• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2210 Excellent

About deltaKshatriya

  • Rank

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

11128 profile views
  1. Does violence stem from video games

    Actually a good friend of mine in high school basically swapped out his life for books. He always had his head in a book and his grades suffered badly because of it. He was very literally addicted to books. It's rare to encounter, because said people are not generally very social, but let me say that it does indeed exist in real life. This pretty much sums up my feelings, though I will add that entertainment can try to incite violence (e.g. propaganda), although we can argue if it's really entertainment at that point. Typically though, research hasn't found any correlation between violence and gaming, nor any other medium of entertainment for that matter. Can playing tons of games be bad for you? Sure, but so can doing tons of "x" be bad for you. Yes people can get addicted to gaming, but gaming generally gets its bad rep because of how new it is. Comics in the US were also equally criticized, so much so that the US emplaced pretty stringent standards which only recently relaxed.
  2. Geometry vs Texturing in Game Art

    I'm not a game artist by any means, I was just genuinely curious about the differences. It's interesting that both textures and geometry have limitations for game art. I knew about LOD tricks of course, since I've done some hobbyist game dev myself. I'd imagine that things like light fog, distance fog, camera angle, etc. can do a lot to change the visuals, potentially even hide some things?
  3. Geometry vs Texturing in Game Art

    Hey all, So although I've posted some stuff here for critique, by and large, I'm not really a CG artist who does stuff for games. To be fair, even CG art is primarily a side hobby for me. But anyhow, back on topic. One of the things I've noticed is that for general CG art, we generally prefer to use as much geometry as possible for building a scene, since we don't really care much about render time. For example, sometimes bricks will be modeled in to fully utilize the lighting calculations and what not. Now obviously, with game dev, that just isn't true, and I do have experience with this. What I've noticed, however, is that game art in many games (Dark Souls, etc.) really does seem to look like it's using a ton of geometry, especially with architecture. Now I can tell where textures are used, but I'm curious, what's the balance for geometry vs texture? When is a texture preferred to modeling geometry? I thought this would be interesting discussion.
  4. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    No doubt the whole typical course of action for radicalism is to do what Trump is doing. That isn't a good thing, no matter who you are. Sure, some media sources are fairly well known for being far left (MSNBC does have a reputation for being really liberal, but there's lots of interesting articles about how liberal each outlet is). There is no such thing as unbiased reporting, since by nature of being human, everyone is somewhat biased. But let's get real, even if we account for all of this, surely not every single critical media outlet has some hidden agenda again you? And again, damnit, he's the President of the US, he's going to be criticized, that is how it works. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR, etc. were all criticized. Presidents do not throw tantrums on Twitter. And he's taking it quite a step further: basically he's a divider, not a uniter. He ran on a platform that played on hatred, fear, etc., and this is what voters wanted to see. No doubt, this is true. 100% this is true. I can honestly see him getting reelected, barring that he doesn't get impeached before then. So it's hard to say if there will ever really be a voter's remorse. Sure, there's a ton of unknown factors. What will the Democrats do in 2020. What will the country be like in 2020. Trump getting impeached, or some other scandal derailing him. We really don't know. I don't know about the Russia probe either. But I wouldn't be too surprised if he got reelected. I'd probably be very disappointed (unless he really really proves me wrong, and given everything so far, I really doubt that's going to happen), but not necessarily surprised. Fighting a trade war with China will not end well for anyone. First of all, a trade embargo will almost certainly cause massive problems for American companies. Number one, the US imports quite a bit from China for very cheap. Number two, China is a massive market for US exports. Finally, number three, China will retaliate in kind. So the effect is indeed catastrophic. Threatening China with a trade embargo assumes that they won't retaliate in kind. Imagine if they dumped their foreign reserves (certainly there'd be no reason not to at that point). China could very well call that bluff, because we'd be damn well bluffing as well. And the only thing that this will do is raise tensions with the Chinese. That sort of thing can come back to bite us 10-15 years down the road. Imagine once the Chinese have