The Outside: The Philosophical Hyjack Thread

[Bambooza]

Aloha and salutations my most GLORIOUS Testies, I've seen an interesting aside in a thread and thought it would make good mental floss for The Outside:

Discussion on players being kicked for using exploits and how that could be argued to just be the state of the game and could have been foreseen:

Players kicked once they capture idris

At first I thought, "someone hacked", but then I watched the video and it seems rather normal. Not only that if you hacked, do you not get a banned message not a kicked message? Kicked: User Initiated Kick From Servers (Kicked by CIG after capturing Idris) After we succcessfully captured the...

testsquadron.com

sort-of-hyjack - Certain cultures/backgrounds tolerate/accept/pursue such conduct more actively than others:

Is this an overgeneralisation? Or are there certain cultures that really will pursue exploits in games more than other cultures? I know plenty of Anglo-Saxon heritage people who pursue the same gratifications but as that background makes up the majority of the servers I'm on it gets diluted a bit, however if all of them were booted from out local servers and had to go over to Antepodean servers to carry on their exploits would it not look like the majority of Anglo-Sax heritage persons were tolerant/accept/pursue such conduct?

Not sure I'm following your train of thought.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Not sure I'm following your train of thought.

Take a read of the original thread to get up to speed on where the direction was going/has gone

It is an over generalisation to suppose that all members of a certain society act in the same way or is it actually true? Do the majority of Americans eat three hamburgers a day and drive huge pickup trucks? Are most Britstea-drinking bowler-hat wearing cricket fans? Are the French really carrying baguettes around and being all snooty? Are Japanese people manga-obsessed and honourable? Are Germans efficiant and humorless? Do, in short, the majority Chinese gamers actually seek and use exploits? Or is it a small representation of those nations who have been observed to do those things in a setting which makes them stand-out, like in another country where they are obviously from outside that setting, colour the interpretation for the rest of the population?

I'd suggest it is over generalisation but that's mainly because I prefer Supertruck Racing and own a Fedora in the Blues Brothers style rather than the Bowler and cricket - I don't know many people who actually exhibit the cultural tropes of the nation I'm from...?

 

[Mudhawk]

I'd suggest it is over generalisation but that's mainly because I prefer Supertruck Racing and own a Fedora in the Blues Brothers style rather than the Bowler and cricket - I don't know many people who actually exhibit the cultural tropes of the nation I'm from...?

Well I do doubt that in this very forum you'd find individuals that are exemplary for their given cultural archetypes. It comes with the weird hobby I presume.
After all we are by our very nature not simply internationally minded.
We are intergalactic!
Speaking for myself, even as I was born and raised as a proud german Citizen I still prefer an Islay Whisky to Beer and Sushi to Eisbein.
Even though I'm from the southern parts of this beautiful country you will not, even at gunpoint, see me wearing those stupid leather hotpants or that hat with the Barber's Brush on top.
That being said I actually do know some people who happily live those very tropes. You know, Bier, Brezel, Weiswurst, Oktoberfest...
Most of them folks are not from these here parts.
I guess they simplyb try to do as the romans do if you catch my drift. :-)

 

[Bambooza]

Take a read of the original thread to get up to speed on where the direction was going/has gone

It is an over generalisation to suppose that all members of a certain society act in the same way or is it actually true? Do the majority of Americans eat three hamburgers a day and drive huge pickup trucks? Are most Britstea-drinking bowler-hat wearing cricket fans? Are the French really carrying baguettes around and being all snooty? Are Japanese people manga-obsessed and honourable? Are Germans efficiant and humorless? Do, in short, the majority Chinese gamers actually seek and use exploits? Or is it a small representation of those nations who have been observed to do those things in a setting which makes them stand-out, like in another country where they are obviously from outside that setting, colour the interpretation for the rest of the population?

I'd suggest it is over generalisation but that's mainly because I prefer Supertruck Racing and own a Fedora in the Blues Brothers style rather than the Bowler and cricket - I don't know many people who actually exhibit the cultural tropes of the nation I'm from...?

Ah stereotypes. It is an interesting question as to how much is true vs a comparable baseline and how much of it is just a self fulfilling experience ie I think it's true thus I only take notice when it matches my generalization thus reinforcing my observation.

But given how widespread and common some of them are its hard to fully discount them. Even if it so generalized as to be worthless as any sort of metric much like horoscopes.

Yet there is a saying "birds of a feather flock together" which does give merit to the idea of similar experiences and social norms would heavily shape you as an individual leading credibility to the notion of general stereotypes. After all we are very social creatures which lends its self to pressure to conform.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Well I do doubt that in this very forum you'd find individuals that are exemplary for their given cultural archetypes. It comes with the weird hobby I presume.
After all we are by our very nature not simply internationally minded.
We are intergalactic!
Speaking for myself, even as I was born and raised as a proud german Citizen I still prefer an Islay Whisky to Beer and Sushi to Eisbein.
Even though I'm from the southern parts of this beautiful country you will not, even at gunpoint, see me wearing those stupid leather hotpants or that hat with the Barber's Brush on top.
That being said I actually do know some people who happily live those very tropes. You know, Bier, Brezel, Weiswurst, Oktoberfest...
Most of them folks are not from these here parts.
I guess they simplyb try to do as the romans do if you catch my drift. :-)

You mention the leather hot pants I do know a chap in the UK who come Oktoberfest fully embraces them in this enthusiasm for german culture during that time. Meant without malice but very stereotypical - but how else can An outsider express their delight without that appropriation?

