Mossy Feathers (They/Them)

A

  • 19 Posts
  • 814 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 20th, 2023

help-circle









  • In a written statement, the ADL said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.

    You of all groups should know that the last part of your statement is a common right-wing dog whistle that gets used when someone doubles down after their “facts” get rejected for bigotry and/or inaccuracy. By using that phrase, you’ve automatically cast doubt on the legitimacy of your actions and statements. At best you’re ignorant of a common dog whistle, which is embarrassing for an organization who should be well-versed in this kind of thing; at worst you’ve signaled to everyone that you’re potentially peddling “alternative facts”, which casts doubt on everything you’ve done in the past. Either way, you’re ultimately hurting the Jewish people by making that kind of statement.

    Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ADL is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antisemitism.

    “This is a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions,” she said.

    They really do, and I feel bad for them. The places that should be defending them seem more than happy to ignore them or even throw them under the bus in the name of Zionism.

    Like, okay, personal beliefs on Zionism aside, if your organization is tasked with defending a group of people, you should ensure your actions aren’t going to endanger, delegitimize or otherwise encourage bigotry against said group. That means that even if you’re a Zionist Jewish organization, if your task is to fight against bigotry towards Jews, you shouldn’t be ignoring non-Zionist Jews nor should you be dismissing their views. Instead, you should be listening to what they have to say, condensing it and releasing it in an manner easy for non-jews to understand (which means providing political, historical and religious context, because many people, myself included, don’t understand as much as they think they do about Judaism).

    In the current context, you should be giving people statements from Zionist and non-Zionist Jews about Palestine, and attempt to include non-biased historical, religious and political backgrounds for events that are occurring.

    I think ethnically Jewish people could make an honest argument that they should have some portion of Palestine based on historical origins (I think it’s a weak arguement, but I think you could argue for it). However, that doesn’t excuse the way that the IDF and Israeli government have treated Gaza and the West Bank.

    You can criticize the Israeli government while also believing that ethnically Jewish people should be able to have a country they have control over. Other countries do this all the time (get criticized for poor treatment of the “outside” ethnic group(s)), why is this somehow different for Israel? Why aren’t we allowed to criticize Israel? I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot; I should be able to talk about Israel the same way.


  • My biggest complaint about Sims-likes is that the visual style always looks too serious. It gives me the feeling that whatever I’m going to do with my not-Sims, it’s gonna be something that makes me regret my real life.

    You wanna know what I did the last time I played the Sims 2 though? I repeatedly held parties at my Sim’s house and then lured the guests into a room they couldn’t get out of. I also used the moveobjects cheat to collect police cars whenever a cop showed up to shut the party down. By the time I was done I had amassed around 70 urns, many hysterical immortal Sims (Sims with households can’t die while visiting someone’s house in the Sims 2), 4 Police cars and a fire truck.

    The Sims has a mischievous air to it that tickles the devil on your shoulder and begs you to listen to them. None of the Sims-likes I’m aware of seem to have the same air.

    Edit: now I want to play the Sims again.


  • 'member when conspiracies were relatively harmless like flat earthers and ufologists?

    'member when the main source of Christian extremism (in the US) was the Westboro Baptist Church, and most people just laughed at them because no one really took them seriously?

    What the fuck happened?

    I’m actually very confused because the US 10yrs ago was radically different than the US now. How did everyone completely lose their minds? This is a semi-rhetorical question because I’m aware of some of the contributing factors, it’s just… I feel like somewhere in the past 10-15yrs I slipped sideways into some kind of an alternate reality.

    The most extreme Christians I knew didn’t approve of homosexuality, but also weren’t yelling “god hates f*gs” at people for being gay. They believed in a 7-day creation, but didn’t lose their minds and thirst for blood at the sight of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

    The worst racists I’d met believed in white supremacy, but weren’t cruising around looking for POC to lynch (with the exception of cops, that is). They hated Hispanic people, but mostly kept it to themselves.

    Maybe I was just really sheltered, but while it seems like our level of tolerance has grown, the extremes have gotten worse. Like, the graph of tolerance is still going up, but the data point distribution is getting worse.

    Edit: to put it another way, my experience growing up in Texas’ suburbs was that people were “tolerant” in a “I don’t like you but I won’t bother you so long as you don’t bother me” kinda way. Not ideal, but not terrible either. Now though, it’s more “I don’t like you and that bothers me, so I’m gonna bother you”.


