>>40819
I would always say that fairness is simply everyone playing by the same rules. I would never and have never complained about getting a lesser reward because I accomplished less. That's fairness. Fairness simply means that no-one is being explicitly restricted from the same reward as someone else. But it doesn't mean they get to succeed, or that they'll even have a happy life. It's why we say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as in the quest for happiness and the attempt for it, and not just "happiness".

>>40819
>Say two people are having a disagreement about "fairness"
Sounds like a setup for a joke. Add in something about a mathematician, expected value, and a bayesian and it's sure to be a hit amongst the nerds.

I impulsively bought a CRT monitor and it came in today.
I've been curious for a while, as I haven't actually seen an operating CRT since I was little, the only thing I remember being different from other TVs being the static electricity build up.
I've only tested Touhou 6, but I'm really impressed. The colors are impeccable, the image is great. At just 1280x1024, it's left more of an impact in terms of visuals than any modern 4k 144hz monitor.
The only real issues I can think of are that it is rather large in terms of length as well as rather heavy, and the flickering might be annoying if you're sensitive to that sort of thing.

I just wonder why the technology was dropped? Has it really been pushed to it's limits, or was it just deemed not worthwhile?

>>40834
>why the technology was dropped?
>heavy
This mostly. I don't know much about screen technology, but the most advanced options now serve better for use cases like tv shows and AAA games.

>>40835
CRTs usually have less input lag than most monitors you can buy, look better on games with pixel art that was specifically designed against crt pixel geometries. I.e. CRTs effectively give you subpixel rendering for free because brightness doesn't have to be uniform across the shadow mask slot (indeed, it's more like a mesh in front of a continuous image), compared to discrete pixels of LCD, and you probably also get anti-aliasing for free as well.

With a modern high-resolution, high-dynamic range, high-refresh rate display (or even better, variable refresh rate) combined with an appropriate shader to simulate CRT post-processing, I really doubt a raw CRT is any better. But for the price, yes, at the time CRT was superior.

test
will this update the home page?
edit: Even though I saged, it does. This was a test.

Post edited on 17th Nov 2022, 3:47pm

>>40850
It's a good design choice. That way others can still be aware of newly added information, but it doesn't bump the post entirely. It makes sage-ing a viable option.

I've been a bit insecure about being an unaware ford driver quite a while now, but honestly, I have no friends, I can't start conversations as I don't even thing about speaking to others.
Fact is, I don't have friends, internet or otherwise, I quite literally can't make conversation with others. I may be a boring retard with nothing interesting to say, but goddamn it, I just don't like many imageboards other than TC!

I feel like I'm in a small minority of people who puts cream in their coffee, but no sugar. Every time I see a tv show or movie with coffee, characters always either drink their coffee black, with sugar, or with cream and sugar, but I've never seen a character who just puts cream.

>>40877
I enjoy doing that as well, when I'm not in the mood for anything sweet. Cream is magic.

>>40877
I like to put just milk, if that counts.

>>40880
I did that before discovering heavy cream. Still do when I don't have any.

>>39332
>white noise
I bought one of those machines. People described it as some sort of "quiet noise". Yet it just sounded like a machine. Like a fan but without the wind.

>>40920
White noise is bad to sleep with, it's spectral power distribution is uniform and unnatural, natural noises have distribution of the form 1/f^k for k>1, so something closer to pink noise.

Lately I've been thinking about why early childhood experience is so pivotal in forming your character even though people remember very little of it.

Infants are completely helpless against their environment and it makes sense that's going to create a crushing insecurity where their only defense is people pleasing. Without that sort of behavior you'd likely see infant mortality much higher and so evolution has an incentive to dial people pleasing up to a ridiculous degree. Psychologically speaking I don't think infancy is too dissimilar to having a gun pulled on you. You're just a few pounds of force away from death in that situation. It's completely reasonable to do or say anything necessary.

