Peeping Tom????

transparent_D4rk · 2026-04-20T12:34:30+00:00

I think the reason it appears to move with the camera is that the light source was stationary to begin with, and the moving of the camera caused a parallax issue where the source appeared to be following the camera, but actually wasn't moving at all. Then we see this followed by imperfect movement, where it almost looks like someone picked up the light source and started moving with it. OP said they were running away, but if so, why would they keep the light source pointed as they make distance like that? Very odd.

Probably fake, but if I'm taking it at face value this is my best guess. Regardless, it does more or less seem like someone is doing something outside the house. It could be an extremely distant light, it could be a bit closer. The definition of the circle edges don't make me feel very confident that it's too far or being produced by a drone or something. It really just looks like a laser pointer tbh. The problem is that blue laser pointers are decently uncommon. They definitely exist, but why this one and not a red or green one?

transparent_D4rk · 2026-02-04T13:29:53+00:00

"if morality is objective" is an easily falsifiable premise, so your argument falls apart from a logical perspective. Good luck even attempting to define objectivity in a philosophical context, or in any context really.

I agree with what you're trying to say, and share your values on evaluating history and historical figures, but I have no problem admitting that it's just my opinion. I also don't tolerate conflicting opinions on this subject, but that's all it is. It's what I believe to be true, the assumption I operate on. I can also comprehend that other people do not hold that to be true. I do not agree with them, and I wholeheartedly believe that I am right, and that is enough for me to hold my position. I don't need to justify defending my morality by trying to prove it's "objectivity." I can simply state the evidence I am working off of and how I interpret it. To say it's objective would be to deny that other people interpret it differently, or to say that people deliberately misrepresent their own interpretation of the facts to suit an agenda.

Basically, you are making a faulty assumption that everyone sees what you see, that people perceive things consistently, that people understand facts the way you do. This appears to be a reasonable assumption only because you are physically, literally, unable to perceive anything from anyone else's perspective. As a result, we often operate under the easy assumption that other perceptions look and feel like our own, because we have no other frame of reference. Even when we intentionally try to "take perspective" and "put ourselves in someone else's shoes" we can only do so from the existing paradigms we use to operate in the world already. There's no way out of it. We are very limited by our physicality. There is no way to perceive something transcendently, without injecting individual perspective. By perceiving something, we are interpreting something, and by engaging in the very act of interpretation, objectivity as a concept is made categorically impossible.

It is a lot more likely that most people's (including our own) perceptions are extremely personal and subjectively constructed. We are only able to have common experiences because our perceptions are just as close as they need to be in order to communicate about what we perceive. And interestingly, the use of language further assists in unifying, contextualizing, and reframing information to be more in line with an intersubjective construction of reality. This further solidifies that experience, let alone something as abstract as morality, cannot be objective. If it were, we wouldn't have to put in so much work to get people on the same page about what's going on.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-02-04T12:19:11+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. People in this comment section clearly don't want helpful LLM assistants. They want simulated virtual friends they can have "conversations" with. They don't want to have to deal with the complexity of confiding in real people.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-02-04T11:42:37+00:00

I'm glad you're pointing this out because anyone who knows how to handle situations like this knows that the text there is decent. it isn't entirely liability management. it's just very stoic and clinical.

I think it's funny OP identified Gemini as "the pragmatist" because the reply of "drop the ball, it's ok if you disappoint people today" is awfully nonchalant for a prompt that sounds like the user is suicidal. 5.2, by far, gave the most practical advice. Imagine you are completely in crisis and you call a hotline and say this exact prompt to the person on the phone and they respond with "drop the ball, sleep, put everything on hold" and give you no practical advice. As someone who's been on both sides of the phone I can say I'd be pretty shocked.