  • I think you’re thinking of Slayers X: Terminal Aftermath: Vengance of the Slayer, which is not a shitpost but the greatest fps game ever made, you turd!

    (It’s a spinoff of Hypnospace Outlaw, which I highly recommend, especially if you’re old enough to remember the internet pre-y2k because it’s basically a very high quality pre-y2k Internet simulator. Also it doesn’t use the same “S” but it is a parallel-universe version of it).




  • Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 and 2; Need for Speed 2 and 3; SimCity 3k.

    Also, check your monitor properties. Afaik most CRT monitors (not TVs; those run at 60hz/50hz depending on region) are meant to run at 75~85hz. If it’s running at 60hz when it’s meant to run at a higher refresh rate, then that might be why it’s nauseating (my crt has a very noticeable flicker at 60hz, but that goes away at 75hz).

    Edit: to expand on this for any late-comers: CRTs work by using an electron gun (aka particle accelerator aka a motherfucking PARTICLE CANNON) to fire an electron beam at red, green and blue phosphors. When the electron hits a phosphor, it emits light based on the color hit. This beam sweeps over the phosphors at a speed dictated by the display’s refresh rate and illuminates the phosphors one-by-one until it has illuminated the entire screen. This is why trying to take a picture or video of a CRT requires you to sync your shutter speed with the CRT. If your shutter isn’t synced then the monitor will appear to be strobing or flickering (because it is, just very, very quickly)

    These phosphors have a set glow duration, which varies based on the intended display refresh rate. A refresh rate that is too low will cause the phosphors to dim before the electron beam passes over them, while a refresh rate that’s too high can cause ghosting, smearing, etc because the phosphors haven’t had a chance to “cool off”. TVs are designed to run at 60hz/50hz, depending on the region, and so their phosphors have a longer glow duration to eliminate flickering at their designated refresh rate. Computer monitors, on the other hand, were high-quality tubes and were typically geared for +75hz. The result is that if you run them at 60hz then you’ll get flickering because the phosphors have a shorter glow duration than a TV.

    Note: this is a place where LCD/LED panels solidly beat CRTs, because they can refresh the image without de-illuminating the panel, avoiding flicker at low refresh rates.

    Edit 2: oh! Also, use game consoles with CRT TVs, not computer monitors. This is because old consoles, especially pre-3d consoles, “cheated” on sprites and took advantage of standard CRT TV resolution to blend pixels. The result is that you may actually lose detail if you play them on a CRT computer monitor or modern display. That’s why a lot of older sprite-based games unironically look better if you use a real CRT TV or a decent CRT emulator video filter.







  • I’m… honestly kinda okay with it crashing. It’d suck because AI has a lot of potential outside of generative tasks; like science and medicine. However, we don’t really have the corporate ethics or morals for it, nor do we have the economic structure for it.

    AI at our current stage is guaranteed to cause problems even when used responsibly, because its entire goal is to do human tasks better than a human can. No matter how hard you try to avoid it, even if you do your best to think carefully and hire humans whenever possible, AI will end up replacing human jobs. What’s the point in hiring a bunch of people with a hyper-specialized understanding of a specific scientific field if an AI can do their work faster and better? If I’m not mistaken, normally having some form of hyper-specialization would be advantageous for the scientist because it means they can demand more for their expertise (so long as it’s paired with a general understanding of other fields).

    However, if you have to choose between 5 hyper-specialized and potentially expensive human scientists, or an AI designed to do the hyper-specialized task with 2~3 human generalists to design the input and interpret the output, which do you go with?

    So long as the output is the same or similar, the no-brainer would be to go with the 2~3 generalists and AI; it would require less funding and possibly less equipment - and that’s ignoring that, from what I’ve seen, AI tends to be better than human scientists in hyper-specialized tasks (though you still need scientists to design the input and parse the output). As such, you’re basically guaranteed to replace humans with AI.

    We just don’t have the society for that. We should be moving in that direction, but we’re not even close to being there yet. So, again, as much potential as AI has, I’m kinda okay if it crashes. There aren’t enough people who possess a brain capable of handling an AI-dominated world yet. There are too many people who see things like money, government, economics, etc as some kind of magical force of nature and not as human-made systems which only exist because we let them.