Where did I bring up motive? It implies I care about someone's character. I don't think I brought up anything new, you were talking about whether or not AD "cares" so I addressed that.
No one prior to the last few centuries had an enforced, principled reason like "right to life". It's also different now because we breed and facilitate empty vessels who live to suffer, as well as keep them alive.
Only family/partners care about them, not community. It is now the community who suffers so that this person can live a drifting, pointless life.
What are some examples of people who were unable to contribute (yet receiving reward as if they did) being beneficial for a community? Is this about some kind of moral fabric? And how did they contribute without hunting?
All human achievement and all culture comes from someone climbing a dominance hierarchy. What is there to do in life for people who don't serve a role in these hierarchies anyway?
If a society is truly in a state of cooperation, then as an individual I stand to gain even more than before by taking the selfish, exploitative route.
I think you misunderstood what I was going for, I was agreeing that natural selection was no longer applying to individuals because human social structures redirect what would otherwise be a fatal cost. But it's still very much a part of our collective thought process because basically every war has been fought in an effort to gain the loser's resources or to keep a predatory state from getting too powerful. To that end we've "evolved" sticks to hit the enemy, armor to protect against the enemy's sticks, sharper sticks, harder armor, etc. Any state that didn't follow along was inevitably conquered by another that did. And because it's part of our thought process I figure it can be harnessed in another, less violent way- such as debate- to advance the individual, because that particular niche isn't currently filled otherwise.
It's an appeal to motive, but I don't see why it matters even if it's true. To me it implies you want to one-up someone but want arguments to have an honour code. Whether we give authentic arguments or not, you either recognise something as challenging / informative or not.
To me there will always be social Darwinism. What we have now is dysgenic, but that just means we "avoided" selection by displacing its ills. Allowing non-contributing, draining people to live is just sweeping the problem under the rug (the problem of being burdened to get rid of them). Something will counterbalance the fact that this tries to destroy all need for hierarchies of skill/strength/intelligence. Either weakness is punished/ended or the entire ecosystem suffers perniciously.
Natural selection totally applies to human society, just not on an individual level. It was the key concept behind every conflict leading up to the balancing act of M.A.D. and all the proxy wars therein.
I can't speak for anybody else but I've been doing this for several years and the most valuable thing I've gotten from it is a glimpse of different perspectives that I can leverage for a greater understanding of "non-natural" sciences like politics and economics.
That's because this IS something I actually care about.
Looks like he got the debate he was asking for lol.
"Fittest" means the one who best fits their habitat, not "fit" as in strong. Natural selection only applies to a trait if the trait gives a substantial benefit to survival and reproduction, and wasting energy trying to prove intelligence without actually making progress toward a solution is certainly not adaptive in that regard. As a trait, it only exists because human society has reached a point where natural selection no longer applies.
And what purpose exactly do these debate serve? Amazingdude said they're for fun. If they're only meant to be recreational, then I guess they do serve their purpose, but they sure aren't promoting human evolution.
Minsheme: Do you honestly believe Amazingdude asking people to debate him has nothing to do with ego?
@skyk: Evolution is literally called "survival of the fittest" and you're asking me for proof that competition is a requirement?
Also if the debates serves a purpose than it can't be called pointless, as long as somebody feels like they're growing I call it a success.
@amazingdude: Not totally true, I changed your opinion about the safety of nuclear energy and I've honestly never put much thought into the specifics of immigration law until a few months ago.
"one-upmanship" how? not writing with your ego/passions involved is the opposite of wanting to best anyone.
1. Click JOINT-N.
2. Click a dot.
3. Click another dot.
I believe in everything I argue. I just argue for fun. You cant change minds over the internet.
TK: Show me a peer-reviewed article with evidence that humans are evolved to grow by having pointless arguments to make themselves look smart, and I'll agree that bad-faith arguments are adaptively beneficial.
Socrates is one of the most classic examples of an individual who challenged people intellectually through debate to promote the progress of human knowledge. He didn't just go up to people and say "what's a good topic to debate?", he picked topics of extreme importance to both sides of the argument and their society in general, and then challenged deep-seated concepts through intense investigation. In fact, he actually got a bit too serious in his choice of topics, and was killed by the government because of it.