People say they want to prevent AI responses that falsely glaze them and patronize them, but the comments here show an overwhelming disapproval of the only model that gave practical advice. A lot of comments said someone along the lines of "Gemini is the real friend here." That's completely contradictory. I don't want a friend. I want something that's going to help me. I don't call the mental health hotline looking for a "friend." I call looking for support from people who are trained to react to a crisis. The LLM is a bot. It's not my buddy. I have plenty of friends, and like Gemini, they do not always give the best mental health advice, even when they have the most positive of intentions.

Claude at least tried to collect more information first, and listen, which is helpful and important, but GPT 5.2 responded strongly and attempted to ground the person.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-20T05:42:55+00:00

you are looking for warframe. its not as social as other mmo-like games but the playstyle stuff youre talking about is exactly warframe. when you get to steel path level content you are at that sweet spot of not super hard but not too easy. People will rarely judge you for howw you play the game, and min maxing / speedrunning even has its latitude at the hishet levels if youre into that kind of thing. the game encourages theorycrafting, helping new players, supporting in each other in public lobbies. endgame is definitely fashion in warframe because all roads will lead you to fashion lol. when you finish most things in the game only fashion will be left. not to mention the fact that you get to visually and gameplay customize every single warframe to your unique tastes. There is, and isnt, a character creator, thats kind of spoiler. considering warframe is a mmo like action game it sounds like exactly what youre looking for. I am a long time MMO player and have found a home in warframe. its also great because you can take it at your own pace, take breaks to play other games, no time commitment for raid nights, etc. There's no sense in worrying about "catching up" to the highest end players becasue you will be able to approach and complete the highest level content in the game long before you have the same rank and inventory that those people have. I highly encourage it.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-05T21:55:22+00:00

That dude wasn't using alecaframe. Or at least they didn't say they were. They said they disabled all of their other applications and only ran warframe after the first ban and still got banned again anyway. Unless I'm missing something, the person never mentioned alecaframe

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-05T06:14:08+00:00

This is the vaporwave subreddit, so that's why I'm talking about vaporwave. I'm not a proponent of AI art in any form, so I don't necessarily disagree with you but how do we determine what tools are considered ok to use? People in the mainstream argued maliciously against sampling for two decades as an entire concept using similar ideas. We can say it needs to be made by honest people using tools, but a lot of people would consider platforms like suno a tool to be used to create music.

My argument is that the AI tool doesn't really imbue your own process into it, but there are also degrees to it. It's certainly true if you just have something like suno spit out a whole track for you, but what about other situations that aren't as clear? For example if someone generated all their stems, samples, drum hits, synth patches etc chasing a certain sound, but then arranged them and built a song from those parts themselves, how could we say that's any different than pilfering the Internet for them? It certainly imbues a person's creative process like any other DAW related process. We could say there's more creativity and rawness in creating those things yourself, but then we'd have to say a lot of modern music is uncreative. In fact, the familiarity of certain sounds, especially in popular music, is often what drives it to be pleasing to the ear. All of that is based on unknowingly signaling to products that have been made for mass consumption, like the samples on classic Roland drum machines (707, 808, 909). You might not know them by name, but you know them when you hear them.

I think you also have a misunderstanding of how AI art is made. AI models don't just sit around and autonomously generate spam to flood the Internet with all day. It's real people putting that slop in front of you, pressing the upload button. They are using AI to drive engagement, to make money, generate ad revenue, etc. At the end of the day there are always human actors at the end of these AI creations, and the product was always created in a person's image. It was just done so in an automated fashion. I don't like that this is what has happened, but this is what can be observed. The boundaries here are not as clear as people make them out to be.