I'm having trouble articulating this. It seems like this sort of primordial insecurity and need to be taken care of is at the root of social behavior. It seems to crush the individual in the name of the group. That sort of need seems to stick around until you're in your late 20's. I think it's what normies mean when they say "settle down". What they mean is that their intense need for attention and validation has dropped to a manageable, stable level.

That much of social interaction as a need seems inborn. Another part seems to stem from convenience. Two 4/5 fighters can easily overpower a single 5/5 fighter. Or to put it another way I'd have a lot more money and free time if I had a roommate who I got along with because of simple economies of scale.

What seems to happen for a lot of loners like myself is some sort of failure on part of the parents to respond to the child's natural people pleasing behavior. The child learns people pleasing as a strategy doesn't work and tries their hardest to do everything themselves. It seems to set you up for all sorts of pitfalls in school. You already don't have support at home. More importantly you've disposed of people pleasing as a strategy while all the other children are still in that mode, hard. It seems to be why if you ever complain about a lack of relationships to normals they always get pissed and make it your fault. They don't understand you literally don't have the same machinery to work with. They're very insecure about it. You'll often see normals chestpound about how they do this or that for themselves rather than other people and it's just laughable. They do it to be liked. The loner will also do certain things to be "liked" but it's quite different. The normal performs some social ritual in attempt to gain favor. The loner partakes in the same ritual with the thought of "How can I get this person to fuck off as soon as possible without them freaking out?"

Have any of you had similar thoughts?

>>40941
I don't think about it much, but that's more or less my own experience in life. There is no drive or desire to socialize beyond getting people to leave me be. I rarely try and get help unless it's completely necessary. It just isn't my instinct to seek it out because it hasn't done me much good in the past.
So I'd say your thoughts are probably accurate to some degree.

Came across A.J. Ayer's emotivism. It explains some thoughts I've had pretty well. In short he was a moral skeptic and pointed out that since we can't have proof of morals existing we can't make factual statements about them. For example many people would agree violence is wrong but asking them to prove it gets dubious. What they're having is an emotional reaction akin to "boo, violence". I can't prove violence is wrong what can be proved is my own personal distaste for getting murdered.

Looking at it this way it really gives the sense the majority of moral talk is an attempt to enforce some sort of social norm. I can remember back in the 90's when older people would try to make some weird, twisted moral argument about wearing hats indoors. The entire thing is a bit silly looking back at it but I don't think it's that different. Key difference being the language we use has shifted. Outside of things the massive majority of people agree on like murder/theft/fraud you see a lot less language around morality as that's gone out of favor. Instead the discussion has shifted to focus on psychology. Much of those discussions are pulled out of people's asses, or out of the ass of some supposed expert just like moral talk was back in the day.

For example it used to be seen as disrespectful and even immoral to wear a hat indoors under any occasion which seems ridiculous to us today. But I can easily imagine seeing it posted somewhere like reddit with normie commenters swarming with something like "Wearing a hat indoors? Does this guy think he's the main character!? What a fucking narcissist." Or alternatively by posting about some sadness or frustration in your life it's almost inevitable you'll be met with hostility. In decades prior they would have called you a pussy, not a real man, or said you were of poor character. That went out of style in favor of this particular brand of fake empathy that is nothing but a disguised insult. I've been guilty of this "psychological pathologization" myself in the past but as I've come to understand how it works better I've tried to build distance from doing such.

The new phrase "ick" while dumb seems like a large improvement. You aren't insulting or condemning the person by pointing out the behavior is "ick". You're simply stating you, as a person, dislike that quality in another rather than trying to make statements about large swathes of the population who, on an individual level you know nothing about. Saying "Sorry, x gives me the ick, no thank you." seems much preferable to saying "X has y and z problem, not your therapist." Less prone to cause fruitless arguments, causes less harm, and could generally improve the quality of discussion internet-wide. Let's just hope the phrase doesn't morph into something cancerous.

