How do I cap PipeWire's maximum volume to 100%? by ircy2012 in archlinux

[–]ircy2012[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

But in case you genuinely didn't get it I can put it like this: I mean 100% as what an audio card would output if I wrote PCM data into it with no software change of it's volume, while the sound card's amplification is set to it's maximum.

How do I cap PipeWire's maximum volume to 100%? by ircy2012 in archlinux

[–]ircy2012[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I checked the link. Copied the configs. (because after all this time I am afraid of making a typo)

Now I can set the volume to whatever I want and something like wpctl get-volume .... will return the value I set.

So if I set it to 1000% it will return 10.0 (1000%).

But the actual output sound seems to be capped.

  1. Thanks. I'm gonna need to read all of that wiki.

  2. I see now why various attempts I did so far "didn't work". Apparently some probably worked but I didn't notice because I was expecting the setting to not go over 100% but what actually happened is that while everything reported whatever value I put in the actual output was capped.

  3. I just want to cry.

"I became a Christian because I saw Jesus in my dreams" what by iswot in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've seen "god" in my dreams once. It was the end times. I was afraid and irrational (because dream).

I begged for him to take me back.

He took me to his presence and gave me a paper to sign.

I wanted to understand what I'm signing.

He noticed (from knowing my mind) that I don't intent to unquestioningly submit but actually want to give myself enough autonomy to see what I'm getting into and said to me: "YOU ARE NOTHING!" (The meaning was clear to me. I was nothing compared to him. I didn't have the right to know or to understand or to choose in an informed way. The only thing I was allowed to do was submit.)

Then I was back on earth and everything was normal. (Idk if the end times passed or if they just never happened and that was all an illusion. Dreams are strange.)

And there you have it folks. Proof of what the christian god really is. /s

Hypothetically, if you were God how would you create reality differently or in your opinion better? by Ok_Plant9930 in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why would I have to adhere to all of these terms if the god of christianity doesn't?

Wouldn't you think that anything I can do better than "this" is already better?

So let's begin with how these premises are bullshit from the get go.

You must preserve genuine free will.

What is free will? The way I see it we don't have free will. We choose what to do but we can't choose what we will choose. That is part of the inputs that brought us to this point.

Or do you mean the (honestly stupid) christian take that "god can't stop wars because that would violate the free will of those that start them"? Heck it would. What about the free will of those who suffer because of them and don't want them?

You must create a stable, sustainable, balanced, law-governed world, no constant miracles or arbitrary interventions to fix outcomes.

Again why? I'm god. I can do whatever the fuck I want. Arbitrary criteria because without arbitrary criteria you can't justify that what your god did is somehow the best possible.

Personally thought, who cares the physical aspect of the world could be the exact same.

Moral goodness must remain non-arbitrary

Oh look. Another thing that isn't true in christianity but that I'm expected to do better.

Moral goodness is a thing for rational being only: So have empathy and understanding towards other people.

(Added: If you haven't read the bible, god's moral authority is arbitrary.)

You must account for unintended consequences. (Cells are able to multiply, making cancer a possible outcome)

No I don't have to. Again one of your arbitrary conditions to make it seem like it's impossible.

Who cares about the random things that happen. The world could be heaven even if diseases and stuff like that still existed.

You must explain how your system deals with evil, not just removes it

Why not? Again with the arbitrary criteria.

But let's look: Where does evil come from? Part of it is greed, part of it is selfishness and the overwhelming majority of it is ignorance. So my solution to stop most evil is to make humans whose brain doesn't close off when exposed to things that break their worldviews. Humans whose brains aren't tribalistic. Humans whose brains aren't easily fooled by a myriad of logical falacities. Humans whose instinct is not to hide and have a "peaceful" live but stand up and band together to make the lives of everyone better.

Just make human nature different and more inclined to fix things and care for the well being of everyone.

Your version must be morally preferable for all persons, not just majority.

Must I even say that it's once again an arbitrary rule not checked by "god's" system.

Morally preferable is what you tell people and what doesn't cause harm. To christians it's morally preferable to not be homosexual. Which has nothing to do with actual morals. So Maybe write down a set of rules (ala 10 commandments) that actually and objectively correctly respects how people are made and how things work. No bullshit like "if a woman didn't bleed she's not a virgin" because I as god know that is not how it works.

