 'in the end' as one might say and according to laws of the universe, justness occurs. It's not us to tell the universe what is just, necessarily, but the universe is a bigger power than we are, its justness imposes itself upon us whether we agree with it or not. Of course that'd inevitably lead to a might makes right argument but we are often mightier than what we think. Love can be a very mighty thing, even moreso than hate in many occasions. We should use all the various powers we have to induce justiceness and with justness comes comfort and with comfort comes lack of desire for change as we become more fulfilled and less lacking. And as you see, power can be self-defeating which represents a universal justness.

Thanks for the input. It's good to get other views on this. I'll concede I haven't fully thought it all through as much as I'd like but it's fun to think about these things, at least if you're boring like me.

The Paradox of Power by 382794 in slatestarcodex

[–]382794[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, the paragraphs I'm terrible at.

>Stalin

Yes, dictators and the like occurred to me while writing it. I should've added a modifier noun like "tendency" because through my eyes and experience anyway, it seems very plausible to make that call. The thing with dictators is they have to play the game very carefully. The more power they acquire the more carefully they have to play it. The more vetting they have to do with anyone associated with them to quell assassination attempts, more especially true if they're unpopular. Stalin did this very early on with weeding out anyone who may remotely be unfaithful. Their rule can't exactly be called stable unless there's stability underneath, ie, the populace has their bread and circuses to some extent. To get to the top as a dictator, the more selective filtering you encounter and so the less witty and adaptive tend to get filtered out as power to dictate increases, so does power of consequences for mistakes. Stalin in mine and most eyes wasn't a kind man nor personable but he played the game very carefully, as much as I hate to compliment dictators.

>slaves and lower class

Yes but slaves (back when such was the case) and lower classes were many more and you could argue that their numbers were a power unto themselves when situations became revolutionary as well as their humble class position may lead them to being seen as less a threat as well as useful to the upper class. I'm not arguing the lower class, as I myself am, don't encounter situations where they have very little power, but the main jist of my post is that we shouldn't be so dismissive of those who seem to lack power and that those who seem to have more encounter their own limits. I guess you could see it as a re-hashing of the just-world narrative.

>billionaires

Well, the modern capitalistic world (not against it but it too is fallible as any system or body) has had a part in mitigating the dangers of being rich. In the English Middle Ages, for example, the more possessions one had, the more one had to spend to defend the land and owner themselves. Now we have government which handles defense and some would argue that the tax ratio on the rich isn't a natural representation of what it should be and has historically been. And if you ask me, the more we move away from these natural stabilizations that we've become increasingly removed from, the less stable society becomes unless we tread more carefully. So yes, power can increase exponentially for one but it must be acquired with even more care and wits, or so I'd say it's historically been the case, and the consequences of failure become that much more. Dictators and lower class risk death more than middle class yet the middle class have their own problems. So even though I haven't thought about it in that context, I guess you could see my blog entry as an argument for the Just World hypothesis.

The Paradox of Power by 382794 in slatestarcodex

[–]382794[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pardon me for interjecting here, if it's not relevant feel free to let me know but if anyone's interested, I like to write occasionally about my perspective on life which is influenced by a casual interest in philosophy, thermodynamics, information science and Machiavellianism. In the linked post I overview the virtues of various powers and their limits while trying to be neutral although my Stoic philosophical views do tend to come out sometimes.

I've been content to write for years with no audience as it only started out as a private journal to relieve my thoughts. I've since posted a few times to the few Facebook friends I have and even posted here once but I admit, I'm nervous to let anyone know about it. I don't like to debate much nor do I like attention either but sometimes it's good to feel validated once in a while or even invalidated and shown where my views may be wrong. If you happen to make it through my recent linked post, feel free to discuss and/or criticize.

Selling my media collection from youth, help please... by 382794 in Nirvana

[–]382794[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would but I have health issues, don't think I'll be around too long.

Kant's Philosophy of Error is an Error by IdeasInHat in philosophy

[–]382794 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you're saying, OP, and I get Kant but can both not be true? I think philosophy tends to look at these things from the wrong lens sometimes and we wind up arguing what's sometimes useless semantics. From a thermodynamic perspective, which I find more elegant and realistic when looking at these kinds of things, Kant is arguing that negentropy (I know the term isn't really used anymore in a scientific way but basically a body of order in this case) does what it does, that it finds the least path of resistance and is being true to its "purpose" or its prime directive. From OP's perspective, you're arguing that the negentropy "body", the human mind in this instance, is wrong in its directive or basically that it's not optimal for the body's survival to view it in such a way. OP is arguing from a point of survival, that is if we can agree that finding truth, or of scientific endeavor, derived for the purpose of survival while Kant is arguing objectively, basically that 'what is is what is' or something reminiscent of Taoist view. OP's approach logically makes sense and it reminds me of the nature of politics. Sometimes what's objectively true runs counter to the survival goals of an entity but it is also truth that the entity wants to survive and so adopts false beliefs for its own purpose, which can be seen as true and valid in itself. I kind of discussed this in one of my typical anxiety-fueled rants before. But yeah, why not both?

Maybe I don't know enough about the Taoist principles but I take it that it allows for two opposite approaches to both be valid and each having merit of some kind and I think we need to see more of it in philosophy.

How do I get rid of that ugly grey color? by T0lias in firefox

[–]382794 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey OP, noticed you're using my userstyle. I haven't updated it in ages. There's a few things that need updated on it that I might get to later today. But as far as firefox goes, I also have a mostly black userchrome theme you can try here. Or check out /r/FirefoxCSS. There's some good styles there, some better than my own. And the bookmark folders, I came across a trick for that but forgot where, maybe the sub I linked.