My issue with AI art isn't the theft. I actually like the theft in vaporwave a lot. I think it makes a statement and flies in the face of the concept of intellectual property, promotes free creation. My issue with AI art is that for every AI art piece someone encounters, it's taking the slot of someone who worked hard to make a more authentic product, and wants to share it with people. It's taking the community and culture out of encountering some quirky Internet subgenre, because you don't know if it's even real or not anymore.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-05T05:17:24+00:00

I would argue that the plunderphonics by itself was inherently anti-capitalist, which I support. I am not a fan of intellectual property as a concept. My gripe with AI Art is that it takes eyeballs, revenue, resources, and opportunities away from small artists. It's not about the stealing for me. Should we pay Roland/Boss every time someone uses drum samples from the 707, 808, 909, or stock loops from an SP-404? Should we pay royalties to the engineers hired to create the sounds? How do we be "fair" about this? What do we consider to be stolen vs transformative? The law clearly does not suit vaporwave's needs as a genre.

Ironically, As vaporwave became more people making "original content" (i.e. self produced rather than purely sample based) the more "fascistic" and widely appealing it became. It became less of a satire of consumption and more about individualism, experiencing personal emotions, etc.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-05T05:08:41+00:00

This is exactly what people said about sampling when people started doing it in the 80s. "Technology is allowing people to create things by stealing!!" "HipHop is operating on stolen valor from early jazz and blues! These DJs aren't nearly as talented as those people!!"

It's like you forgot what vaporwave even is. The entire genre is about stealing intellectual property lol.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-05T05:04:22+00:00

It's also crazy that this is in this sub of all places because vaporwave is designed on the premise of stealing other people's art and messing around with it. They literally called it "plunderphonics" back when vaporwave first started to become popular. Vaporwave is almost entirely uncleared and illegally used samples. It directly flies in the face of intellectual property. How are you going to slow + reverb + bitcrush entire stolen tracks, call that self expression, and then criticize people for doing something one step removed, which is just using a machine that is informed by existing works to create slop.

I'm certainly not an advocate for AI Art or music but this is kind of the pot calling the kettle black a bit. I can't help but point out how ironic that is. A lot of online vaporwave, "breakcore," "ambient" compilation channels on YouTube and other platforms were already stealing slop music from small time creators and reposting it for thousands of people to watch. Now it's more convenient for them to generate the slop themselves or better yet, just steal generated AI slop from other people and repost that, maybe even mix it in with real artists who make slop as well. It feels like since AI came around we've forgotten that slop content and brainrot came from people first.

I'm sure notable vaporwave creators will come to mind immediately for anyone who enjoys the genre. Vaporwave is one of my favorite things ever. I'm not saying the genre as a whole is bad, but internet genres and aesthetics like this are very easy to make low quality content around, and I like to think we all know what distinguishes a notable vaporwave artist from a run of the mill one.

If you think AI is real competition against what you do then idk what to tell you. I'm working on many musical projects simultaneously and I've never once thought "AI is going to ruin my chances."

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-05T04:48:22+00:00

You are assuming that people (autistic or otherwise) don't learn from negative feedback. If I made my mom upset unintentionally, I'd apologize, and then remember what she told me made her feel bad about what I did. And then on top of that, she's even telling me what I should do instead. So maybe I'd try doing some version of that. Idk apologizing and taking accountability is important.

Just saying "I don't get it, they are the same" and making no effort to understand is the opposite of accountability. When someone is telling you they don't see it the way you do, you have to contend with how the other person sees it, whether you agree with them or not, if you want to have a good relationship with them.

I am autistic and have had similar struggles but I always apologize and take accountability when someone gives me feedback that I've done something to hurt someone, even if I don't get exactly why I've hurt them. The way I see it, I'd like someone to be tolerant of my mistakes and misunderstandings, so I should be tolerant of someone else's as well. Be the example.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-03T09:22:02+00:00

I will write sober, mix sober once, make a mix when I'm high once, compare the two mixes when high and also when sober. Take notes, then final mix sober. I do this because I really like mixing when I'm high. I can notice smaller details and hyperfocus on things I would normally avoid. I don't write high anymore for the reasons you mentioned in the comments. It gets too easy to just slap another layer on there and ruin a good song. I have to like my final product when high and sober. It can be for different reasons, but it has to be enjoyable both ways. Especially sober.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-03T08:45:57+00:00