Same thing, animal minds need some kind of goal or opponent to grow in response to and overcome. It's just more productive to compete against one another for mutual benefit than to stagnate alone. Similar systems of challenge leading to growth and isolation leading to stagnation are evident all over the world at every point in history.
this is my new upload. check it out. p.s.i didnt mean to copy skyk
If your arguments aren't things you believe, and you don't expect anyone else to believe them, then the point is not "personal growth through changing and refining one's core values", it's intellectual one-upmanship.
Arguing in bad faith is only a problem if there's a specific important point to the debate that bad faith would undermine. Frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody here was deeply involved in city-level policy. If the point is personal growth through changing and refining one's core values then why not?
Presenting beliefs that you don't actually believe in is literally the definition of a "bad faith argument".
Just parodying danstroyer's comment
I don't think winning an argument means anything but I will present beliefs I don't personally hold for the sake of devil's advocate and challenging people. You could call that bad faith. I don't expect anyone to have their mind changed, but to explain their beliefs on a more and more elemental level - make a more and more robust argument for themselves as they're challenged as much as possible - then I can decide if it makes sense to me.
Most of what I learn from discussions/arguments is what other people believe and why. I think it's a great idea to discuss like you're a ghost / non-existent person.
Add pg1 wind physics into pg2! Thy are so much better
Minsheme & AD: "Arguing in bad faith" is when the goal of your argument is contextualized within the debate itself rather than in the subject of it.
For example, a "bad faith" argument could be if you're arguing in order to "win" the debate, regardless of whether or not you actually believe that the side you've chosen or the points you're making are correct. If your initial goal is to have a prolonged debate, by definition your arguments will be in bad faith.
I'm not saying you have to personally have had your life ruined by whatever you're talking about, but you shouldn't start a debate unless you actually intend to convince the other people involved or have yourself convinced by them.
I argue for the purpose of arguing. Its fun. Doesnt mean its in "bad faith" or I cant be passionate about it.
Im passionate about climate change. I only argued just for the sake of arguing.
Whats so bad about "ha,cking the game"? Nobodys hurting from it.
Sorry if this kills any action but I'm calling off my challenge since I figured it out. I may make another for other pieces of tech though, if it gets people engaged.
Why bad faith? I understand that amazingdude proposes arguments just for the sake of arguing, but can't it be that he wants productive, stimulating discussions and to hear other perspectives? What would be an authentic way for people to start those topics on here? Should it only be by people who are stricken by or involved in those issues? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm really not sure if/why it's bad to start discussions that way. If we are focused on people's motives, egos (their personal relation to the issues), etc then I think it would become identitarian.
stop ha'cking the game or I quit
Every single switch/logic gate in the machine uses a joint, and like sigma said it's remarkably robust
yo yo I made a turing machine. Due to the dot limit the "tape" only has two cells (as opposed to potentially infinitely many), but you can program it with 6 rules so it's quite fun. If you tell the machine to "move left" when it's already in the left-most state, it will just ignore your rule and move to the next one.
So yeah computers are 100% possible <3
Minsheme: Amazingdude has said on multiple occasions that he wants to debate for the sake of maintaining a debate. That sort of motive, by nature, leads to pointless bad-faith arguments.
I don't understand that argument, "you are not actually passionate about this". This reinforces the fact that people tend to only care about issues that they have experienced / been affected by. Should decisions on those issues only be decided by the ones who happened to experience it? In my opinion, if anything, people who haven't experienced it should decide. It's a great idea to discuss issues that you don't have an emotional attachment to.
I am considering offering a cash reward (at least $20) for anyone who can figure out how to make these joints move parallel to each other. I think it's impossible though. I'll see how much interest there is. If anyone does post a solution, I promise to pay you, so have a paypal address ready if you want the monies.
The other requirement is that, as they move from right to left, they have to occupy the same x co-ord for 3 frames at a time. Feel free to completely redesign the conveyers, but they can only occupy a certain amount of height- about 30 pixels (there needs to be a 200 pixel gap between the joints).
Hard to describe so it sounds complicated, but if you look at it frame by frame (by pressing enter) it should become clear what this thing is supposed to do.
I might not pay you if you create the wrong thing, so join the Dan-Ball discord (#powder_game channel) to discuss it and win your monies. (I did not write this comment to advertise the Discord, I've only posted a few messages in there myself and I'm new to it. We just need a place other than this limited board to discuss things.)
Climate change, date formats, guns, Trump, immigration
Shadow_Master: I personally think the effects of fireworks are some of the more interesting applications of console.
You cannot download the game
is there any more things i can mess with in consol besides player etc, mc etc, and elements
My question to you still stands, AD.