the capability to stare us down (and at the rate they are going, they will get it). They won't forget this incident. This solution solves a short term problem in favor of creating a long term one. There's this, and then there's just the fact that bullying China won't lead to anything good. You think the Chinese would just roll over and be like "oh well, we'll just bend over and take this". It's not about North Korea, it's also a symbol. The Chinese wouldn't want to look weak. How will it look to any other nation they're telling "we'll protect you" and those guys will be like "like you did with North Korea? Yea, we'll go somewhere else, thanks". There's also the fact that internally, the Chinese premier, Xi Jinping, would not want to look weak either, or he risks losing power. And what makes you think that the Chinese don't secretly approve of Kim Jong Un's tests? I'll bet they probably do. Most likely they want to see what Trump will do, so they're secretly telling Kim Jong Un "go for it buddy!". And have we not learned from our adventurism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. that this doesn't usually work? How many more places must we completely screw up before we learn that this probably won't work? This isn't to say Kim Jong Un is a great person, but neither was Gaddaffi, Saddam Hussein, etc, and those places are just doing terribly now. ISIS came about because of this sort of stuff. Do we really want some sort of Korea equivalent of ISIS? It's not a literal example I'm making, but do we really need more instability from military action? And finally, the biggest loser of any military action in North Korea will be South Korea. Think about how much they stand to lose in a military action. South Korea doesn't want military action precisely for that reason. That doesn't even begin to take into account Japan, also potentially in the range of military troubles. I haven't presented a solution, and the main reason is that there's no simple solution. It's a complex problem. Complex problems have never had simple solutions. If there were a simple solution, it would've been taken years ago. Probably the best bet is to beef up missile defense systems in the area. That and work internally in NK to create a collapse in the government. Even that second part, I'm skeptical about.
  5. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    Working for profit is not going to be a thing with the way automation is going. This isn't to say there'll be nothing to do and that we're just gonna sit around, but the problems we'll be solving will be very different from things now. There won't/cannot be a utopian post scarcity society. There will/can be a post scarcity society, just not utopian. It'll be very different from today's society in the sense that people won't be worrying about putting food on the table, or saving money for a car, but there will still be problems. We might not be able to envision those problems, but they will exist, and they will need solving. Life still won't be 'rosy' so to speak, just different. Right now, for example, we don't need to worry about random animals attacking and killing us like our ancestors did, but there's still other issues. Probably people will have some notion of credits/monetary stuff, like they'll walk into a place, get what they need, and it'll be deducted from a balance (or perhaps added). Sure it's entirely possible that humans will destroy each other or the environment in which case we'll have a dystopian future where AI just rations the remains to us, but there have always been crises in the past, and we have solved them. I'll bet we can solve this one too.
  6. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    Those testimonies weren't completely baseless. Especially the Comey one. And we both also know that the investigation is still very much ongoing. Even Nixon didn't get impeached in a day. It isn't about media narratives. If your point is that media sensationalizes things, then it does. You're trying to posit that 'Oh Trump didn't do any wrong, it's just another BS media narrative', which has been your line from day one. We can look through your posting history. If there is any thing that people criticized about Trump, you instantly came up with either some excuse, deflection, or straight up ignored it. Or just tried to spin BS stories (the one that particularly comes to mind is that the KKK endorsed Clinton then Obama). When haven't you defended him, from campaign till now? My final point on this is that he's done next to nothing so far, other than a few pieces of idiotic pandering. There's nothing to be served by continuing this debate.
