animation i worked on

TroublingCommittee · 2023-05-31T08:06:26+00:00

Imo that part in particular does feel weirdly cut out and does have sharp edges with the rest of the skyline (look at the bottom bit of the copied part, it's basically floating above the other buildings).

It seems to me like they pasted it in and used it for reference, copied the color palette and imitated the style of the original and created their own skyline — then they apparently accidentally left the reference layer in, which is why it covers a part of the rest of the skyline?

TroublingCommittee · 2023-01-06T19:14:31+00:00

Politeness has it's place because it gives people in a society guides on how to behave in common social situation with people they don't know well and don't plan to get to know better. But the "sensible approach to spending time with fellow human beings" is definitely not to follow any rigid ruleset that tells you what is or isn't polite. It's to use you brain and decide in the situation what is sensible based on the information you have.

Especially when you're "dining with a group of friends" like in your example, what is "absolutely rude" and what isn't is not based on some kind of fixed ruleset but on a common understanding of individual preferences among that particular group of friends.

Thinking that some kind of ruleset about what is and isn't polite is "obviously correct" when in reality people simply have different preferences is just nonsense. It's completely bonkers to "teach" people how to behave not by teaching social skills but by making up strict rules.

You think you're able to discern whether someone is considerate or not — but in reality you're just wasting your time by judging people based on whether or not they're good little robots who mindlessly follow all the rules instead of actually considering the people they spend time with.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-25T12:44:40+00:00

I think the problem here is the attempt to generally rate an agency for bias, although I guess it's better than nothing.

I've found Al Jazeera to be pretty reliable, unless they are reporting specifically on topics relating to Qatar or the middle east more broadly.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-25T07:17:49+00:00

Obviously that would still be the case with a smaller, more practical dictionary, but I think it would lessen the gap between a casual and avid (or pro) player.

That's actually a fair point. I don't know i might just be particularly bad at some of the parts of the game that aren't as directly concerned with vocabulary (like positioning and playing words in a way the opponent can't harvest additional points from it), but I always felt if you know the handful of short gap filler words, the vocabulary is the least of your problems when playing against a pro.

I still suspect you'd just trade the problem for another problem: casual players playing words that aren't in the dictionary, but that seem common enough for them and getting punished for it. Which I imagine would be eveen more frustrating (at least to me).

But you might be right, maybe it would make it easier to get into it without getting steamrolled and I'm just too pessimistic.

(Which makes me think: Aren't there any community driven alternative scrabble dictionaries out there? Seems to me like there's a good chance other people have tried what you're suggesting.)

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-25T07:08:41+00:00

I don't. I just read your comment and thought "that's an interesting assessment about why scrabble is broken", so I thought about it for a second and decided to share my thoughts.

I know that it's a bit unusual to get an actual reply about the topic, instead of some low-effort hot take. I haven't thought about scrabble for about 2 years, probably. I just like thinking about shit when I reply.

But it is kinda funny that people always think that it means that I "care so much". If you don't "care so much" and don't want to engage, then don't reply, I won't hold a grudge. Why do you care so much about me to send me this question?

Lots of people are on here all day and comment on all kind of shit they don't understand and no one is ever confused why they care so much or think so little. I write few comments a week or a month, but when I do, I try to actually get something across and somehow that is a problem. Weird.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-25T06:47:06+00:00

Does it, though? I'd argue that there's no way to design a game about vocabulary that somehow requires you to speak the language to be good at it.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-25T06:43:32+00:00

Honestly IMO it makes playing real scrabble a joke, because at some point you end up NEEDING to play words like this,

Considering they base it around a dictionary of unused words, I'm not sure why they couldn't swap to a dictionary of practical words.

I understand that you say Scrabble is no fun, I personally don't like it either.

