neatchee
@neatchee@piefed.social
- Comment on Experimental Build Of Nvidia’s DLSS 5 AI Slop Filter Leaks And Turns Beloved Video Game Characters Into Uncanny Valley Weirdos 1 week ago:
do you know when that build was cut? do you know if it’s a standard build or a debug build? do you know if it’s performance optimized or mid development? do you know if it’s being used in games for which it’s intended? do you know if it’s a branch build or a mainline build? do you know if the studio for the game has provided feedback on that build and had their work integrated?
no?
then we have no idea what we’re even talking shit about
- Comment on Experimental Build Of Nvidia’s DLSS 5 AI Slop Filter Leaks And Turns Beloved Video Game Characters Into Uncanny Valley Weirdos 1 week ago:
sorry but I’ve worked at enough companies and dealt with enough timetables to say “unreleased is unreleased for a reason”.
- Comment on Experimental Build Of Nvidia’s DLSS 5 AI Slop Filter Leaks And Turns Beloved Video Game Characters Into Uncanny Valley Weirdos 1 week ago:
look, I’m not in favor of ai slop and DLSS 5 used without creators’ consent or input is fucked…
…but another title for this story could be “unfinished, unreleased product deemed not ready for release” …
Like, you just slapped an unfinished version onto whatever game they had been tinkering with and then roast them for the uncanny valley effect? That’s some manufactured outrage
- Comment on The System does not work. 3 weeks ago:
IPUMS Current Population Survey (CPS) Microdata, 2000–2025
Found on a realtor.com research article. Didn’t check the original source but I’ve never known that site to provide fabricated data (and this was historical graphs and everything)
- Comment on The System does not work. 3 weeks ago:
For those curious 2025 is about 33%
- Comment on The System does not work. 3 weeks ago:
Book publishers and economists have a very different definition of what “young adult” means
- Comment on Never sleeping again 4 weeks ago:
‘Cause I’ve been daydreaming about a pterodactyl named Lamar When he’s tired of flying, he drives a car
He’s got to get to work on time His nursing job is on the line His wife is always on his case Why can’t she give Lamar some space?
- Comment on MARVEL Tōkon: Fighting Souls appears to block SteamOS / Linux 1 month ago:
“Ban cheaters if they find them” <= this is what anti-cheat is for, it’s not just prevention, it’s data collection to identify the cheaters who limit their cheating to just looking highly skilled
“I doubt that running into a cheater… is going to deter you from competing” <= People who compete at the level you’re talking about are the minority. Most players are non-vocal, online-only players who will bounce out just a few weeks after encountering anti-social behavior like cheating.
- Comment on MARVEL Tōkon: Fighting Souls appears to block SteamOS / Linux 1 month ago:
This is big “just fix the bug, duh” energy
If you’re this confident in how easy it is, you have the opportunity to make a fortune as the only person who can ‘just do it’ in the industry. You should get hired ASAP. I can refer you to the right people if you think you can pass the interview.
- Comment on MARVEL Tōkon: Fighting Souls appears to block SteamOS / Linux 1 month ago:
For what it’s worth, the issue isn’t the rarity; it’s the scope of impact and undermining of the integrity of the product.
For highly competitive games, even the ability for players to say “there are cheaters, I know there are, and so I think that person is one of them” is a long-term sentiment drain that is not trivial. There are internal research numbers on what exposure to a single cheater does to players’ perception of game integrity and trust in the fairness of their experience, and it’s really really bad
- Comment on I mean does anybody really know how to play Chess? 2 months ago:
Business is like Start Craft 2, you gotta raise your APM if you want to beat the Korean pros
- Comment on Girls is it just me that gets really emotional when singing and I cry so hard that I have to change my blankets? 😭 2 months ago:
bro this is lemmyshitpost not lemmypisspost c’mon
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
you still didn’t answer my question about all the people who lived before the Quran. Were they all immoral? Was slavery morally allowed before the Quran was written? Or were they immoral but ignorant of their immorality only because nobody had told them yet?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
So then everyone before the Quran was immoral? literally not a single human being existed before the Quran was written who was moral? Or were they immoral without knowing it because nobody had told them “slavery is wrong” yet?
It’s also important to note that according to Surah Al-An’am 6:112, any human who rebels against God and dedicated themselves to leading others astray is classified as a demon.
So I guess enslaving an atheist activist like Richard Dawkins is morally acceptable according to you? Since he is, according to the Quran, a demon?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
I don’t think we understand sentience yet. I think it is possible, if not likely, that there are sentient things which we believe are not.
i also don’t think a heart is relevant at all to sentience, as it plays no role in perception which I believe is the core of sentience. The heart is just a pump that moves resources through the body.
I don’t think a nervous system is necessary either, unless you define “nervous system” very broadly. I think any sufficiently complex sensory input system would be enough to provide the elements of perception required to foster sentience.
