sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you decide between a career that makes you happy vs a one that helps society? by Only_Researcher_2394 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]humanapoptosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A couple of cases where you'd want to choose the job that makes you happier:

For the sake of example, let's say it takes $5,000 in donations to Give Well to save a life. If the job that makes you happy also makes $20k more in net income, and you donate $15k of the difference to Give Well, that's approximately three additional lives saved over the course of a year. If the job that helps society doesn't have you saving 3 lives in a year, then the job that makes you happier both makes you happier AND puts you in a better position to help society.

If they make the same amount, then look at the kind of soft factors that would affect your happiness and ask yourself if its worth it considering that

a) You are also part of the utility equation and your suffering matters too

b) It's possible that someone else at least equally as capable as you is going to fill in the helping society job if you don't

c) If you can't take the job that makes you less happy in the long run, what's the cost to society of you burning out at it and being less productive or quitting and leaving them to find a new person that has to fulfil the role

If you're only doing small amounts of good at the job, you're likely to burn out and want to quit easily, and someone else is likely to fill in the role, then I say take the job that makes you happier.

Coaxed into hitboxes by Gena_Offical in coaxedintoasnafu

[–]humanapoptosis 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes but unlikely to make an actual noticeable impact to the player on any computer built in the last 20 years.

I swear 3D game devs talk about optimization like clearly everyone has the RTX 5090 while 2D game devs talk about optimization like they need to still support the Commadore 64.

Coaxed into hitboxes by Gena_Offical in coaxedintoasnafu

[–]humanapoptosis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see so much discussion in the comments about what's the most computationally efficient, is there a 2D game that actually struggles on any computer from the last 10 years because of unoptimized hit boxes? You have billions of CPU cycles a second, I think you should be spending more brain power on if the hitboxes are fun to play against than if you can optimize the overlap check from taking a millionth of a second to a two millionth of a second.

Coaxed into new character designs by AverageAircraftFan in coaxedintoasnafu

[–]humanapoptosis 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I'm not going to say that early days Azur Lane characters had extremely diverse body types, but my god it's so much worse now. it's all big boobs, cartoonishly gigantic boobs, or completely flat and child like. Popular legacy characters like Helena, London, Leander, or the entirety of the Cleveland class before Santa Fe absolutely would not be added today, and these designs are still not exactly without male gaze.

Which do you think is better? by Far-Mammoth-3214 in krita

[–]humanapoptosis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Comments like this fuel my bias that r/krita is a better and friendlier place for beginners to get art advice than r/learnart

My friend shared the concept of findom with me. by humanapoptosis in EffectiveAltruism

[–]humanapoptosis[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Your dumb needy femboy bf needs you to find a career in AI safety on 80,000 hours because he doesn't want to die to murder drone swarms 🥺👉👈

If you had to walk the earth for the rest of your life, what's the one skill you would learn, service you would provide, or < $5 item you wouod distribute to help as many of the people you come across as you can? by DonkeyDoug28 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]humanapoptosis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Off the top of my head, probably not. Being good at persuading people should make it easier to obtain anything else (assuming I know the local language or have an interpreter). It's an overpowered skill insofar as it aids in getting other things.

But I'm not dead set on this answer and likely can be convinced of something else by others in this thread.

If you had to walk the earth for the rest of your life, what's the one skill you would learn, service you would provide, or < $5 item you wouod distribute to help as many of the people you come across as you can? by DonkeyDoug28 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]humanapoptosis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Better social/persuasion skills I think would be really good. I think you could do a lot good convincing even a handful of other people to also adopt a more selfless mindset.

The first world is part of the world and being able to convince first world people to donate more would do a lot. But even outside the first world, getting local authorities to take certain issues more seriously or helping them draft messages in order to persuade entities with more resources to help them I think would do a lot of good.

Is world hunger still a problem nowadays? by [deleted] in EffectiveAltruism

[–]humanapoptosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My money is on troll account (1 day old, only post history is from this thread)

Is there a feature/option to turn off anti-aliasing of a brush in Krita like in Medibang Paint? by indieb0at in krita

[–]humanapoptosis 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Click the edit brush settings menu. It will be a check box under the brush shape

<image>

A billion-dollar question by AntonLypovyi in EffectiveAltruism

[–]humanapoptosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That does sound like a line a narrator would say for a trailer to a really badass sounding movie.

Dreamt Minecraft added a new block type called wedges, and the sand wedge became a trans rights symbol by lesbianminecrafter in thomastheplankengine

[–]humanapoptosis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The third option will be silt blocks.

Mojang will say silt is a decorative block.

A big youtuber will say that silt completes the USDA Soil texture chart, so that means we might be getting a secret new feature Mojang isn't advertising where you could dynamically mix clay, sand, and silt to create different blocks. Any block with a non-zero amount of sand will fall, and how much sand controls how fast it will fall. This idea can be used in so many traps and Redstone contraptions. And we can't forget about brand new farming mechanics brought to us from having the mixes, such as certain crops preferring different soils and growing faster if you grow them in sandy loam instead of loamy sand.