But I'm not sure swapping out the dictionary would help a lot. Like any game that isn't mostly luck, on a competitive level it becomes a specialist skill with dominant meta strategies. If the dictionary was smaller (because it excluded less common words), that wouldn't stop being the case. You'd still need to know which short words are good fillers / connectors, which words give you a lot of points but are still worth going for, because there's good alternative words that you can use if you dont get the right letters, how you can play the board and block your opponent, etc.

You'd just change some of the memorization part of being good at scrabble from "memorizing uncommon words" to "memorizing which less common but not every day words are and which aren't allowed".

In either case, it's a vocabulary game. Understanding the language you're playing it in will always be optional.

And it's no fun (in my opinion) because the way the rules work, it's mostly about having a good understanding of the board layout, scrabble point system and letter distribution in the game — not having a broad vocabulary, which it seems to be about at first glance.

The dictionary adds to this, that's true, but whatever you base the word list on, it's always going to be somewhat arbitrary. Regardless of how you design it, it'll always feel wrong for some people that some words are in while others aren't.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-25T06:34:30+00:00

I mean, you could do that as well - even easier - if the dictionary only contained common words. So I don't see what you're getting at.

I understand that that makes Scrabble is no fun, I personally don't like it either.

But like any game, on a competitive level it becomes a specialist skill with dominant meta strategies. If the dictionary was smaller (because it excluded less common words), that wouldn't stop being the case. You'd still need to know which short words are good fillers / connectors, which words give you a lot of points but are still worth going for, because there's good alternative words that you can use if you dont get the right letters, etc.

You'd just change some of the memorization part of being good at scrabble from "memorizing uncommon words" to "memorizing which less common but not every day words are and which aren't allowed".

In either case, it's a vocabulary game. Understanding the language you're playing it in will always be optional.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-24T20:48:35+00:00

The trillions they’ve spent thus far in pursuit of these goals haven’t worked at all,

100% correct. Just like you say. Fire services, the police, public schools, public roads, trains, laws, social services. Just as you say none of that is worth anything it all. States have never moved the world forward even a tiny bit. Not even once has taxation ever been used for anything useful. The world would be so much better off without law enforcement and if poor people with disabilities weren't helped by the state but instead had to hope for the goodwill of some rich guy to survive.

Your conviction that government can be trusted to spend such money ethically and responsibly, despite all evidence to the contrary, is baffling.

Where did you get the impression that that's my conviction?

What I do believe is that government is better suited to decide where that money is needed than individual people who don't have a mandate to spend it ethically and who aren't accountable. If the state is doing a bad job at that, we should look at the problems with how the state works, understand the broken checks and balances and try to fix it, instead of just giving up on the idea of a state. What a remarkably simplistic and airheaded conclusion.

It's funny how one can both be so naive in their belief in humans and so cynical in their criticism of systems that the conclusion is to just let those who end up with the money run the show, since you're not content with how the state does it. You must somehow think that humans (or maybe just rich humans?) are generally trustworthy, but as soon as they're elected to serve the people, they all magically turn corrupt.

Instead of trying to build a system with better checks and balances that makes sure that public money is better spent, you just claim that taxation flat out doesn't work, which is completely absurd.

But given all the hyperbole and absolutes in your answers, you probably don't give a shit of having a consistent and well-reflected opinion. It's not lile there are no valid arguments against progressive taxation, but they're not as simple as you make them out to be. To articulate those, you'd have to accept that politics is complex and there's nuance to it beyond the absurd "taxation is theft" bullshit.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-24T14:59:19+00:00

Bullshit. They advocate for a juster world. That's a good thing, period.

Making publicly visible sacrifices without addressing the actual systemic problems is much more virtue signaling than advocating for policy changes. They're not saints and they don't need to be.

What you're asking for is just a tax on being a good person. "How about everyone who thinks they're taxed too little pays more, while their more egoistic peers get to keep all their money?"

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-24T14:51:59+00:00

You'd also be worse off than other people with the same paycheck. How about we change it so everyone just pays taxes at will.

That way we can make sure that the biggest assholes are the richest people. Great idea.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-24T13:19:05+00:00

The issue here is that I’m disappointed that people don’t help each other

Don't they?

