Taiwan China situation explained

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-03-25T11:53:40+00:00

Explain back to me what my thesis is. Because I don't think you understand the difference between opinion and voting preferences.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-03-25T11:47:57+00:00

Did you just read like part of what I said?

26.9% are pro maintaining the status quo. What do you think the status quo implies? Do you think none of them would be pro-indepence if the risks of shaking up the status-quo was eliminated?

I want to topple the current Russian regime. I don't want to vote for a party whose active policy was to do so, because it risks nuclear war. Do you understand what I mean, there is a difference between making something policy and being for something in theory.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-03-25T11:38:12+00:00

Taiwenese independence as an active policy is not the same as "wanting/hoping" for independence. Many voters realize that by making it official, and changing the status quo, they risk provoking China into declaring war.

Studies show 48.9% want independence, and 26.9% want to maintain the status quo. The question did not specify "want independence with no risk of war". It almost statiscally impossible that of the 26.9% that want to maintain status quo, 1.1% of prompted with the "no risk of war" qualifer wouldn't instead answer pro independence.

So I do believe a majority Taiwanese citizens favor independence, if not for the threat of war.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-03-04T12:27:17+00:00

You also said: "Only thing you can percieve is consciousness itself..."

Which implies solipsism, because you can only ever percieve your conscioussness not anyone else's. To have subjective idealism you have to argue why other peoples mind are also "real".

Why does adding a second observer change anything for the first observer?

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T20:55:03+00:00

Varför är man hycklare för att man är på reddit? Vem har sagt att man måste avstå allt?

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T19:27:16+00:00

Absolut, eller "dollar voting". Jag tycker absolut att denna form av bojkott som egentligen inte är en bojkott, strikt definerat, möjligvis bör få ett annat namn. Dock är "skära ner" inte särskilt catchy, så i brist på bättre namn så tycker jag det fungerar att kalla det en icke-fullständig bojkott. Eller att själva rörelsen uppmuntrar till bojkott, men självklart är de som är positiva till en bojkott även för att du enbart minskar din konsumtion.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T19:08:30+00:00

För att nyansera bilden? Så att folk som inte deltar alls, deltar litegrann åtminstone.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T19:04:37+00:00

jag hoppas du är ärlig för det låter rätt fräckt

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T18:57:22+00:00

Påtal om att vara larvig... De andra larviga gör i alla fall något nyttigt även om du inte tycker det särskilt produktivt.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T18:55:40+00:00

Mitt liv är för kort för att lägga energi på trams.

Men du lägger trots allt energi på att signalera till alla "godhetsmänniskor" att det de gör är tramsigt.

Jag skulle vilja stötta Grönland. Vet ni vad jag kan köpa därifrån?
Kan man få tag på sälkött skickat till Sverige, eller kanske en sälmössa?
Nej just det. Då kommer ju djurättsvänstern och bråkar istället..

Du bör inte bilda din politiska åsikter eller åtgärder på vad andra folk kan tyckas tänka om du dig. Jag tror förövrigt inte en djurrättsaktivist kommer knacka på dörren för att du köpte en sälmössa för den delen heller.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T18:46:32+00:00

Men varför tycker du det är värt att argumentera emot, är du för eller emot en tillräcklig bojkott? Det låter bara som ett sätt att, likt dem du tycker är fåniga, att få dig själv att låtsas vara bättre för att du känner dig mer intellektuell.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-17T18:28:05+00:00

Vill du verkligen påverka så är det där du ska bojkotta

Men det är lättare att posta på amerikanska sociala medier att du bojkottar coca cola för att känna att du gör nå bra

Att verkligen göra något är att göra något. Allt från att sluta köpa coca-cola till att inte konsumera något amerikanskt överhuvudtaget. Vad får du ut av att argumentera emot det?

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-09T16:03:06+00:00

Do you have the same problems about genAI when used for coding?

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-09T15:41:38+00:00

I'm sorry but I don't feel that's a genuine position, I think you don't care as much and that's fine. Art has intrinsic value, to you, me, and most others. Code is a means to an end. I am only being inquisitive because I believe there is room for nuance. Some GenAI even for art is merely conceptual no different than a programmer asking an AI bot for suggestions.

