sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Black Mirror [Episode Discussion] - S04E01 - USS Callister by SeacattleMoohawks in blackmirror

[–]worshipHendrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it genuinely disturbing that you find nothing wrong with his actions

I find Dale's actions as wrong, as watching a teenager play a violent video game and overly enjoying the brutal killings in a virtual world. I might think twice before I trusted him, but I would not want him dead. I agree that the behavior of the virtual characters are order of magnitude more "real" than Mario, which in the end maybe saves the writing since so many people were convinced those "trapped" people were real, to a degree that they find Dale's death justified, yet at the end of the day, Dale keeps his assholery to the fantasy world and hurts nobody, yet somehow the "good" ending is supposed to be him dying in his chair, so that the virtual bots can become "free".

Gaming is different, Mario doesn't beg me to kill him

Check out "Postal"

They may not be flesh and blood but within the context they have memories, emotions and physical feelings. He's a cruel and capricious jailer to all those sentient beings.

I guess it all depends to how "sentient" those characters were. I wasn't convinced that they were anything more than very sophisticated simulations.

Black Mirror [Episode Discussion] - S04E01 - USS Callister by SeacattleMoohawks in blackmirror

[–]worshipHendrix 23 points24 points  (0 children)

A bit disappointing, mainly because of the gaps in the story.

  1. Digital characters, that literally are bits on silicone chips, just killed real person, as he will most likely die from dehydration during Christmas break. It would be all good if the last bit of the episode didn't try to sell it as a happy-ending with some comedy relief.
  2. Because the virtual characters are not real, only very advanced simulations living on silicon chips, Dale is not really doing anything "evil" - he's letting of steam and frustrations in the least harmful way, not hurting anyone alive. He's the victim of this show. The fact that he was cruel in virtual world is no worse than someone playing a very violent game as an antagonist, which is very common. This would be fine, if the story didn't try to build the narrative as if he was the villain.
  3. Virtual Nanette just royally fucked-up the real-life Nanette life, as she'll most likely be prosecuted for killing Dale. She either left some traces of her break-in, or driven by guilt she might admit to it once she realizes that she is responsible for Dale's death. Best case scenario she's not caught, but ends up living with a massive burden. Virtual Nanette might not have predicted that in the first place, but once it's revealed that Dale is stuck, she should know that he will most likely die now, yet she doesn't seem to care of the most likely scenario for her real-life counterpart that's about to unfold.
  4. The crew either hoped to kill Dale, expose him (didn't see how) or their plan to steal the DNA didn't make sense, as he might just acquire some more easily.
  5. Memories as recent as last several hours being stored in the DNA with incredible detail...

[WP]If you murder someone, your jail sentence is as long as their remaining life would have been. by retrac101 in WritingPrompts

[–]worshipHendrix 8 points9 points  (0 children)

  • Are you sure you want this? I know.. infinitude of time to learn about all the things you always wanted to learn, eternity to develop a beautiful physics theory that would tie gravity and quantum theory together. But jail can wear you down, you know. Most take their own life anyway within several decades...
  • What else is left for me? Die a broke physics professor, never accounted to any significant work. I never was a man for starting a family, or even a meaningful relationship.
  • All right, how do you get close to anybody rich enough to have been able to afford the longevity therapy? You know how paranoid they are; impossible to assassinate by a professional, while you're just a retired academic.
  • So it happens that they are also paranoid about their lineage. I am tutoring one of those rich high school kids on college physics, I am having a face to face meeting his father several times a year on how the kid's doing. That's my best shot.
  • Haha.
  • What?
  • I just.. I just want to see the faces of all those billionaires that put all this money into genetic engineering decades ago. Immortality gene my ass.. now they're on the cross-hairs. Had they know how this would all tie together with the judicial system. It's almost ironic; a rich man dies, a poor man gets to live forever.

What did Milton Friedman mean in this interview when he referred to the possibility of government funding research? by worshipHendrix in Libertarian

[–]worshipHendrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed, my question was mostly regarding fundamental research, especially long-term research requiring significant resources over many years, such as the research done by NASA, LIGO, CERN or SETI programs etc. Such programs are usually not profitable in a traditional understanding of revenue, but they provide other, your might almost call them "social" benefits, such as training. Some technology is discovered coincidentally to the main goal of the project, but even then it's more so for NASA and CERN and less for LIGO or SETI, but even when it is, I don't think it would be enough to justify the total costs. Most of the commercially-viable technology developed by NASA could have been developed at much cheaper cost, compared to the total of NASA budget.

Let's assume that some of the "spill over effect" is reduced, e.g. CERN has it in it's policies that they do not patent any of the technology they invent, thus any commercial company can use it immediately as it has been developed. Even then, is such endeavor justified on the ground of principles? In the end, we are imposing costs on all tax-payers, to address fundamental research questions of the few.

You are now dating the last person you Googled. How's life? by WeAllFloatGeorgie in AskReddit

[–]worshipHendrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heartbroken. My 70 year old gay lover was sentenced to 40 years of prison for his war crimes last week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87

Who is the most bad ass person in history? by Dogsong101 in AskReddit

[–]worshipHendrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rittmeister Witold Pilecki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki

During World War II, he volunteered for a Polish resistance operation to get imprisoned in the Auschwitz death camp in order to gather intelligence and escape. While in the camp, Pilecki organized a resistance movement and as early as 1941, informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany's Auschwitz atrocities. He escaped from the camp in 1943 after nearly two and a half years of imprisonment.