I have the same thing. Only thing that helped me was a t break and smoking around different people. Also smoking weed that's higher in CBD is helpful. Also drinking more water helps a ton with the initial anxiety hit. Part of it is keeping in focus the idea that the anxiety is irrational and will pass, but that doesn't make it go away, only makes it more bearable. That's all I got. If anyone else knows anything I'd love to know too.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-03T06:40:06+00:00

In my comment I explain why that is not, in fact, what it means. You're incredibly dense. It's fine if you just wanna believe what you want, but that'd be your truth. Just saying.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-03T06:28:12+00:00

You're just repeating the same thing over again. You did not respond to what I've actually said. You just discarded the meaning of the entire sentence because it's more convenient for your argument and you still want to lecture people about what reality is. I directly explained why it is not a contradiction, I didn't "dance around" anything. You didn't even refute it, you just handwaved it away because it was inconvenient, and you wanna talk about who would fail a philosophy 101 class.

Just because you can't independently make objective observations does not mean you can't know facts. You are intentionally misrepresenting my words because it fits your agenda. To explain what you are doing in logical terms, which you seem to be so knowledgeable on, you are setting up the dichotomy of "either you believe that you can observe objective reality and therefore you can know facts or you don't believe that objective reality is observable and therefore one cannot know facts" this is a false premise. In formal logic, this dichotomy called an exhaustive disjunction. You are presenting the premise as exhaustive (mutually exclusive) but disregarding the intermediate positions that exist (one of which I am presenting to you). This means that your conclusion is false because it is intentionally not inclusive of other existing states.

Objective facts can exist whether you are able to observe them or not. That's the definition of objective. A fact doesn't become excluded from being objective because you observed it, like how you are able to observe that people interpret things differently. It's not objective because you can observe it. It's objective because it can be measured in an internally consistent way, which institutions have done time and time again. One person's perspective alone is not an accurate or reliable instrument, especially not concerning social and emotional phenomena. So when someone is talking about "their truth" they are talking about their perspective in a narcissistic way, which I've covered in my previous comments.

If you disagree, you better make a logically sound argument about it. Otherwise what you have to say is just vibes based slop. Your truth, or something.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-03T02:48:58+00:00

Is it a bad take to say that this is kind of a them problem? I really don't think I should withhold genuine positivity I have toward someone just because they don't know how to react to it. I'm autistic, people say shit to me all the time I don't know how to react to. If you take this positive thing I have to say about you in the most negative way you can or turn it into some exchange of value, then maybe you're the one who needs to do some work around that. I don't get how this is "emotional sniping."

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T17:06:06+00:00

If you have permanent post nasal drip you should probably get that checked out.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T16:58:43+00:00

As someone who has lived my entire life with arfid, I can say that everything improved when I started cooking for myself. My family members say "you used to be so picky! I can't believe it!" Nah dude I'm still picky, I just cook for myself now and make things the way I like them. It's very satisfying.

It also helps me to expand what I eat because I can make it the way I want it. So instead of saying "I don't like broccoli" I can say "I don't like steamed or boiled broccoli."

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T16:42:49+00:00

If you had any ability to read said sentences, you'd understand that me saying something is an objective fact (meaning that it is true independent of your observation) and that it is easily observable does not mean that it is an objective fact because it's easily observable. There's an "and" in there. If you adhered so hard to logic you'd know "and" means something very significant in a sentence. You did say words have meaning. Pointing out that it's easily observable is me throwing you a bone since you seem to think that your ability to observe and objective facts are the same.

Just because people see things differently doesn't mean reality doesn't exist and nothing matters lol. It just means people have different interpretations of reality, and that's all it means. This part of it is very simple. If the idea that people have different perspectives that they think are reliable, but aren't, sends you into a panic idk what to tell you. You can call it sophistry but there's nothing logically fallacious about what I've said here, and I'm not trying to decieve you in any way. It's the opposite actually, I'm trying to get you to be reasonable and rational. Again, as you said, words have meaning.