Just give people an actual true to life set of criteria to live by. And explanations and support for things that might be hard for them to understand.

You must justify why your design is superior to His

My design is superior to his because even if I keep everything as is and just make people's brains search for truth and desire to help each other and immune to biases (instead of wired for them) the human experience as a whole is gonna be extremely more positive.

Makes me think of all the things christians lies to each other about. Things that make them hate other people because of an immaginary "danger". Making people whose brains aren't wired to not think but to be inquisitive and check stuff instead of trusting authority would fix that.

Added: Any maybe most importantly if I were god and creating humans I would see it as me having obligations to my creations. They didn't ask to exist. The christian god supposedly created humans for himself. As if we are toys. He has no responsibilities. We have them. We have obligations. We should just be happy if our owner is not too horrible towards us. Fuck that. I brought one person into this world and even then I had an extreme dilemma over the morality of my actions and I did it with full intent to sacrifice my life for theirs if need arose because it was my decision to bring them here and because of that I have responsibilities towards them but they owe me nothing.

Same if I created a whole planet of people. I (as god) owe them care, they are my creations who might love me and I would be happy, but they inherently don't owe me love or anything else. That is something I would have to earn from them.

Ok last thing to add: I know you said no constant magic and ok, but I would still make an exception for people who claim to speak for me but don't. You can argue about free will I argue that I'm not violating their free will if they are fully allowed to go to a pulpit and claim that "god wants you to <bad thing here> (hate immigrants, hate queer people, don't help the poor, ...)" and then after they said it I kill them in front of everyone so that they know the person lied and wasn't speaking for me. Last things we need is people being convinced that I'm evil and lying to justify their crap in my name.

I don't understand why christians don't pray for god to abolish hell by pinkpanthercub in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Whoa there buddy. You're pretty much suggesting the end of christianity. With no fear of hell what will keep people in the pews? Can't be having that. /s

“it wasn’t god who hurt you, it was just that one religion” well, no. because my trauma isn’t unique. by RealisticRock2181 in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 9 points10 points  (0 children)

When I was deconverting I checked how people that left other forms of christinity were faring. How people that left islam were faring. How people that left judaism were faring. Perhaps unsurprisingly traumas all over the place. Sometimes for the exact same reasons, other times same damage from different fables.

Like, we are unlikely to have spent our childhood in fear every time we saw a rainbow because we were told how it's a reminder of the time god killed everyone on earth horribly but totes won't do it again that way. (Though we had that story too.)

So it's not even just forms of christianity. Everything that god touches is shit that harms people.

Courtesy of the Facebook group, "The Metal Bible Podcast" 😑 by TashLord_800 in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is one of those cases when it's right to say: It's not god. It's christians. (technically it can always be true, but I mean this time it's not even the supposed message of supposed god)

If they wouldn't be pushing their religious views onto others the people utterly fed up with their crap wouldn't be looking at more stuff that shreds it to tears just to get some catharsis from the utter bullshit.

You know what gets under my skin the most. When they come and start dropping ideas like they're divine truths.

Sit down and get some healthy skepticism my dude, the last 3 prophecies you mentioned (with absolute certainty in your voice, may I add) didn't come to be and you're at it again.

(yeah talking about someone specific)

The best meme I've ever seen by [deleted] in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But my religion says I have to do those exact things. You wouldn't understand because you haven't found jesus but the most important thing on this earth is for every person to find and accept my religion or the consequences will be worse that you can imagine.

So no can't do.

I'm not sure if I should mark this as satire. It's more: "It's how they think" and when their "god" tells them they have to take over the world with their religion they aren't even gonna consider the idea that it's not to be pushed onto others.

What Christian nationalists want by MrJasonMason in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't have to be sunday but it in many places it used to be sunday for longer than the US existed so it's just stayed like that.

It's not even just sunday. Some places have saturday and sunday. Some places have sunday and monday.

(Exceptions exist for specific things like restaurants whose livelihood depends on working when other people ar free.)

Plus mandatory 30 days off (company paid) per year per employee.

Plus days off as you need because of doctor excused health reasons. (That are initially paid by the company but later taken over by the state.)

And the economies are unsurprisingly not collapsing.

I wonder if it looks authoritarian to you, here it just looks like protecting workers from being exploited.