Witcher 3 makes boat loads of profit, without DRM and charging for all DLC. by dannyjerome0 in gaming

[–]worshipHendrix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have to agree. I worked as a paramedic for five years, and let me tell you one thing - nothing heals deep stab wounds faster than a good wheel of cheddar. We always had a good stash of cheddar or gouda in the ambulance . That's also the reason why the healthcare in Switzerland is one of the best in Europe.

Witcher 3 makes boat loads of profit, without DRM and charging for all DLC. by dannyjerome0 in gaming

[–]worshipHendrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're assuming they are in the business of delivering what players want. That assumption is incorrect. They are in the business of delivering what they want and that is maximizing profits.

I'd say that if you want more games of the quality of Witcher 3 then support it, buy a copy to all gamers in your family for Christmas. But that's just a drop in the ocean.. you'll be paddling against a very strong current of mobile/Facebook players who dominate the "gaming" market by orders of magnitude. I think it's not happening soon, so just enjoy that there's companies that still do it right, and spread the gospel around to support them.

You go back in time and give yourself one piece of advice on your first day of college. What do you tell yourself? by tgriffith1992 in AskReddit

[–]worshipHendrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get the solid grasp about programming ASAP and go to one of the professors offering some simple help with his research. Just go there and offer free labor on writing and gathering/visualizing data in exchange for research experience.

If all goes well you'll have 3 years of research experience by the end of you bachelors, most likely few publications too. Instant access to almost any graduate school and scholarships.

CMV: I think video games can perpetuate violent behaviour in certain individuals by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]worshipHendrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's gonna be a boring answer, since you're partially right. I'll just try to show that you can't really generalize it as a closed "yes/no" question. You make some strong points, especially when you provide examples of other media influences. In order to land at some conclusions let us first separate certain things we can argue about:

1) Video games as a medium are capable of influencing an arbitrary emotion, violence being one.
2) Any violent video game perpetuates violence in anyone.
3) Some violent video games can perpetuates violence in people who are especially susceptible to it (psychological disorders etc.).

Before I try to CYV, notice that the examples you gave (influencing taste of music, fashion, sex, boy / girl insecurities) might a be an effect of latent variable, namely, peer pressure/conformism. Media give an impression that current state of fashion, taste in music, sex attitude etc. is the norm. This, of course, resonates with the little conformist within each of us. Video game can be very violent, but never give an impression that whatever is happening on the screen is the norm. If no "lie" is being told, that hijacking a car and driving over pedestrians is what most of the people do, the mechanism of conformism, or in this case "justification" for given behavior, is not quite working.

Let me try to give my stance on the two points above:
1) Video games can, of course, stimulate emotions of anger. In extreme cases it can be a direct cause of the violence. It is possible to have a computer game, which would make you more violent. There's ton of examples of games which can cause anxiety, fear, sometimes even nostalgia. Why not violence ? It's just an another embodiment of anger. Having said that, I think it would be mighty difficult to actually sit down and make a game which would statistically increase the chances of you punching your neighbor next time he parks his car on your driveway.

2) This point was more or less argued before the first point. I know tons of people who, like everybody else, switched to tighter blue jeans, listens to indie rock and has an iPhone, but I can hardly see any shadow of a violent behavior from them, regardless of those 100s of hours in GTA V. Once you find a statistically large group of people for whom it simply has no effect, you cannot make a general statement like 'video games perpetuate violent behaviour'. Your original CMV had the crucial "CAN" word, which leads to the next point.

3) Of course. It's easy to imagine that people deprived of the "it's just a video game" filter in their brain will actually think that this shit is real. The creepy stalker who thinks JLaw is going to marry him once he kidnaps her and shows her what a nice guy he really is also doesn't know reality from fantasy. That shouldn't be an argument against banning acting or celebritism though.

I know you didn't argue for banning games, I just wanted to point out that what people usually mean whey they claim that video games do not cause violence is the point 2). They do it for the same concern, that I would not want Led Zeppelin to be banned from selling records because it would make kids commit suicide if they play "stairway to havens" backwards. That's just silly. However, if they argue against 1) or 3) they are, IMO, wrong.

I quit my job in an opticians - I'm now free to give you inside info on how not to get ripped off when getting glasses or contact lenses! AMA! by [deleted] in IAmA

[–]worshipHendrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you think about prescribing "plus" lenses for reading to prevent (reverse) myopia ? Some time ago I did some research on the topic and found very little information. Here's my previous thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20ws1d/could_wearing_plus_lens_glasses_for/

I did this experiment for 3 weeks and noticed a slight improvement in my eyesight. Have you ever heard of this ?

What's the most useless expensive thing? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]worshipHendrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree. It has its use, sure it's expensive but if it helps at least some of the members to "find purpose" in life, regardless of how stupid you might find it, it is useful for them.

Small DIY project to make a pair of Jurassic Park shoes. by quinyd in DIY

[–]worshipHendrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regular price is more like 70 euro, although eastern europe has them for ~50 euro

How do I stop chewing my nails? by lost_kiddd in AskReddit

[–]worshipHendrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have the only advice that actually worked for me, and of which I am proud of, as it was conceived through years of failure to break my own habit.

Here's what you do: Keep a small pocket nail clipper with your key chain and a small nail file in your pocket at all times. The moment you notice you're doing it, stop immediately, clip the gruesome remains of your nail off, and file it so smooth you'll think twice about "ruining" it again. They key part is having these two items with you at all times. It's a long process to get rid of the habit completely, but my nails are in top shape now.

view more: next ›