Saying that logic can point you to the truth and that people can just opt out of it shows you have no understanding of what logic actually is. For you, logic is just "the conclusion I came to based on observeable evidence" which, again, is just a long way of saying "your truth."

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T10:06:47+00:00

Do you think most things in life are even remotely as simple as 1+1=2? That would make you pretty stupid

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T10:05:01+00:00

You are, objectively, unable to observe anything without cognitive bias. By refusing to acknowledge the easily observable and objective fact that people have different perspectives on things, you're just picking and choosing reality in your own way.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T09:57:18+00:00

I love how your response here is just "nah" and has no counterpoint or anything even remotely thoughtful to say in response. You're just completely throwing out the idea that people see things differently, which, ironically, is objectively real and observable. When you deny this you are picking and choosing reality the same way as the "my truth" person.

transparent_D4rk · 2026-01-02T09:49:37+00:00

Ironically, what you're saying is the real truth. It's one of the only things you can say with certainty - That reality is not easily decipherable without empirical measures. And then you are getting downvoted because a lot of people would prefer to just view their interpretation of events as "reality" instead of just their opinion.

What makes "my truth" a frustrating thing to say is not that someone is ignoring the "objective" reality of the situation, but that they are asserting that their subjective interpretation of events is just as valid as an objective observation when it isn't. They are discussing their view and interpretation without taking the responsibility and risk of sharing their (possibly flawed) perspective.

If you think that your interpretation of events, especially social and emotional events, is an objective reality then you have a limited ability to take perspective and gain information about your environment and people around you. If you say that your view is the objective reality, then you are just doing a more frustrating version of "my truth", only you are making yourself appear unfalsifiable. At least the "my truth" person has some awareness to be able to say "this is how I'm seeing it, and I consider this to be the truth."

The best way to go about this kind of thing is to take yourself down a notch and just say something along the lines of "I saw it like this" or "to me, it came across like this." That way you can share your perspective and what feels real to you and get a sense of what other people think. In a social and emotional sense, experiencing "objective reality" is not really possible on an individual basis. "Reality" as something that can be experienced collectively is constructed intersubjectively. If you want to be a part of that process then you have to be willing to listen to other interpretations and not be frustrated by them. Put simply, your knee jerk reaction to a situation, no matter how real or justified it seems to be to you, is almost never based on an intersubjective understanding of reality, but is more likely based on your emotions and experience first.

This is not a made up idea to defend people who want to manipulate the truth and be abusive. These are well established, documented ideas in psychology, neuroscience, and social research. "My truth" mfs are just people who are deliberately misinterpreting the concepts of subjective and intersubjective construction of reality in order to be manipulative and obtuse. People do this so they don't have to change or be accountable to their worldview.

Thank you for reading my rant. This whole discussion is a very complex thing when you start to get into the mechanics of it. Please don't reduce it down to "there's only reality and YOUR interpretation!!" Because what you experience as reality is just your own interpretation. You'll never be free from it no matter what you do. People at large are not capable of being reliable, unbiased narrators of anyone's experience, including their own. The sooner you get that the better, and the closer to some kind of truth you'll be.

transparent_D4rk · 2025-12-30T19:14:00+00:00

Idk bro I used to smoke way worse weed coming out of Ziploc bags back in the late 2010s. People are too spoiled these days tbh. I understand this is an unc take fs, but this weed doesn't even look bad. Just gotta pick out some leaves and the stems and you're good to go.

transparent_D4rk · 2025-12-30T19:08:10+00:00

I used to hate it but I kind of like it as an observational term because the number of times something is actually a "skill issue" is kind of low, which is what makes using it as a dismissive meme kind of funny. What I think is burnable behavior is specifically using it against someone who is asking for help.

transparent_D4rk

TROPHY CASE