pupbiru

i believe they’re saying that the deflector shield requires constant power, so that’s part of why the engine is required while moving rather than just while accelerating

and thus in this case worst than useless: dangerous

hmmm that doesn’t really track imo: the amount of water that planes emit is negligible, and even if they do seed clouds they’re not actually creating significant cloud systems without the moisture in the atmosphere, which absolutely dwarfs anything that planes emit… remember the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is all the rain produced before aviation, and the amount of moisture in the atmosphere emitted by aviation is at most the difference between that rain and the rain since aviation (i’d wager it’s far less than 0.01%)

and seed clouds don’t actually create more clouds overall: they just move them from other locations. clouds are formed when humidity reaches a particular level at a particular layer of the atmosphere which exceeds the airs ability to hold onto it at that level, and the cloud stops forming when when it has reduced the humidity to the level to which it stays in the atmosphere

fight? in putins case i think you mean join

because entire laws aren’t meant to handle individual cases. making laws is slow and laborious, and is meant to cover the broad strokes

the real fix is to have a panel or something, similar to how you have judges etc now, and i’m sure there are other solutions

the fact that the currently implementation is rife with abuse - and only pretty recently at that - isn’t a reason the whole thing shouldn’t exist (which is what the thread was about)

little measurable difference? the last time they rewrote something they replaced the start menu with fucking react

the difference will be measurable and enormous

because the world can’t be sorted into neat little boxes, and the law isn’t perfect. there are many things that are technically crimes that would be a moral imperative to ignore (eg whistleblowing, draft dodging for the vietnam war)

the law should be tempered. the system the US provides for that is police discretion, prosecutorial discretion, and pardon

perhaps the system should be different, but a mechanism to pardon people for crimes where society has moved on (selling weed, for example), or where a moral imperative to break the law exists (again, something like whistleblowers: chelsea manning was pardoned… or rather her sentence was commuted, which i believe is different but similar logical reasoning) is very important imo

you can’t simultaneously and logically hold these 2 things:

• lawmakers are idiots and the laws they make are broken and often moral
• the law is perfect and this should be applied without exception

drug crimes, for example… if the US govt decided selling weed is all of a sudden no longer a crime, that doesn’t automatically release people from prison

or if someone did something technically illegal, but the circumstance around it made it clearly the moral choice (perhaps something like whistleblowers)

the world is messy and no law perfectly covers all bases… pardons are the same as prosecutorial or police discretion. in an ideal world, the harshness of the law should be tempered by morality of the individuals at many levels

of course that falls apart when the morality at every level is non existent, but that is legitimate purpose/reason. imo the discussion shouldn’t be about the overall legitimacy of the powers themselves, but in the trade-offs and lack of real protections from abuse, or who gets to have a say in those things

that’s absolutely true, and i’m sure that as tooling and workflow gets better these solutions will become standard. for the moment it’s all pretty haphazard, and i just don’t think it’s necessarily malicious intent or lying exactly… i think it could have easily been just miscommunication and/or legitimate mistake

afaik there were 2 issues here: there was a placeholder asset left in the game upon release, and the rules of the award were no AI assets during development either. i think the first can be easily explained by it being accidental (they replaced the texture very quickly) and the second can easily be explained by miscommunication between teams

i can see how this would happen though: marketing team simplistically asks about AI assets, dev team says no because it’s not in the final product that they’re aware of, and that miscommunication is exactly that: neither team is trying to be dishonest, it’s just that some information got lost along the way

their award should have been rescinded for sure

but also that shouldn’t tarnish the reputation of the studio going forward as long as they apologise and it was legitimately internal miscommunication rather than an attempt to deceive

yeah i don’t even think the dishonesty was necessarily dishonesty… i just think perhaps the marketing team wasn’t fully informed. i can absolutely see dev teams saying no to “AI use” not having been told that the question applied to the whole dev process, and marketing not understanding that that information was important

i have no problem with AI placeholders. i think that’s the right way to use AI… and dishonesty is a problem… miscommunication is really not a problem

but i also think that rescinding the award is the right call! but that shouldn’t tarnish the studios reputation in the future if they apologise and explain what happened

yeah they do certainly exist, but bog standard “red light cameras”… ie single purpose cameras are not that kind of problem… imo, as long as they’re deployed to combat actual issues they’re very much a beneficial tool

i think it’s important to differentiate these new kinds of cameras from the single purpose cameras so that arguments against them can be made independently