  7. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    I understand that many people find issues with ACA. I'm not going to say that there is only ONE right way of doing this. I will back a solution that is feasible. I will concede that there are many debates surrounding this and it's a topic that has no right answer. The reason I am against repeal and replace is because partially it's born in spite and partially it won't actually benefit people much. There are certainly issues, but the Republican solutions so far have been unworkable. There is indeed a need for compromise, but if the solution is just "let's throw it all out the window and more", then it's a bit tough to work with. Let's leave health care aside, since it's probably more appropriate for a): another thread and b): isn't really the point I'm trying to make about Trump. What has Trump done in the past 6 months? Other than endlessly scream on Twitter about various idiotic things? Other than lie time and time again? Other than claim that he is absolute and above criticism? Has he actually done anything for the people? All I've seen him do is constantly attack the "mainstream media" which is somehow "biased" because they don't praise him on everything he does. (And no conquestor3 I'm not defending any particular media outlet before you go off on that). He's constantly pushed conspiracy theories. He has fired anybody who doesn't show loyalty to him. He literally just attacks anything and anyone he doesn't like. This is no president. Testimonies are a part of investigations? Investigations take time perhaps? But then again, when have you ever seen Trump do any wrong? From the start of the campaign till now? The only thing you've done is twist events to fit a narrative, namely that the media is all conspiring to bring Trump down. We don't know what'll come out of the Trump Russia probe, and it may very well not be much, but for someone who's innocent, he's sure doing a lot of cover up. Right, so basically let's start World War 3. Brilliant.
  8. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    When I say he's incompetent, I don't mean accomplishing something as daft as repeal and replace. I'm not in favor of repeal and replace. The only reason this is being debated is because the Republican Party wants to undo everything Obama did for no particularly good reason other than spite. When I say competent, I mean someone who does rational things, makes rational decisions, that is president for the whole US, not just his support base. All he's done so far is pander to his supporters at best, and at worst, do completely random things through Twitter, or fire people because they didn't demonstrate loyalty. No leader of a country, representative of a country should be simply just Tweeting away insults at any and every damned thing that criticizes him. I don't even need to get into the platform, just look at his demeanor and his rhetoric...this is no leader of a state, he's just a wise ass with too much money. Now let's get into the actual policy side. There's no question that divisions exist and people don't agree. But let's be honest: this entire repeal and replace stupidity is simply just to spite Obama and nothing more. There are definitely issues with ACA, but shouldn't we try to fix them rather than gut ACA and screw people over in the process? Or environmental policy. What good will repealing regulations for protecting people's health do? I can go on with lots of things in the Republican platform, but let's just start here. We've already seen the right wing extremists, sure. I wouldn't characterize Sanders as an extremist tbh. Sanders is certainly further to the left than the norm in the US, but there are things I agree with that are problems, e.g. college tuition. I didn't really agree with how he wanted to solve those problems (there were aspects of his plans that didn't really add up imo), but no, I wouldn't see he was an extremist. He was a populist, however, by definition, which isn't the worst thing in the world, since he wasn't a demagogue. The Left extremism is/was a bit different. There are/were some particularly vocal people who really adopted this 'with me or against me' holier than thou attitude on a number of issues that didn't really make much sense. The Left hasn't seen organized extremism, I will agree, at least yet.
  9. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    Entirely agreed that this is entirely within the scope of sentient AI. I argue that we just don't know what will happen. Any prediction makes assumptions based in human thought and experience. Any sentient AI will not think in a manner recognizable to us. Thinking for us is neurons firing. Maybe for a sentient AI it's RPCs across the Internet. It's an entirely random example, but it serves to demonstrate that sentient AI will be like meeting an alien species. I honestly think that we won't even be able to recognize the AI as sentient, since I'm not sure we really understand what sentience is. But that's off topic. This assumes that humans can produce anything of worth compared to the machines that replaced them. How many blacksmiths do we still see in the modern world? Certainly we are going to need UBI of some form. The amount of basic jobs that humans can do will diminish. I don't envision UBI in the long run, however. Ultimately we will reach a point where the notion of 'income' will be meaningless. Not in this century, perhaps, but eventually. The other aspect to consider also is things like genetic engineering, human-machine intermeshing, etc. The notion that there won't be a ton of lower skill jobs to do for humans turns on the fact that there are still humans who can't do higher skilled jobs. It may be entirely possible to reengineer humans so that people have more skills than they would've normally had. There will still be problems to solve, just not necessarily ones we can envision now.