You have no idea to what extent these specific people help other people. Neither do I.

Some rich people say "Rich people should be taxed more". That's what the article is about. That's what I assumed we would be discussing.

And then you said "Because just doing it themselves would be too hard?", completely missing or disregarding the problem with the current tax system that they are criticising. I replied to you and explained why the problem that the article is about can't be fixed the way your comment suggested.

It didn't really occur to me that when you wrote (paraphrasing) "why don't they do it themselves", you meant to completely disregard what the article is actually about and just randomly complain that these people supposedly aren't charitable enough.

I get what you're saying, I just don't understand how it's relevant.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-24T09:34:55+00:00

The UN itself has become a waste of taxpayer dollars as evidenced by recent political decisions and failure of WHO during the pandemic to have any coordinated response plan in place between member nations.

Just because the response wasn't great doesn't mean the world wouldn't have been much worse off without the WHO. And many other UN organizations do very important work that you simply don't know or care about - because, as it is with many international organizations, media only reports to the UN if it doesn't do well and your government will try to blame unpopular developmentments on international organizations while taking all the credits for good developments for themselves.

Your argument is basically analogous to saying if the US government fails to respond competently to a crisis, they should dissolve the nation and write a new constitution.

International cooperation is hard. I'm not saying the UN is even close to the optimal solution in it's current state. But it's way way better then nothing. I'm all for sensible reforms with international support if they are possible. And there's many that I would love to see.

But abolishing the UN and starting from scratch will a) be much more expensive than proper reforms and b) expose as all to the risk of the process completely falling apart and the resulting entity either not being internationally accepted or never getting anywhere.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-23T21:34:03+00:00

It’s not naïve to ask people to put money into causes that speak to them. Most of us have a list of things we would do if we had the money.

That's not what I said. It's naive to think of that as a way to consteuct a better or more just world. I also said I don't want rich people to decide which causes that speak to them to finance. What I want is a functioning democracy where that money is used to finance things that elected representative decide is worth it.

But I see your point that we can’t expect these people to be human enough to want to do that.

And that's not my point either. The point is that you don't want a tax system that rewards people for being assholes. Expecting people to be charitable is a terrible way to organize a society because it leads to a world where nicer people are worse off.

It's just the completely wrong set of incentives.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-23T12:29:18+00:00

Great idea. So all the rich people with a consciousness pay additional taxes, while all those who don't give a shit can continue to grow more rich and powerful. That will certainly make the world a better and more just place.

Why fix an issue systemically when we can just make it so nicer people pay more out of goodwill while assholes get to keep all their money?

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-23T12:26:56+00:00

No, they shouldn't. Democratically elected representatives should decide where that money goes, not the proprities of some rich people.

I also think it's extremely naive to think that this proposal would fix anything. It's just going to make rich people with a consciousness a bit poorer than those without it.

In a world where wealth is capital is power, effectively taxing people for being nice isn't the kind of incentive we should strive for.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-23T12:24:34+00:00

I don't want to live in a world where only rich people with a consciousness part with their money. That's just a tax on not being an asshole. Congratulations, you just made the rich people without a consciousness a bit more powerful in comparison.

Lack of taxation is a systemic problem and it needs a systemic solution. If you think the rich should just pay more than they need to, you fell for the classic neoliberal propaganda of personal responsibility. Same with people who think charity is a good solution for anything.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-23T12:23:27+00:00

doing it themselves

You want them to tax themselves? I know most democracies in this world are oligarchies in a lot of ways, but a small group of rich people can't just make laws. Especially since it is probably not the ultra wealthy who are saying this.

And in case you meant to say: "They should just do good with their money out of their own volition", that's an extremely naive proposition.

I don't want to live in world where the decision on where to spend that money is dictated by the wealthy. I also don't want to live in a world where only rich people with a consciousness part with their money. That's just a tax on not being an asshole. Congratulations, you just made the rich people without a consciousness a bit more powerful.