>>40991
I'd prefer if we just say what we think. I do wear hats indoors, but it feels weird and I personally feel wrong while doing it. I think Stirner had it right, you should be aware of your position in the world and do what will work best towards your own motives or goals, whatever that entails. It's better to focus on more practical things, and you should never find yourself trying to censor or otherwise adjust your behavior simply because of some sense of an ideological purity. If YOU desire to act a certain way, that comes from you. Choosing to shape your behavior simply because it violates some internal code you've built up, and not because it leads to the results you want and the results you have the power to affect, is pointless. Plenty of people with no moral code still hold internal codes, some kind of rule or law of their behavior that they feel they should follow, if only because it makes them "not like those other people i hate". We exist in a physical world, and are limited by the physical actions and power we have the capacity for. Wasting energy on ideology when there are clear paths to the world we personally want to create and can create is just silly.

I don't care about adhering to morality. And because of that I don't care if my words are imposing a desire coming from myself onto someone else. I won't just self-censor myself and refrain from telling someone what I think about their behavior, just because it's presenting them with someones desire for a reality that opposes their own actions. I don't believe in freedom, I believe in the capacity for power to act and the doing so on the world. That doesn't mean I don't desire to take my own freedom. But freedom isn't something you can be given or give to someone else, it's simply a measure of your ability to explore and achieve your own goals. I don't like infidelity, and I wouldn't do it. I also would like to strongly enforce others not to. But not because I think it's immoral, but because I just don't like it. So I would impose that will on others, if i had the power. I don't care about fairness, I care about creating the world I want and the personal life I want. If I can do it, I will. If something is an obstacle, and I can remove it with my power and capability, to the extent that the outcome is practical and useful for me, I will.

I do prefer, personally, to leave other people alone for the most part because it creates a comfortable environment for me. In fact I prefer as little interaction as possible. But if someone does something in my environment that I don't like, and I think I can get them to stop without making bad repercussions for myself, I'll do that. I want to assert my agency over this world, and I'm sick of a society that wants men, agents of their own free will, to become like women and accept a submissive and nonthreatening position in regards to the world. That's the agreeable way of someone that belongs to someone else. I don't want to belong to someone else, I want to own myself and use the power I have to exert myself on the world around me. I don't want to get along just to get along, I get along when around people I can stand because it makes for a relaxed environment. When I'm around something I can't stand, I won't just let them be, is what i mean.

I was thinking about how worthless the word love is, but then I thought more and realized most language has no value, at least in the west. I think it's a result of marketing. Constant exaggerations has made any subjective opinion basically meaningless beyond good or bad.
Or maybe most people actually feel strongly about everything.
It bothers me.

I don't understand why normalfags have to go out of their way to write what amounts to "omg, wtf, you're a weirdo" when they see something a little strange. Why even bother? Does it make them so uncomfortable that they need to have an outburst? I think it would be better to ignore it and move on.

>>41200
It's normie speak for "I'm not like this!". They don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. Baka.

>>41200
If one is weird enough to the point where someone will audibly say so, then introspection might be needed. If you're referring to online discourse, hysterics is the game.

>>41200
I think it's a biological response.
There was this guy who experimented on little monkeys. He kept one little monkey separated from the rest and alone for months, then released him with the rest. In a matter of mere seconds, when they detected something was "off", the other monkeys started beating and bullying the outcast.
So be glad it's just that and not the beatings.

I listened to a conversation about video games and the internet today. Personally, I think I know a good bit about both and spend plenty of time with them, but I really couldn't follow the conversation at all. It felt a little sad.
I'd say I'm pretty out of touch I guess, but this feels more like a cultural difference. It's not that I'm not looking for and experiencing new things, but I guess my considerations are not the same as theirs.

>>41215
Video games are quite wide. I play games every day but I feel like I don't have the same frame of reference at all as most people who do. It's a weird feeling but the world is just so large now I suppose.

>>41215
Wait until you only play stuff that releases on dlsite or occasionally fanza. Then you'll feel like the biggest pariah.