  10. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    Well when I say the Pandora's box has been opened, what I mean is that much of the current divisiveness and hatred is fairly recent. The discontent and changes have been around for decades, for various factors. Times are changing faster than people can keep up with them. Never say you can't imagine a candidate more incompetent. I think many people believed that there was nobody worse than Bush. Then we got Trump. The other thing I mean by Pandora's box is the extremism. Trump is extreme, but as far as I can see, he doesn't really believe much in anything. More extreme than that would be a zealot like Ted Cruz. I feel most people aren't usually extremists. Problem is that partisan politics has very much become the you're with me or you're against me approach. And I, for one, have zero faith that this will go away by the next election. That's another thing that I mean by Pandora's box: this idiot train that Trump has started where he has zealot like following will only lead to the same for those who don't like him. Cycles like this are really really tough to break.
  11. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    I don't believe capitalism will 'die' per say, just change a lot to the point that we may not recognize it. There's a belief that capitalism is a recent invention, and to some extent it is, but at the same time the notion of buying/selling based on supply and demand and markets have existed for ages. Some form of the notion of supply and demand and exchange of value will continue. I do believe some notion of markets and supply/demand will continue to exist in the future, and will probably be how any form of automation does resource allocation/prioritization. What will almost certainly change is the notion that people need to work to earn money. The reason is pretty simple: there's going to be more people than there are jobs to do. For the next few decades or so, automation won't replace highly skilled jobs, but automation will certainly replace things like manufacturing, truck driving, ships, aircraft, taxis, etc. We're already seeing a large number of these jobs being replaced now. Sure these systems will require maintenance from time to time, but we won't need the sheer numbers of manpower we needed before: otherwise it would be somewhat pointless to replace humans with machines if the machines were just going to cause the same amount of problems, just different problems. The highly skilled labor associated with software, robotics, etc. will probably be around for some time longer. Eventually they too will be replaced, or at least, minimized to the point that not many are needed. What we'd be at at that point is a society that doesn't have as much work to do. This isn't to say that there won't be problems to solve. On the contrary, the problems to solve will just change and become more complex. There's a book I'm currently reading, called The Inevitable, by Kevin Kelly, and it deals with these sort of things discussed here in this thread. Take understanding gravity, (just as an example), or complex quantum physics. AI will help us solve these problems. Humans will still be needed, since basic AI still requires being put in a direction. Now if we talk about true AI, that will exist at some point as well. It won't be human-like though. It'll be utterly alien to us. It won't think the way we do. It'll think very different from us. Now for the scenarios. It's entirely possible that automation will lead to everyone being in mass poverty, save for some select people. It's a very Marxian scenario (Spontaneous World Wide Workers Revolution), but it could happen for a few reasons: 1): This is a really simple reason actually. What do people do without anything better to do? People without jobs, etc.? Sex. And that could lead to a population explosion that creates serious burdens on the system (assuming no one bothered to do something about birth control) 2): No one bothers about the people who are the losers of automation. We're already seeing this, to an extent in politics, becoming a concern. I see this as a possibility, but I don't see this as likely, as beyond a point, a select few cannot fend off hordes of people. 3): Sentient AI rules us in a Matrix or Terminator scenario. Now this is incredibly far fetched, because it makes assumptions. It assumes that sentient AI would see us as hostile. The fact is that we don't even know what sentient AI even looks like. We aren't even sure what sentient means. Sentient AI, in my opinion, would be extremely alien to us in its thought processes. 4): We blow the shit out of each other, and there's nothing left, save for automated stuff rationing out the remains. Ironically enough, this may actually be the most likely scenario out of all the ones I've listed here, simply because people just don't like one another a lot. Then there's the utopian scenario where there's plenty for everyone. It could happen if: 1): People actually work together and don't kill each other. 2): People actually consider the effects of mass automation 3): People are willing to see capitalism change into something new 4): Sentient AI doesn't hate us 5): Some other cataclysmic event doesn't happen first (Ie, alien invasion, etc.)
