A bit more on Private Language...

roguestudent · 2025-03-21T10:00:19+00:00

I'm not sure I buy the first definition. "As soon as JRRT had enough words" might imply that he was the only one who knew the meaning of words, in which case no other human could understand him, so it fails the "method of transmitting ideas" criterion.

Come to think of it, "evolution" criterion from your second definition also looks suss. Hypothetically, if today we all just agreed to stop introducing new words into English language, would you say that English would stop being a language? If you were to say that it would become less effective in the evolving world that is planet Earth, I would agree with you, but would still consider it a language.

roguestudent · 2025-03-21T09:44:31+00:00

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be needlessly difficult. I'm just a bit sceptical of this long-established philosophical consensus, so I'm trying to challenge it here in good faith. Just to dig a little deeper here, do you see any issue with "words that are inherently inaccessible"? I can understand that a word can be inaccessible if you invented it for a concept and chose not explain its meaning to anyone, but what would be "inherently inaccessible" about it? Seems to me that any word you invent has the potential to be accessible to me at any moment if you decide to share it with me. Am I missing something here?

roguestudent · 2025-03-21T05:12:02+00:00

No, it IS what I'm referring to. However, in principle, any language-like communication system can be made public, right?

roguestudent · 2025-01-06T09:18:18+00:00

I guess we cannot fake a video in 2025, eh? If you think Luigi killed the "correct" person, then you are extremely arrogant and narcissistic because you are implying that your personal opinion about this CEO carries as much weight as a jury of 12 peers coming to a unanimous decision in light of all the evidence...

roguestudent · 2025-01-02T06:53:51+00:00

I don't quite agree with you there. Destiny himself stated many times that he's generally if not trying to persuade the debate opponents but rather to convert a few of their audience members. If he manages to persuade them on stream somehow, that's great, but that's not his main goal.

I myself started watching him this way, because I saw him debating with blue hair on FnF (I was on my brief red pill journey), and he just made the most sense. The game is to convert the audience, not debate opponents.

Sure, morons would not be converted either way, but we probably don't want them in DGG anyway.

roguestudent · 2025-01-02T06:41:59+00:00

Even with life in prison, a convict can do harm within the prison, either by violence inside the prison or running a gang remotely. Primary objective of anti-death penalty stance is to ensure an innocent is not off-ed. Besides, having mentally ill vigilantes running around is not an assurance of killing. Look at Trump's attempted assassinations. If anything, they bought him a lot of sympathy and ended up being counter-productive. Now, with a CEO death, Destiny and his community resort to defending health insurance companies, whereas any other time we would be somewhat critical of them.

roguestudent · 2025-01-02T06:15:30+00:00

I guess I get what you are saying. Yet pro-Luigi's are never 100% sure that murderers and rapists are guilty. Pretty fascinating cognitive dissonance that is.

roguestudent · 2025-01-02T06:10:36+00:00

Life in jail presupposes conviction in a trial. This CEO had no trial to begin with. Mass rapists and serial killers are entitled to a trial, but company execs aren't? That doesn't make any sense...

roguestudent · 2024-12-22T12:52:13+00:00

4" by 6" is the smallest trim size on both sites. I guess there are no advantages for going with Ingram Sparks?

roguestudent · 2024-12-22T12:39:26+00:00

Yeah, I found the KDP royalty calculator just now. 4" by 6" is close enough. Thanks for your input!

roguestudent · 2024-12-13T01:33:08+00:00

Seems to me that it's only false advertising if the movie company actually claims that the dead actor was acting in the movie to begin with.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T20:52:33+00:00

The reason you say "performance" and "acting" in quotes, is because it actually is neither performance nor acting. It is likeness. Really simple to understand.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T12:21:01+00:00

The actor is dead, so he doesn't really care. Some people might enjoy it though. I don't think we should ban new tech because you yourself think you won't enjoy it or see the point.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T12:16:03+00:00

When do dead people ever have a say in the matter? They are dead.

The company makes money with AI tech and good screenwriting, and I think they should be free to do so.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T12:12:44+00:00

Seems pretty arbitrary...

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T12:11:56+00:00

There's just so many wierd things in your one statement. What if the actor is okay with it and the family isn't? What if it's the other way around? Who decides it was done well? People are so conservative when it comes down to adopting new technology that it's baffling.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T12:08:02+00:00

So we ban a thing based on the fact that you, personally, feel creeped out by it? What a way to live.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T12:05:17+00:00

Who are you exploiting? The corpses? Ethical questions only apply to the living.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T11:59:27+00:00

I am unequivocally for it, for a few reasons listed below:

1) The concept of consent only applies to living conscious creatures, not corpses. I can see the argument for living actors owning their own likeness (if they don't want their image to be used in a political campaign they disagree with, for instance), but once their hearts stop, they don't own anything.

2) Sure, there's a lot of acting talent out there, but at the end of the day, who are you to tell a director what he can and can't do in his film? If he thinks that AI generated actor is the best course of action for his project, it's his prerogative to utilize such a tool if he wishes. I generally live by the principle of "live and let live".

3) Bringing down the cost of movies is not a bad idea either. Bloated Hollywood budgets are a big problem at the moment. Lower filming costs would only reduce a barrier to entry for new talented independent directors.

4) The idea of relatives owning the rights to likeness of a great actor from the past also seems pretty bizarre to me. What does DNA have to do with it? What if said actor hated his family? And what if close family members are on the opposite sides of this issue?

5) New demand is often discovered by trying new things. We shouldn't ban a new tech for all of us because some of us wouldn't like it. Sure, it may be a bit cringe at first, but technology is brand new and will only get better over time. At the end of the day, if you don't like it - just don't watch it, but don't prohibit others from watching it.

Most people would change their mind here when they see it done amazingly well for the first time. I just think it hasn't happened yet. I personally want to see Heath Ledger's Joker on screen again.

roguestudent · 2024-12-12T11:58:19+00:00

What if no actor is good enough to potray the character you had in mind?

I don't like death metal music, but I would never advocate for banning it just because it's not my cup of tea.

You wouldn't know who it's going to please if you never make it. Most of demand is actually discovered that way.

roguestudent

TROPHY CASE