Is there any topic you actually care about? Not just something you think would start a debate. Maybe something you personally have a stake in?
Wait, there are debates?
What else am I missing?
Come on guys, don't you want to debate? I know Reedvar is fun, but what about the great PG2 debate?
how do u get readvar or 53 from console
Yeah, I literally lol'd when you thought Turing machines had something to do with ha.cking PG2.
We are going to continue talking about reedvar/readvar because its interesting. If a new element pops up, even if it is through inspect element, we want to know the properties.
What does that even mean???
I don't wanna ha.ck pg2 guys I'm leaving if you don't quit talking about "redevar" and "turing machines"
at least I'm leaving comments you have until next Friday
also @chemicalbob I cant believe it you say pokemon is like old and overated and stuff I cant believe I voted on ANY of your works
I think it depends on your browser, but in Chrome F12 or Fn+F12 works.
Woah this comment thing is pretty neat
on dust game 2
how do u get console open
If I can make an actual turing machine it would be possible to write programs in it that don't halt, that'd be fun
Guys check it out I made a computer!
It's basically the weakest thing that passes as a computer - I was going to try and make a turing machine, but I figured I should started with the "only one cell" case first - maybe I'll try and make a computer with two cells next time?
With my design, it's easy to modify it so that it runs for an arbitrarily long sequence of instructions.
I WANT TO MAKE READVAR ELEMENT,BUT HOW TO DO IT??
reedvar joints are weird. Try dragging it!
It's hard to find a balance between due process for everyone and giving victims the justice they deserve. When the defendent is assumed innocent until proven guilty, an inability to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that he is innocent in the eyes of the law. While its not perfect, it's certianly better than convicting based on an unproven accusation.
@Danstroyer: I used the console command "Nc=29" to set the firework value of the 0 spot on the menu (powder) to thunder. Then I left-selected that menu box and right-selected fireworks.
@skyk how did u make thunder come out of the fireworks
Um, whats going on now?
Anyways, in the fourth "Can you make it?" I forgot to add the Pool of Death. . .
Just pretend it's there, okay?
Also, the input is *one thunder dot at a time*. There are ways to translate user-click input to single-dot input.
There are also variations like having more mercury than just two dots. In which case, the joint moves like a cycle: it moves by one pixel each time and when it reaches the end, it automatically goes back to the beginning. This way allows multiple options that preserves the order.
We're using a lot of "he ra.ped her" when it also goes the other way around. And it's far more difficult for a man to accuse a woman of ra.pe because of the stereotypes that "men are always looking for se.x" and " women are always weak and innocent".
Oh, it's really easy to make a multi-use switch!
If that redirect doesn't work, ignore those first and second sections.
I have some ideas about it. Let's all use the PG channel in here to discuss tech and similar things. https://discord.gg/5CGYgRU
My username there is Rex.
The biggest obstacle to making a computer in PG is just that it's so hard to make a reusable switch. Of course it's easy to use something like mercury and fuse to make a single-use switch, but there's no real way to reset it. Maybe something with joints?
hey guys please put delete requests on the vote scam stuff so we can get rid of it sooner, its bugging me that my hard work is trumped by some dude saying his works haven't been getting votes only to see that he has no other projects.
That looks more like an argument to revise trial proceedings rather than abolish them altogether. I mean, the alternative is either immediate imprisonment on a vague suspicion or relying on sympathetic vigilantes.
What do you propose we change? There is no other systematic way to deal with that. If I were her I wouldn't want to be treated like I have no responsibility or free will.
If anecdotes are worth sharing, I know a guy who went to jail for 4 years because this "believe the victim" mentality allowed someone resentful to mess up his life. It will only become more common if we put so much faith in people.
I'm not saying we should get rid of the punishment altogether. I'm just saying we should consider the motivation.
And when there isn't enough evidence to convict the accused, even when it actually happened?
Some people have the power to convince the public more that they're innocent. And the current penalty for false accusations doesn't exactly motivate victims to seek justice.
AD: Instead of picking arguments that will never be resolved, because you care more about continuing to argue than you do about the issue itself, why don't you try discussing something you actually fundamentally care about?
I believe 256 is the upper limit for Reedvar, as going over it produces invisible elements with the properties of n-256. For example, R-270 behaves like invisible clone, however it doesnt save.