>>40150
>As I see it, they are "ironic" in the same sense than people who watches bad movies just to laugh at them
I understand what kind of people you refer to, but I love to watch older movies that most people would consider bad and my favorite part about it is encountering somewhat unorthodox or goofy scenes. Sometimes you notice it's probably on purpose but most of the time it's likely unintentional. It can be things like weird looking effects, strange music choices, over exaggeration and cheesy dialogue or situations. They usually make me laugh and I often save a clip of it. I don't intend to mock the creators or their works by doing this, it's just my sense of humor, otherwise I watch and take them seriously.

I feel it's more about the intent and honesty when it comes to this. I can respect people who genuinely dislike something, like grognards that hate Japanese stuff, but I have no respect when it comes to people like "ironic weebs" that show interest in something, yet knowingly make fun of it or complain about certain aspects of the things they claim to like.

I used to write in a journal to settle my mind before bed, but I stopped and replaced it with asking myself what I accomplished today and what I plan to accomplish tomorrow. Not only is it much quicker, but I skip the random pointless fluff I used to put in my journal and I've been able to solve more problems this way.

I've been thinking about how superhero comics are melodramatic and averse to the concept of mundanity, and that gave me what I think is an interesting concept for a superman story:

Superman, a pretty reasonable man, decides the whole costumed hero thing is unnecessary and kind of dumb. So he takes off his costume and decides he'll be Clark Kent all the time.

He hears about how the Joker is on another one of his rampages, flies to Gotham, and kills him quickly and non-dramatically. Batman is of course very shocked, and brooding and edgy about the whole thing.

Clark takes an interview and explains his new perspective. How the Joker has killed hundreds of people and in a sane society he would have been executed a long time ago. Also how he doesn't feel the need to put on a ridiculous persona anymore.

The police try arresting Clark, but he refuses to be arrested. Not in a violent fashion, it's just they can't arrest him. Doesn't matter how many men try dragging him around, he's too strong. Tasers and bullets don't work on him. So the military gets involved, and Clark points out how unnecessary and wasteful this whole process is. Eventually they give up.

Batman demands a meeting with Clark, but Clark will only agree to it if Batman takes off his costume. So Clark and Bruce Wayne have a picnic, and its a lovely spring day. Bruce tries to argue that killing villains makes them just as bad, to which Clark responds that makes no sense and has never been how conflict resolution works. It's a childish philosophy. Clark then suggests Bruce didn't kill the Joker because he's afraid of having a mundane life.

Bruce reveals there's a piece of Kryptonite at the bottom of the picnic basket. Clark points out there's no reason some rock from his own planet would instantly hurt him. It was all psychological, but now he's free of that. Clark tosses it in a nearby lake and walks off while telling Bruce he should learn to relax. THE END

>>41349
This reminds me of >>/ma/3935.

>>41350
Well, that's a story that's intentionally boring, but I think my concept is interesting.

>>41349
I really like your concept, but I hate that ending. It would be better with batman revealing the kryptonite and it working, so superman gets weak and batman pounces on him with a batarang on his neck and says live by the sword die by the sword, but he decides to take the moral high ground and lets superman lives to teach him a lesson about that way of life, but superman does not care and now gets very suspicious of batman. The thing is superman is right about batman. But the same thing is true for villains. They dont instantaneously kill the heroes and pull those boring 20hr speeches at the last hour because they are afraid of being a regular mundane criminal running from police and need batman for the rush. But now the villains are pissed because superman broke the rules of the game, and they start outright killing lesser superheroes. The atom, plastic man, hawk girl etc. No theatrics, just plain killing. Other superheroes get pissed at superman. Joker funeral happens. Villains and populace attend also superheroes. People start protesting superman defending the Joker, but others call it hypocrisy and counter protest and a mass shitshow happens. Many assassinations attempts are made at superman. Bombs and etc. None of them works. Superman starts killing other supervillains who now became much more radicalized. He kills scarecrow, clayface, two-face, and many others. Basically cleans gotham city of supervillains. More protests. Many start to see superman as an opressing force agaisnt mankind. Rumours of villains trying to broke a deal with batman and other heroes to kill superman. Superman goes to bruce wayne to convince him to use his clout with gotham citizens to calm the situation and the mass protests and chaos. Batman tells him to fuck off. Clark used a wire and later threatens to expose bruce wayne as batman on a piece on his newspaper. Batman refuses to collaborate. Clark exposes bruce on the newspaper and continues killing other villains from other cities. One day some villains do some crimes as a decoy and trick him into going somewhere while others kill and rape louis lane. Superman is too fast and saves her, but eventually they kill her friends, relatives neighbours etc. Louis lane loses it and tells superman to quit this. SUperman forces louis lane into the frotress of solitute "for her own good". By this even with all supervillains dead, new ones start appearing and people basically hate superman and calls him an alien opressor etc. In the end superman loses faith on mankind and goes to space searching for a better planet.