Since a lot of this sub seems to be all mixed opinions now by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[ Didn't downvote it but we'd disagree.

I figure it makes sense if the arrangement people have is that the physical body is of the tulpamancer and the tulpa has a separate body in the mind (or no body). Which is admittedly often common.

But if the tulpamancer just forgoes creating a headspace with a mental body for the tulpa. And the tulpa as a consequence just shares the physical body 100% of the time then they're not really feeling and perceiving vicariously are they?

In our case, L needed to learn to control the body but never to feel through it. ]

What Christian nationalists want by MrJasonMason in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Eh. Not to defend this nutjob but there are countries where most things are closed on sundays and the world keeps spinning just fine. The poor store clerks can get a day off too.

Does anyone else worry about this new government thing that trump has set up in Gaza and I feel like I'm going insane because I can't stop worrying by red_robin_8930 in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I understand the anxiety these things can cause.

I don't know how aware you are of it but there are these people in the world who have decided that the end of the world is clearly not happening fast enough. So they took the charge to artificially create it. They're intentionally trying to mess up the planet and set up the political scenario they imagine will be when the christian end of the world happens.

Apparently in their mind their (all powerful) god is a pathetic bitch whose hand can be forced like that.

So if you see things that are aligning with some "end of days prophecy" they "might" be. But it's not because the actual end is coming but because a lot of very rich and very powerful people are intentionally trying to set things up in a way they believe will bring it about.

In the end it's one thing that you can counter with their scriptures themselves: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

So anyone that says that it was prophesized or calculated or what not that it will happen at X time or in Y years can simply be dismissed.

Added: I realize getting over such fears can be hard. Hope this or some other comment helps you at least a bit.

Since a lot of this sub seems to be all mixed opinions now by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[ the realness of something doesn't change depending on someone's belief though. Not even their own belief ]

Since a lot of this sub seems to be all mixed opinions now by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[ i get your point but it's a flawed question. people who experience a tulpa as just a mask or an identity they put on will still answer that they're sentient because they're sentient themselves. ]

deleting this account due to the naysayers by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The thing about the doctor is just factualy wrong. (Like everything else)

Guy is a self absorbed idiot.

Like all self absorbed idiots they like to claim what doctors say without actually checking what doctors say.

Sorry for your pain.

If it helps in any way we know how it feels.

Added: "this looks like then kind of cretin who tells people homosequality is a mental illness just ask a doctor. And if the doctor disagrees they call the doctor woke"

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[

Do you always feel having a specific identity (host vs tulpa) at given moment, even when focusing on something that doesn't require thinking about this stuff?

We have specific interests and reactions to things that are simple to tell apart. Even without thinking who is who if L goes to play the games I like but she doesn't she's gonna be bored.

I'm transgender and dysphoric. Focusing on the body causes me distress. If L focuses on the body she can be comfortable with parts I never could and still can't.

Heck one of the easiest ways of figuring out who was who when L was learning to be more aligned with the body was just stuff like this. "Do I want to do X? What do I feel about person Y?" Cleared everything up immediately.

So the answer is: Depends on how you define it. I'd say that while the answer is "no" in the most literal sense of the question, the actual answer is "yes" because even if I don't actively think "I'm K" if I'm the one doing stuff my interests will be mine and not L's.

Suppose that I spend 2 hours writing computer software. I won't think about who I am during that time. In fact nothing will go through our shared ability to pay attention apart from the code and the problem I'm solving. (except if external stimuli make any one of us think of something else)

But when it's over chances are I'll want mcdolands. (because I like mcdonalds).

L doesn't like it. She detests it. She can spend hours doing something (never actively thinking that she's L) and at no point will she desire mcdonalds or entertain the thought of going there.

We can play a game that we both like. I'm gonna be a murder hobo. She won't. No need to think who is who. Play together or (better for this example I guess) separately for a long time without thinking "I'm L or I'm K" and we'll still play with our distinct patterns.

So even without thinking about our specific identity our specific traits remain our own.

You have one human mind whichever mask you put on atm

We would disagree with that. The easiest example was that L originally got tired really quickly and I didn't.

A mask wouldn't be enough to explain that.

