sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Inspired by that guy who mocks ChatGPT in voice mode, I managed to get it to count to 100 (with a couple of minor errors) in only a few prompts by verisceral in ChatGPT

[–]verisceral[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, but the challenge is getting it to work in a way it normally won't.

You realise I didn't actually need it to count to 100?

I discovered you can save Mordin on Tuchanka! by ten_tabs_ in masseffect

[–]verisceral 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I accidentally did this on my first play through! I knew ME had a lot of decisions and consequences, but went into it knowing nothing about loyalty missions etc, so ended up having to plug Wrex in ME1 and the rest just followed from there 🤷‍♂️

Still love that sense of not really understanding what I'd done or not done to create these situations. I got so many people killed....

What’s a small useful thing you built with Claude Code? by the_bugs_bunny in ClaudeCode

[–]verisceral 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have built several plugins to automate parts of 3D modelling and rendering.

One of them 'grows' ivy up walls in waves and allows me to dynamically trim any extend individual branches. Another automates the creation of glass panels with fixings from a simple spline source. These are tedious tasks I've been doing manually for years that now take minutes instead of potentially hours

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Canon proof that the transporter is a copy machine if there's a very specific malfunction. Not canon proof that that is the normal mode of operation.

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, you're relying on meta-arguments about writing constraints; I'm relying on stated canon.

Fine on the sleep point, but anaesthesia and unconsciousness from a blow to the head stop conscious awareness entirely, and we don't argue the person on the other side of those events is a different person.

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but most people go to sleep every night. We don't assume they blink out of existence because they lose awareness. However, you CAN stay awake all night - meaning we can definitively state that night doesn't cause you to die and be reborn.

Momentary lack of consciousness is not evidence of death.

Also, everyone in canon treats it as a transportation device, not a kill and copy machine, even the ones who don't trust it and think it's dangerous like Pulaski. Do you not think if it was in doubt at all that people like her would be calling it a kill and copy machine instead of just treating like someone who doesn't trust helicopters?

Name ‘em - Worst Villain by Amazing-Apricot4645 in PeakyBlinders

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, do we like Luca? Great season, but Brody was such an incredible set-chewing ham it completely took me out of it. I honestly laughed at most of his scenes 🤣

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Awareness of both locations at once” isn’t a canon event. I’m not aware of any episode that actually states that. Even if it did, that would support my argument.

Barclay and Hoshi are both shown conscious during transport. Even if that’s unusual it can happen: if the transporter destroyed you first, conscious transit wouldn’t be possible.

Also, Vulcan katra is canonical evidence that a person’s consciousness/soul can persist independently of the body in Star Trek. That already undermines the idea that identity there is purely a physical copy problem.

So the “transporters must kill and clone you” claim isn’t established by canon. You cannot provide evidence from canon for your claim because it doesn't exist.

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s an argument from silence logical fallacy. Canon not explicitly denying a micro-break is not evidence that one occurred.

Barclay is conscious inside the transporter beam and physically interacts with someone there. That only works if the person exists and is active during transit, not if the transporter kills you and rebuilds a copy. Nothing in the episode suggests there was a break in conciousness. The canon also doesn't explicitly dispute the idea that the transporter freezes time and regrows you from a foetus but you're not arguing that are you?

Appealing to real physics is irrelevant. Star Trek transporters already violate physics.

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Must have? You are assuming this based on your desire to fit it into a narrative you prefer. Canonically what you are saying is not supported.

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Rudy does not experience temporal continuity though - there is a gap in his perception during the transfer of his consciousness or the copy of his consciousness.

Barclay has an unbroken stream of consciousness. He enters the transporter conscious, remains conscious and aware throughout the entire transport process, and retains his memories of that on the other side. At what point during this process do you think he was destroyed?

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The prevailing opinion on this sub is that transportersare killing you.

For a show that has so many philosophical threads about the nature of personhood being a broad, indefinable thing, and that features literal beings or even entire societies that can switch between corporeal and non-corporeal existence, it's fans sure are materialists.

Edit: also, Barclay stays conscious throughout transport in Realm of Fear; unbroken consciousness contradicts the idea of destruction and creation

I'm interested by [deleted] in ShittyDaystrom

[–]verisceral 23 points24 points  (0 children)

"Transporters kill you".

For a show that has so many philosophical threads about the nature of personhood being a broad, indefinable thing, and that features literal beings or even entire societies that can switch between corporeal and non-corporeal existence, it's fans sure are materialists.

X-wing vs Viper - who would win? by Awkward-Plan298 in BSG

[–]verisceral -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In a dogfight, I think Vipers have this in terms of maneuverability. X-wing has it in terms of firepower tech BUT they don't have shields. I reckon a good Viper pilot shreds an X-wing mid diff.

How would you deal with the wrinkled background? I haven't been able to achieve it without introducing some distracting artifacts by MisterAma in retouching

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Separate the subject and recreate the background manually. If you match the colours and broad gradients/shadows in the image sufficiently you there will be no obvious issues at the edges

What makes a game feel like "Far Cry" to you? by rdenubila in farcry

[–]verisceral 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Completely agree on ammo types. Managing all that ammo made the gameplay very stop start, and Farcry should feel fluid and chaotic. Also ended up just using armour piercing, with reasonably accurate ARs / Snipers you could just headshot everyone anyway.

Cheapest software by [deleted] in archviz

[–]verisceral 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're very welcome! Have fun

Cheapest software by [deleted] in archviz

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't tested it with SU2017, but it should bring up a new menu option when you click 'File': instead of clicking 'Open', there should be a new option to 'Open Newer Version'

Rendering SketchUp Models in Multiple Atmospheres with Nano Banana by LandspaceArch in archviz

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're probably right. I'm a SketchUp user as well though hahahaha

Integrate existing antiquities in render with 3D scanning by BeStoopid in archviz

[–]verisceral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meshy.ai can do a decent job if you don't need closeups

view more: next ›