>>41352
A few comments on this. While the Joker has been confirmed to intentionally not kill Batman, I'm not sure that's been established for other supervillians. Impression I got is that they're simply less competent and strong than their opponents.

I don't like the idea of Clark trying to get Batman's help. I also wanted to get away from the whole "superman becomes oppressive" concept that's been done before.

I don't see why the public would protest. Isn't the real problem supervillains? Who benefits from them being around? They're basically domestic terrorists. Who is in favor of those?

I know Lois Lane has been a concept for a long time, but when thinking of this idea, I imagined she just wouldn't exist. In a way, she's like Superman's second kryptonite.

>>41353
>A few comments on this. While the Joker has been confirmed to intentionally not kill Batman, I'm not sure that's been established for other supervillians. Impression I got is that they're simply less competent and strong than their opponents.
I'm no comic book guy, but we all have seen these innumerous scenes where a villain has the hero stuck in a situation and could finally kill him once and for all, but keeps prolongating the situation with speeches about his life or using increasingly cruel and unnecessary ways to make him suffer, until he makes a mistake and the hero gets away.
>I also wanted to get away from the whole "superman becomes oppressive" concept that's been done before.
Yeah, I got a little sense of deja vu after writing that. This would be more a calm superman deciding to wipe out supervillain crime once and for all, while the masses lose their mind though.
>I don't see why the public would protest. Isn't the real problem supervillains? Who benefits from them being around? They're basically domestic terrorists. Who is in favor of those?
I think the batman universe is unique in the sense that the villains technically aren't criminals. They're deranged mentally ill people. They get sent to an asylum, not a prison. So technically speaking they're kinda unimputable. At least as far as some might agree. Moreover some petty criminals tend to gain from people like the joker running around, and their 3DPDs and etc. Many groups that are or were considered terrorist have such organizations of wives or friends of imprisoned/executed members who petition for their release. People with nothing to lose often relate to disruptors of the status quo. Others could be worried about where the line would be drawn between killing the joker and killing an ordinary criminal. And wherever there's people legitimately protesting, there are attention whores also.
People can and have defended many people convicted or heinous crimes. Also following that storyline, other villains would get more radicalized and aim for killing superheroes instead of lofty goals such as world domination. Causing a increase in tensions among these groups. And indirectly the death of other superheroes.
>I know Lois Lane has been a concept for a long time, but when thinking of this idea, I imagined she just wouldn't exist. In a way, she's like Superman's second kryptonite.
Absolutely agree with that second statement. Her existence does seem to be at odds with this representation of superman.
I think it's an interesting story. Very unlikely that we will see anything of the sort getting published soon though.

It's getting pretty warm outside. If you go out in certain places(like a college campus), you'd see every other girl wearing a tube-top. That's great and empowering and wonderful and don't you dare question it.

Okay, but put a girl with a tube-top in a high-profile video game, especially a game that uses 3d models, and then it's a problem. People pretend there's all sorts of nuanced and complex reasons for this dichotomy. The real reason is that society wants to restrict men's control over their sexuality, and reduce their autonomy.