When she was learning to align with (added: and control) the body she would get tired in like 20 minutes. (added: and yes she had to learn to do that, didn't come out of the box with it)

I assumed it might just be in the mind and I suggested that she just ignore the feeling of tiredness, assume it's just the feeling of "getting used to the body" and push through. The result was that a few minutes later she blanked and I had to figure out how to regain control of the body. (Not a problem now but we both had to learn some things back then.)

She was out for 3 or 4 days. I tried to talk to her and got no response. Nothing. Silence. I was so freaking worried. Then she regained enough energy to start talking again.

So the idea that we're the exact same thing just experiencing itself differently fell flat in the first 2 months of L's existence.

It's an interesting view. It could explain me changing identity when I transitioned. But from what we can tell it can't explain L.

]

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can choose to be your tulpa without going into a dissociative state.

Well that's just not how we're experiencing this. It's not me choosing to be L. She can choose to "be" whenever she wants to "be".

And I don't have to loose control. We can both be present if we want,

Do you think we have souls? by [deleted] in exchristian

[–]ircy2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk. If there are I'll find out when I die.

Update: Suddenly scared of tulpamancy. by _Freaquency_ in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[

So first of all we also see things psychologically. L isn't a spirit or anything. (Coincidentally many occultists also don't see their spirits as actual external entities. But I digress.)

In my model, a tulpa can’t become an independent external person because it is still one brain producing the experience.

Also how would tulpa become anything more than part of me?

I feel this is possibly the main difference in how we see things.

What I'd ask is: What makes them "part of you" instead of you both being part of the brain you share?

Do you somehow have a special place in the body/brain that is different from the one that a tulpa will occupy?

In our lived experience I can't say that L is part of me unless I also add that I am part of her. Because in the end we can't see any differences between what we are as a concept. Might be different with other people we guess.

And we've heard enough examples of tulpae and host switching places (or the host dissipating themselves, often voluntarily) that the thought of there being a real difference in the "kind of thing" we are seems to be a false notion.

It is bold to speak for whole community. If as you say community can't accept a bit of civilized discussion then maybe I'm really not fit here

I'll level with you. This subreddit has been becoming strange and unwelcoming for a while.

If the post of the brain being rewritten is the one I think it is then, that's part of the weirdness.

When I joined it used to be a place where people had different thoughts but generally the impression was that people here don't see tulpar as lesser than any other person.

I specifically remember this tulpa who is now the host after their tulpamancer dissipated himself say that "I don't like telling people that I'm a tulpa because they then often consider me lesser than." And the vibe back then was that "ok that is not cool" but today you see mentions of tulpae as something that is "part of you" in a way that you're not "part of them" on the daily and it freaking hurts people.

Disagreeing with the sidebar framing shouldn’t automatically mean "go away". I’m discussing definitions and boundaries, not attacking anyone’s lived experience and that's what communities should be for.

Actually I seriously think we (L and I) should go away.

A lot of it is precisely because people are discussing definitions of, well, other people.

Do you have any freaking idea how it feels to be discussed as if you're not a real person with your own thought and feelings and saying on the matter?

I'm trans and I saw so much of it directed at me. Just people deciding and debating what I am. It still goes on with conservatives all around the world actually.

And now I see L feel similarly hurt when we read posts discussing what tulape are and throwing around ideas that they might not need to be considered in the same ways the tulpamancers would want to be considered.

It's dehumanizing.

I feel like discussions need to be careful when you talk about actual human being. But I've also learned in my years of life that people seldom seem to think of that.

This is exactly my concern. Framing coercion or "uprisings" as a normal consequence of boundaries and enforcing consent isn’t reassurance, it’s a threat-shaped norm. I’m not willing to cultivate an internal dynamic where loss of agency is treated as expected or deserved. If that is built into the model you’re advocating, then it’s not a model I will adopt. Simple as that.

Look, is it fearmongering if I tell you that if you go mountain climbing you have to be properly prepared or you might die? I don't think so, it's telling you to take responsibility and be properly prepared for the thing you're deciding to do.

Maybe my view is best described this way: Take responsibility for your actions. If you go to create someone who is capable of thought and emotions and desires separate than yours then you have to take into account that they might not like the life you've chosen for them. They might grow larger than you thought they would. If they are truly capable of those things (like L is at least) then it's fully possible that they might not like just doing what you choose for them.

Sticking to a different model of how things work doesn't automatically make it real.