As for the brain…. I’m not convinced it has to look like a brain as we know. The brain provides a few primary functions, but only a few of them are related to perception (many are instead related to automation of bodily functions). I think any system that can receive input, store a memory (and I don’t mean cognitive recall, I just mean historical record in the loosest sense), and perform complex conditional responses based on the input and memory could produce something we would call sentience.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
at what point do you distinguish a thing from the components it’s made of?
You say neurons have qualia, but its parts certainly don’t. Proteins don’t. Lipids don’t. Molecules don’t. But when you put them together in a specific configuration you say they do?
How is this different from silica? Why can’t a thing composed of silica have qualia even if the parts individually don’t?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
so do you believe everyone was immoral until 150 years ago (end of and tolerance for slavery) or do you believe we are immoral today for denying the right to own slaves (as allowed by religious texts)?
- Comment on SBA #119 maths 3 months ago:
Addition asks “What do you get when you combine these two numbers?”
Subtraction asks “What do you need to combine with this number to get this result?”
Multiplication asks “What do you get if you add this number to itself this many times?”
Division asks “How many times do you need to add this number to itself to get this result?”
In many ways, all of these operations are syntactic flavor for addition. Subtraction is addition in reverse. Multiplication is repetitive addition. Division is repetitive addition in reverse. Exponents are recursive repetition of repetitive addition. And so on.
Look into the axiomatic proof of 1+1=2. It will shed some light on how mathematics is just complex notation for very, very simple concepts at scale.
- Comment on SBA #119 maths 3 months ago:
This is the correct answer and it drives me crazy how often this comes up.
As another user commented, division and subtraction are just syntactic flavor for multiplication and addition, respectively. Division is a specific type of multiplication. Subtraction is a specific type of addition.
And so there is a reason mathematicians do not use the division symbol (➗): it is ambiguous as to which of the following terms are in the divisor and which are part of the next non-divisor term.
In other words, the equation as written is a lossy representation of whatever actual equation is being described.
tl;dr: the equation as written provides insufficient information to determine the correct order of operations. It is ambiguous notation and should not be used.
- Comment on You know, you look like your head fell in the cheese dip back in 1957 3 months ago:
Oh no you just unlocked a memory I haven’t recalled in a long time: the infamous “wat” video
- Comment on You know, you look like your head fell in the cheese dip back in 1957 3 months ago:
Completely unrelated to OP but I really want to believe your username is a “treating people like objects” joke
- Comment on And toxic in large amounts! 4 months ago:
- Comment on What happened to the Dem Party in America? It's kind of like once Kamala lost, which they deserved, and lost congress. They ran like a dog with its tail between its legs instead of fighting? 4 months ago:
Yes. Please list things that a sitting politician can do when both chambers of Congress and the presidency are in opposition party control, which are not purely performative nonsense
- Comment on Has society or scientists ever solved definitively the Chicken and the Egg theory? Or is it just like a whose on first thing? 5 months ago:
I’m going to try to give you an actual answer to your question as I believe you intend it …
First: Let’s agree that the question being asked is NOT “did chickens or eggs exist first?” but rather “If chickens lay chicken eggs, and chickens are born from chicken eggs, and any egg not in this category is not a chicken egg, then is this not a paradox? If there was no chicken, how could a chicken egg be laid? And if there was no chicken egg, how could a chicken be born?”
The “real” answer: What this question actually demonstrates is a weakness in language. It is an ambiguity in the term “chicken egg”. It leaves open for interpretation by the listener what a “chicken egg” actually is, what makes it a “chicken egg”. On the one hand it could be “eggs produced by chickens”. It could be “eggs from which chickens hatch”. It cannot actually be both; they are different, though in practice only slightly. So the answer changes based on how you define “chicken egg”.
My “best effort” answer: If I want to try to answer the question literally, I define “chicken egg” as “An egg which, if allowed to hatch, reach maturity, and breed, will likely produce another of itself (i.e. another chicken egg).” In which case the answer is clear: the chicken egg came first. There was a proto-chicken, someone very much like a chicken but not quite a chicken. It laid an egg with the genetic mutation that made it a “chicken egg” instead of a “proto-chicken egg”. And thus began chickens.
- Comment on kinky 5 months ago:
but who would ever frown while wearing a ball gag? 🤔
- Comment on kinky 5 months ago:
CPBGP
Constant positive ball gag pressure
But that might cause confusion with internet routing standards and US presidents where CPBGP stands for “Child Predator Border Gateway Protocol”
I apologize for this incredibly specific and terrible nerd slash dark humor joke
- Comment on kinky 5 months ago:
it is 100% a CPAP mask. you can see the other step mark arching toward the top of the nose, and the mask mark across the bridge of the nose.
source: am CPAP wearer, have strap marks, don’t own ball gag
- Comment on Schrodinger's Precious 5 months ago:
poison is vile, looking cats is vile, I see absolutely no problem here >.>
- Comment on Schrodinger's Precious 5 months ago:
….. it’s a sealed box with no holes ….. the cat is very dead or will be very soon
- Comment on Schrodinger's Precious 5 months ago:
Yup. Turns out he was super wrong though and existence is just that fucked up at the quantum level