  12. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    No doubt about this that many a voter just wanted to see the "Left" (and I'm starting to hate the notion of "Left vs Right", it only serves to undermine the whole point by making this a "us vs them" argument) go crazy. And no doubt that is exactly what's happening. As of this moment, it isn't doing any good. Mainly because he hasn't done anything other than throw public tantrums, lash out at people, and generally run a reality TV show in the White House. But the point about certain voters is quite well noted. There's a reason I hate this whole "Left vs Right" thing so much: it really is just a way to throw around BS. I don't much care whether the guy in charge is a Republican or a Democrat. What I care about is that the guy is at least moderately competent. Donald Trump is not competent by any objective standard. There are all sorts of issues about this guy that people refuse to see and simply turn it into a "Left vs Right" argument. It's infuriating. And it's not good for anyone, since this is not about Left or Right, or Liberal/Conservative, or Democrat/Republican. It's about competence. And he has no competence. Any argument otherwise is simply just delusions. There are tons of theories about why Trump won, and depending on who you are, you believe one or the other. IMHO, Trump won mainly because of the vote in the so called "Rust Belt", which had been Clinton's so called "Firewall". Their issues have been discussed quite a bit on this forum, and I'll only add one more point here: there is no solution to 'saving' jobs. There are other solutions out there, but not 'saving' ones. Those jobs were gone before, and will only be more gone now. The problem is only going to expand as time goes on, due to technological advancements that will take jobs. We've discussed these issues quite a bit too. Do Democrats need to address these issues? Certainly they do. But reality is that Trump is basically a snake oil salesman: he's selling snake oil as a remedy for all when it doesn't actually do anything. I do agree with this to an extent: no Trump doesn't mean that this Pandora's box will suddenly be closed: it's been opened and there's not a ton that can be done about that.
  13. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    What you are quoting is a post I made out of pure frustration with Donald J. Trump, from a while ago. I'm sure many understand that frustration. I fail to see how this is even remotely true. And no I don't want any of your lists, defending, excuses, etc. that you've thrown at everyone since Trump started running. We all more or less know where you stand, and what you believe, true or otherwise not. There's no need to go through the mental contortions once more on this forum. I at least, have little interest in seeing/reading your specific argument this time. You haven't seen him do a thing wrong since he started running, so I'm not surprised by this. Only serves to underscore the point made above. We know exactly where you stand. No need to reiterate, nor defend, nor excuse. I have little interest in arguing over the narrative that you believe in and will probably present if this continues. So please, don't continue down this line of thought.
  14. How Much Do You Program Outside of Work?

    I realize this, but I know for a fact that I'm not dissatisfied with my career choice now. There was something else on my mind that I didn't realize I was confusing with coding/software profession Mainly just curious at the time about this. It's good to know and clear up any lingering doubts I may have had. Thanks man!
  15. How Much Do You Program Outside of Work?

    It's not so much how do you stay motivated, it's more of how many people are still interested in doing programming even after spending 40+ hours a week doing programming/computer related stuff. I've found that I'm not super interested in doing coding related stuff after working because a): there's so many other things I have that I'm interested in doing, such as CG, Warhammer, MtG, reading, gaming, etc. and b): I've done enough coding at work, I'd rather do something different. Mainly I was curious how many people feel similarly if at all. When I initially asked this question, I was also wondering if maybe I'm in the wrong profession, but that, I now believe, was a question that rose out of other issues, not at all related to career, and I won't get into here for a variety of reasons. It does seem to be more common here to code in spare time than I'd initially imagined. I'd imagine there are many confounding factors I'm not really examining also. I wonder if it's got anything to do with the fact that this is primarily a game dev crowd as opposed to software dev? Just a thought.