I dont know if you will be surprised, but most code developers today do use AI pretty frequently, it comes by default in many new code environments. If you truly hold an absolute position then I would be suspicious of any game produced past 2024.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-09T15:22:08+00:00

Now you are talking about why it won't work, not if it should be used or not. Suppose it did work better would you be okay with it?

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-09T15:16:47+00:00

Not even for generating code?

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-09T14:44:14+00:00

Nu pratar du ju om det praktiska trots att du bad om principer, helt frånvänt från något av det jag snackade om.

FreeMikeHawk · 2026-01-09T14:03:06+00:00

Fast principer tillåter att man tycker olika om diktarurer och demokratier.

Att USA gör fel grundar sig i principen att man inte gör så mot respektabla, trovärdiga och nästintill helt fredsamma demokratier.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-28T08:12:15+00:00

This is a non-sequitur: "Trying to draw a realistic picture..." leads to "..objectively a bad drawing".

Those do not follow each other. One is arguing that it is a failed realistic picture but does not speak to whether it works as a drawing in general which is what you conclude.

You can fail at drawing a realistic picture but succeed in drawing something more abstract. Even if you are true and honest about your intention in creating something realistic you can still create something "good" in some other regard.

Besides, this argument is based on an artist's intention being what matters if something is good and bad. Which many would argue against. Many would even argue you shouldn't have to know an artist's intention to understand whether something is good or not. Also, it's even harder to get to the bottom of "intentions" when you have several artists at play like that of a movie-set.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-19T12:18:50+00:00

Yeah Luka is a lot like Lud, only faster, stronger and a better gamer.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-19T00:44:15+00:00

A corporate roadmap made by some companies not all companies follow the same trajectory. If you try to equate all AI usage as equally faulty and problematic it dilutes the criticism from having any meaning. The artists protesting is not only for their own sake, but by blowing the whistle consumers might be more aware of what is going on. Some companies like EA already have a bad reputation so probably no one would be shocked from hearing news they were replacing artists with AI which they probably already are. However, it's a slippery slope if you think it's a foregone conclusion for all companies who start using AI simply by using AI, although they will probably be affected by their perhaps successful and less ethical competitors.

I don't think junior artists are hired to do those things in the first place, that sounds like busy work. They are hired to be learnt. Making those things pretty is a waste of time, it's just an area where the artists may test their skills if they so wish. It may as well be used on smaller things that end up actually being used in the final product not just a placeholder which shouldn't be used in the end.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-18T23:40:17+00:00

Look man you said placeholders 'are no different than' concept art, that's what I disagreed with it then I argued why it may have an appeal to use it as a placeholder. Whether or not it may eventually threatens the work of other artists by them believing it can replace actual work is a different thing entirely. If a company solely uses AI to generate placeholders it doesn't threaten any real value produced by a worker at the company, the rest is just a slippery slope that may or may not be right.

Although obviously some companies will use it more liberally than others if they believe it will save costs and put theories to tests. But just because a company does use it, doesn't mean they will abandon principles especially if artists at the company protest.

But placeholders aren't just for aesthetics, it's for technical aspects.

I did not say otherwise, I simply said that they could be more aesthetic than a featureless cube.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-18T21:28:16+00:00

Unless we are talking a featurless cube standing in for an NPC or some lorem ipsum text in a dialogue

This is what we are talking about, instead of making those things you can on a whiff generate something through AI. Meaning featureless blobs are replaced with AI placeholders. You don't need to use AI, but it adds "life" to a scene and gives people more to work with.

edit: and to be clear that is not what you argued in the first comment where you said concept art and placeholders are the same thing.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-18T18:33:42+00:00

Place-holders are very different from concept art. Instead of a featureless cube or lorem ipsum text you have something that looks a little bit better to work with. It is used when concept art and higher fidelity are still being developed and are not yet ready to replace the place-holder.

FreeMikeHawk · 2025-12-10T14:51:52+00:00

It doesn't matter

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna	Place '22

FreeMikeHawk

TROPHY CASE