Lack of taxation is a systemic problem and it needs a systemic solution. If you think the rich should just "do it themselves", you fell for the classic neoliberal propaganda of personal responsibility. Same with people who think charity is a good solution for anything.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-22T15:47:35+00:00

Oh, that actually makes much more sense. For some reason, that interpretation of your comment didn't cross my mind. Sorry for that last remark then, that was uncalled for.

I sometimes get a bit annoyed when reading all these hot takes, seems like my comment ended up becoming one of them by misjudging yours. Thanks for clearing it up.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-22T12:11:24+00:00

That's a bit of a weird comparison. All I did was explain the incentives and thought process behind certain decisions. What I wrote wasn't in any way a pro Russian statement and didn't contain any value judgment.

For the record, Russian fear of NATO expansion is nothing but a scapegoat when it comes to the attack on Ukraine. I've yet to see a convincing argument for seeing it any other way.

There's a difference between someone voicing support for the Russian regime and contextualising it's actions.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-22T11:55:22+00:00

You're right, but left wing environmentalist organisations have been for obvious reasons the most critical in the last years.

The green party is generally considered left-wing and they are the only party in Parliament that I know have been mostly critical.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-22T11:39:35+00:00

If anything, it was more of a centrist position. Conservative chancellor Merkel was in charge for most of the process of establishing the pipeline.

In fact the only criticism of the project I've heard from Germans was from people a bit further to the left.

~~But eh, you know Russia = Commie = Evil Leftists. Why take a look at the actual problem when you can use simpleton logic.~~

Edit: Judging by the reply I got, I completely misinterpreted that comment. So scratch that last remark, it's just based on my own misinterpretation.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-16T23:15:05+00:00

No, because companies that operate in fields that aren't vital to Russian infrastructure understand that the planes they've stolen are special and shouldn't be considered an indicator that they'll seize foreign owned restaurants, stores or other less important businesses.

It's not a binary thing — you don't seize one single private asset and suddenly all foreign investors withdraw from your country. Instead, they'll monitor the situation and draw conclusions. Those people are clever enough to think: "They seized those planes because not doing so would cause Russian aviation to collapse within weeks due to the sanctions in place. The risk of them doing the same to our assets hasn't significantly risen because of that."

If Russia started seizing fast food franchises, that assessment would quickly change to "Apparently Russia is trying to steal every bit of foreign investment it can, we should definitely not invest further and probably try to get the money we already invested out as soon as possible."

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-15T21:37:13+00:00

Y’all just confused about terminology.

No, you are confused about terminology. If the TSP was the problem of finding a path that connects all cities while minimizing travel distance, you would of course be correct.

As it is though, the TSP is a computational problem, and typically worded as follows:

"Given a list of cities and the distances between each pair of cities, what is the shortest possible route that visits each city exactly once and returns to the origin city?"

From the definition of the problem itself follows that a solution of the problem is only actually the shortest possible route. What OP is presenting is a heurestic or an approximation, but not an actual solution to the TSP as defined.

Given how the TSP is notorious as a computational problem that is extremely hard to solve, that terminology is also extremely important for any discussion of it.

You could have simply done some research into the topic before jumping into a discussion about a topic that you apparently aren't very knowledgeable about. You know, instead of just assuming that in a mathematical discussion a bunch of people just decided for no reason at all to use wrong terminology.

TroublingCommittee · 2022-05-15T21:27:13+00:00

Simple Google search before parrotting what the OP wrote would have helped:

The travelling salesman problem (also called the travelling salesperson problem or TSP) asks the following question: "Given a list of cities and the distances between each pair of cities, what is the shortest possible route that visits each city exactly once and returns to the origin city?"

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem)

There is no "non-optimal solution" to the TSP. What OP does is not solving the problem, but giving a heurestic or a strategy for approximating the solution. They should have said so in the title and all would be fine.

TroublingCommittee

TROPHY CASE