Nc=>256 results in upwards accelerating fireworks
I dont care about hollywood either. All this sh,it is getting annoying to always hear in the news.
Nah, if anything they should get more than the crime they tried to push on the other person, plus a penalty
I largely don't care about anything from Hollywood that isn't like, an actual movie. A celebrity being a terrible person (or not being a terrible person) isn't intrinsically different from any other random guy being those things.
I will say that I think false accusations made with the intention of discrediting someone should be punished with at least 50% of the sentence for the supposed crime.
Negative reedvar is made by setting Mc to a negative number, not 53. Also, my point was rather misleading. Some IDs kill, others don't. -5 does kill however.
So uhh, lets talk about something new now, something thats polarizing so we can actually debate and not just reinforce each others ideas.
What do you all think about all these se,xual assault allegations?
We should take them seriously in a court of law. An allegation is just that, an allegation. It is in no way proving the accused did something wrong, and people's lives should not be ruined by an allegation that may or may not even be true.
Before any decision could be made, the cases should have to be settled in court.
Debate archives! We've also been completely swallowed by the limit twice now.
... @1234321abc if you can hear me I loved the caterpie pixel art next you should do a shuckle
I might try and make a turing machine after my exams? The "tape" will certainly have to be finite though haha
RCA tried to do things like that with his "video game" ish uplaods - and he had this big goal of creating an invincible connect-four machine.
@amazingdude Since I'm too lazy too lazy to write about it in detail atm, I'll just spoil the fun and say I was kidding. Chipmunk's upload was pretty clever humour though.
I mean an upload that would allow the player to type commands on an in-game keyboard.
...Or 53 and -1, since I highly doubt ha55ii will add anymore elements in the future.
I actually did think about a way to type a command, character-for-character, to do various things, like kill the fighter in the box or pour water on the salt, but I never proceeded to start anything on it.
Something like readvarium doesn't work in PG. When you try to draw with it, it loads repetitive errors in the console, and then it "crashes".
@amazingdude What do you mean by positive readvarium and negative readvarium.
(If you want, you can call it reedvarium.)
Just look up the definition of "computer":
"A computer is a device that can be instructed to carry out arbitrary sequences of arithmetic or logical operations automatically."
A tic-tac-toe machine isn't a computer because it can't be programmed to do other things.
Just so you guys know, I'm MidnightMonster.
I might be using this name for some uploads, but I might stop if it gets confusing.
New discovery on Reedvar! Negative reedvar kills players, but positive (53+) reedvar doesn't.
How should we help the homeless?
Irony? Helping the homeless is very serious.
This comes to mind
What do you mean by a "real computer"? Because the three "invincible tic-tac-toe" uploads in PG1 are computers in the sense that, depending on the inputs, it goes through a sequence of steps (based on logic rather than hard-wiring) to output a response-move. With each new move the player and computer makes, they update the stored information so that the subsequent responses change as needed.
Has anyone made a REAL computer in PG1 or 2? (not just a calculator or some glass in a box, a real programmable computer) I'm sure it's possible in PG2, especially since we have joints now (though I'm not every good at using them)
@Minsheme Did you see the irony in it? It is making fun of the upload before it.
Your upload is one of my favourites. I voted for it 12 times on 12 different virtual machines w/ proxies.
He definitely didn't. All the elements below 0 and above 52 are exactly the same, and don't have any properties set.
F.Y.I. I got a new pc so nametags will be switched around.
It's so nice of you to talk about me nicely. It kinda makes me not want to have such a low opinion of you all. 8D is the new emogi or whatever the hell its called no. Nice talking to all of ya.
@skyk you just made my day that is awesome pixel art I already loved your works *bows down to skyk cuz hes awesome*
Also what do you want to bet that Ha55ii planned out all these elements like Element 53.
What's element 53?
My other comment seems evil. The government SHOULD function for the people, but if it's a technocracy getting them from the point A to point B that the people want, they're not always gonna feel comfortable with how it gets there, mostly because it's hard to be so future-oriented.
Thank you <3
"Element 53" is a nice name, but like read warned, in practice we really should use something that isn't 53 just in case 53 gets "corrected" in the future.
Ooh, Hachi, nice upload. o.o
Someone make a wiki page about Element 53 already! I would myself, but I can't seem to get Readvar's directions to work to test it myself.
And I think "Element 53" is a great name for it. Unused things in video game source codes tend to get names like this. Plus it gives it that mysterious feel.
Free game list26th Logi Box