I've been thinking about strength. Lately, I've become far stronger I used to be. I don't think it is so much that I've gotten more powerful, but rather that I'm better utilizing my muscles. Rather than putting all the work in my arms, I use my legs as well. That sort of thing...
It makes those lower weight-classes in combat sports that much more impressive. You really have to put everything into it or you'll be bested.

>>41360
too warm. I hate humid heat; it makes clothes stick to you..

I have to give pc gaymers credit for helping to keep the desktop pc alive, but my god are they some of the most consumerist, tasteless suckers in the world. So much hardware only exists for the sake of e-sports schlock. The 8k, 200 mhz monitors, and $250+, rgb covered mice and ram, all for the sake of completely soulless garbage. Then after a few years, they replace it with things that have higher numbers attached to them. It's amazing how large of a market there must be for that, considering how many companies got in on it.

Post edited on 12th May 2023, 9:31am

>>41411
I've noticed that especially with keyboards. People go full autism for keyboards, spending hundreds of dollars on keycaps and fancy cases with crap on the back they'll never even see.

>>41411
>The 8k, 200 mhz monitors, and $250+, rgb covered mice and ram
Those two aren't in the same category though, 8k and 200Hz monitors are materially better, although the benefit 144 Hz -> 200Hz is a bit questionable. I assume the 8k is for a 32" monitor, which gives you 275ppi, which is actually pretty decent, you can notice the difference between low and high dpi fairly easily and you get spoiled it. (Although that assumes your OS actually supports proper scaling).

The RGB accessories are pure profit though, whoever came up with that marketing stunt must be raking in gold.

>>41417
>8k and 200Hz monitors are materially better
I exaggerated those numbers of purpose. If you're paying for features you don't really need, but were convinced you do, you're wasting money. Most console games are locked to 60fps, which already looks good. Everything above that gives diminishing returns, for exponentially higher costs.

Videos and every other type of media, wont look better on a higher refresh monitor. Only real advantage is for soulless e-sports games like I already mentioned.

>>41419
>Most console games are locked to 60fps
I thought it was 30fps?

>>41419
>Videos and every other type of media, wont look better on a higher refresh monitor
Huh? 120fps video absolutely looks better than 60fps video.

>>41421
The vast majority of video is not 120fps, especially animation.

"Doom9 is the hydrogenaudio of video"

I think the world would be a better place if artists became like milkmen, where it makes no sense to give them any money. Artists supposedly want to express themselves, but if they want to make money off their art, they become slaves. For most people, money is enslavement with extra steps.

The platform you're selling your shit on place restrictions on you, and payment processors place restrictions on the platform. Any way of getting around this, realistically massively limits the amount of profit you can make, to the point where it's no different from doing it for free. In my view, the value of expression, plummets the more an artist restricts themself.

It was never about the artist. The person sitting at their desk, with a drawing tablet, doesn't matter. They're just a means to an end. The only way to have freedom, is to escape the slavery of a reliance on money. AI doesn't want to be paid, and it has no inhibitions. That's what makes it beautiful. What a beautiful world it would be, if the human artist became completely obsolete. There is no other viable solution to the inevitability of monetary power being exercised in a censorial manner.

Post edited on 22nd May 2023, 8:34am

Ahaha this is hilarious https://www.bart.gov/news/anime

It's almost as if the management realized no one wants to ride bart, compared their shitcans to Japanese trains, and somehow decided that the main difference was that they had cute mascots.

>>41482
Of course one of them is obese.

>>41483
I can picture the committee picking them out.

One needs to accurately represent the operator. They're probably all old fat and ugly right? maybe we can make them look cute or something.

One should represent the hawk we trained to hunt pigeons. Maybe that can be in the style of that "genshan impactful" game all the kids these days like.

We also need one that's hip and cool and represents the urban demographic, so we don't look like the racists old fucks that we are. you dig brother?

...and I suppose we should probably have at least one that actually looks good.

>>41484
They probably just delegated it to some youngish person who comes into work with Invader Zim and Attack on Titan apparel, but your depiction got a laugh out of me.