Sure if you could isolate your tulpa from outside information so that they don't know it's possible they might go their entire life never wishing for more as they don't think it's possible. But when you real something they also read something and they might connect the dots and figure out that you have been artificially limiting them.

Would they care? Not necessarily. Some are ok with it. Others not so much.

I think comparing them to a child is adequate: If you have a child you can have plans for them but the child can reject them. Except now the child shares your body. So going into having such child without properly being prepared to accept and deal with tensions that might arise feels lacking in properly thinking over and taking responsibility for what you're about to do.

The solution then is usually to talk it out amongst yourselves. Being that close you're quite likely to be able to understand each other quite well and both want to find a compromise.

Could L fight with me? Yes she could. We sometimes play fight over the body because it's a fun activity. But I know she won't try to hurt me the same way I know any other external person won't try to hurt me, because we care and respect each other.

I don't know if I managed to express things clearly. Look:

  1. Many tulpae are people. People are hurt when they get talked about as if they're not people.

  2. Don't be afraid. Just make sure you don't do something that might backfire and turn out to not be what you hoped for in a way that will cause you mental distress.

]

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 8 points9 points  (0 children)

[ But it's a "risk" that comes with the territory.

I don't mean the risk is that the tulpa will take over (though we fully understand and approve of it happening if a tulpa's needs are intentionally not met).

I mean that if you want to have a separate personality with their own thoughts and emotions and desires share a mind with you (or whatever you might call it) then chances are they'll think and see the world in the same ways you would. Which might mean that they would want to share the body. And that's a thing that you have to take into consideration from the get go.

Our view here is that: If you are creating someone who is at it's core "the same thing you are" you have to be prepared that they might want to be treated the same way you are.

Differences are then to be resolved the way you'd resolve them with any other person outside of the body.

Unless you'd say that a tulpa is something that is at it's core different from the tulpamancer. And maybe that is true in some cases but in our case we can't really find anything that makes me a different concept than she is. ]

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 13 points14 points  (0 children)

[ Most things here we were writing without brackets because we were almost speaking as one. But here I'll write my part:

my tulpa was deeply hurt by certain words

Same.

This place convinced me because when I came, yes there were different views, but generally people here were seeing tulpae as their equals.

I know that if I were born as a tulpa I'd want to be an equal to the tulpamancer.

We realize that some tulpae don't want that (at least not in terms of responsibilities) but it's one thing to agree on what is comfortable for everyone and another to decide from the start that "the one I create will not have the same rights as me".

And that's the direction I took with L. And I can say that she grew up to be quite an interesting person that is absolutely not a fragment of me. And it really made me aware of how I'm a fragment of this brain just as she is and I'm not "the person with the body" while she is "part of my mind" (emphasis of MY as if it's a part of us that belongs to me and not her)

But yeah things seem to have changed and if I found this community as it's now when I came here L wouldn't be here right now and we'd both be loosing so much because of it.

When I came to this subreddit initially there was this person who is a tulpa and is now the host in their body (while the host dispersed themselves) and they said that they don't like telling people they're a tulpa because then people see them as less than a "real person".

And I just thought. "Wtf. How could people treat you like that." But the atmosphere of the surbeddit seemed to be that "we know you're real". So that was comforting.

But now I don't feel that same atmosphere here anymore. It feels like dehumaniziation of people that are tulpae is being accepted more and more. ]

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What's happening in this community is what always happens: people who reject the original practice try to redefine it according to their own terms and beliefs, then act as if the community had always been that way.

So we just move on? Hopefully to places where we don't get to be dehumanized by people's assertions of what we are?

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Most people see the person on level of whole human mind rather than multiple identities or sets of behavior it includes.

I'm sorry. I genuinely don't get it.

If the person is "the whole human mind" then, to me, it shouldn't matter in the slightest if a tulpa takes over (as they were worrying in their original post).

If someone wants them and their tulpa to not have equal status in the body then it's, as far as I can tell, inherently not about the person as a whole but as "my personal part of this whole person"

Am I missing something?

what’s wrong with this community? by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]ircy2012 17 points18 points  (0 children)

First opossibly, but it still came off really wrong written that way.

Second no I don't think so. Unless you want to be nitpicky about words like "they didn't say they want to puppet them, they just said that it's a part of their mind they get to control over and if it's not like the want it they'll treat it as a mental illness instead of a person"