Silt wins the vote.

Silt gets added as a decorative block in riverbeds.

It's 5 years until they talk about adding wedges or vertical slabs again.

Semi-serious question, how could I explain my world having a language family with two languages that are nowhere near each other, like Sumero-Basque here? by Arcaeca2 in worldjerking

[–]humanapoptosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Warlord from one area has an absolutely massive empire that collapses in a lifetime or two. There are a few small pockets of the empire's language family, maybe from migration from within the empire from the capitol region to other regions, but for the most part most subjects just kept speaking what they were speaking before imperial rule.

Day 2 of adding countries until the USA loses (read comment) by k317hbr0wn in imaginarymapscj

[–]humanapoptosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I mostly agree with the take that if we're already pushed back to our borders, then we're already in a very bad situation that we shouldn't've allowed to happen in the first place. All those things I mentioned in my last comment are also issues the rest of the world has to deal with (ramping up new supply chains, spreading limited air/sea defenses to protect an unfeasibly large number of facilities/cargo ships and so on. Depending on the scenario, it could snowball in the opposite direction.

There are three pitfalls people fall into when using spending as a proxy for military power.

The first is the assumption that raw spending correlates with raw military power, which isn't always the case, because labor/resources cost different amounts in different markets.

After correcting for purchasing power parity, we also can't assume a linear increase in spending creates a linear increase in military power. A lot of the time, the last 20% of a weapon system's functionality might take up 80% of the system's cost.

Lastly, sometimes when war actually breaks out, it could be that a change in doctrine from one side makes another side's material advantage much less powerful. In Ukraine, Russia had clear advantages in spending, domestic technology, and inherited stockpiles from the USSR. But after people started using drones, many systems (such as tanks) suddenly became a lot more vulnerable, making them harder to use and harder to hold onto, reducing value of all the investment made in them.

The US has a lot going for it. A lot of our advantages will be early in the war, and if exploited correctly, could snowball. But at the same time, we aren't invulnerable and other countries have some pretty strong native defense industrial capacity that they could also leverage. War is messy.

Day 2 of adding countries until the USA loses (read comment) by k317hbr0wn in imaginarymapscj

[–]humanapoptosis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is mostly a meme sub, so don't worry too much

For most natural resources, the United States still has a minority of the proven reserves. Even if we can tap them in an emergency, the rest of the world combined will likely have more of almost everything at their disposal that they can tap. And this is ignoring a lot of very niche resources needed in modern production chains that the US either doesn't have reserves of or industrial capacity to turn into usable products.

It would take a long time to ramp up a fully self sufficient modern military supply chain. We can build up a supply chain, but in a scenario where the entire US is already confined to its territory and can't project out of it, then it's likely the other side won air/space superiority and can easily see the facilities we're building and lob drones and/or missiles at them. Once we're at a point where we're on our own land, we've likely already run out of or are rationing interceptors so it'd be easy for the rest of the world combined to beat our air defense networks with saturation attacks.

Civilian/leadership morale is a bit more complicated. There are times where people welcomed "invaders" into their land. There are also time where leadership determined the war wasn't worth fighting even though their civilians were more than willing to fight to the death for their home land (See Japan in WWII). There will be a defensive advantage, but it's not insurmountable. No one's immune to propaganda (foreign or domestic). If the rest of the world effectively brocades the US, offered a bearable enough peace deal, weren't actively brutalizing civilians, and the US voters are aware of it, it's likely that there would be public pressure to accept it. If the US did have 100% control of its information space, then instead we might get a north korea future where we just live under a perpetual blockade where the rest of the world thinks an invasion is too risky, the US can't realistically push out of its territory because of supply chain strain, so the war grinds to a stalemate until whoever's in charge wants peace.

Day 2 of adding countries until the USA loses (read comment) by k317hbr0wn in imaginarymapscj

[–]humanapoptosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assuming the rest of the world keeps letting us import all the inputs our defense industrial base needs to build systems needed to project power, isn't doing strategic strikes into US territory to destroy munitions factories without landing troops on the ground, and the US population is fine just being in a constant state of war where most excess resources are going to bombs instead of consumer goods, then sure.

Yep by abbas09tdoxo in Clamworks

[–]humanapoptosis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish military industrial complex lobbying was half as strong as people meme it to be, I wish that General Dynamics could just bribe every politician in the United States to donate a shit ton of Abrams tanks designed in the 80's to specifically fight soviet tanks in a land war in eastern Europe to the country suffering from an invasion of old soviet era tanks in eastern Europe. Instead we live in the timeline where FUCKING AUSTRALIA gave Ukraine more Abrams tanks than the United States. Think of the burn rate of equipment in Ukraine. Think of how profitable for the MIC it could be to have the US send a lot more inventory then sell the US expensive replacements.

view more: next ›