Ah stereotypes. It is an interesting question as to how much is true vs a comparable baseline and how much of it is just a self fulfilling experience ie I think it's true thus I only take notice when it matches my generalization thus reinforcing my observation.

But given how widespread and common some of them are its hard to fully discount them. Even if it so generalized as to be worthless as any sort of metric much like horoscopes.

Yet there is a saying "birds of a feather flock together" which does give merit to the idea of similar experiences and social norms would heavily shape you as an individual leading credibility to the notion of general stereotypes. After all we are very social creatures which lends its self to pressure to conform.

Does the challenge then comes in identifying what is culturally different between your norms and another nation groups norms and what is just individuals being individual or small-groupish...

When I was a child I was astounded to find out in France. a breakfast staple is chocolat chaud - a hot chocolate in a bowl. I was left wondering why anyone would have anything else? And when discussing food with an American blowing their minds when discussing what I thought was the relatively simple concept of Beans On Toast which apparently isn't a thing in the US.

But then there are other things I grew up with which were just hyper specific to my local area: In the school intent to there was an individual who lacked personal hygiene skills the shortened version of their surname was "Greb" and so that became the word our school cohort used for unpleasant dirty smelly things (kids can be very crewl) but that's the extent of it. Outside of those school years the term "Greb" is meaningless but there is a core of 40-somethings in a town in the middle of nowhere calling stinky stuff "Greb". Doesn't mean the whole country is, doesn't mean the whole county is, but get a school reunion in a single server and you'd swear "Greb" was a common UK word...

 

[Mudhawk]

You mention the leather hot pants I do know a chap in the UK who come Oktoberfest fully embraces them in this enthusiasm for german culture during that time. Meant without malice but very stereotypical - but how else can An outsider express their delight without that appropriation?

I get where you're going but... when next year I'm going to Japan, I will not dress in a Yukata and dye my hair grren with aubergine highlights. I will go nuts shopping in Akibahara though. You need to compromise sometimes.
Greb though?
Hmm...
Sure we can use that as code somewhere.
You know, next pointless comment thread trainwreck and I go just "Oi, that's Greb!" And you go, "Worst Greb this week, true that..."
And the we treat ourself to some confused stares.
It may start small-groupish, but with some effort Greb may just become the next hot sh*t.
Next it's a cultural phenomen but with time it becomes tradition to Greb people.
and some generations down the road some asian looking dude tries to prononce the word in broken english to appear a native.
PS:
Traditions sometimes happen to be pretty new stuff. All them Bavarian Krachlederne Hosen and Dirndle are actually part of an Nazi Campain along the line of "Kraft durch Freude".
Because traditional, cultural bavarian clothing wa smore Sunday Church and showed no skin. Too catholic for the Masterrace (TM) :-)

 

[Yex]

So with all this time travel talk it does bring one to question the galactic speed limit: the speed of light. Why can it go no faster even when speed is added to it?

As famously depicted In the Movie Superman 1, there is a theory is that if you can travel faster than light you can travel back in time. The Man of Steel flew so fast around the world he flew faster than the passage of time and returned to a point in time before he left and thus was able to save his friends who had previously perished.

Apparently, to our understanding to this point though, If you try to send something faster than light that additional energy converts to mass instead of additional speed. Superman would have just become heavier at the Speed of Light barrier, not gone past it... Is the speed of light itself the speed of time passing and it can go no faster because there is no additional time for it to go faster in? If speed = distance over time, and there is enough distance and speed to allow that faster state the only limit I can see in that formula... is the speed time passes itself...?

If time is a fixed arbitrary amount we observe as being the speed of light at 299,792,458m/s is it possible that amount was different in the past and the speed of light was faster or slower than the 299,792,458m/s we know today? And if it was, can this help explain the expansion of the universe? If the light which sets off from distant starts started off when the speed of light was slower, it would look like those stars are further away because the light took longer to get here due to its universal constant speed being lower when it set off... which then asks the question does light keep the universal constant which is the speed of light it was forged under or does it become subject to the speed of light under the current universal constant speed which is present today, which could manifest itself in Red/Blue-Shift where the wavelength is stretched/compressed to accommodate the new conditions it is under? We have cameras today which are so fast we are able to record a passing light ray on its traversal thus making its speed recordable. Has anyone to this point looked at a billion year old light ray arriving from one of the further away stars and checked that ray is actually moving at 299,792,458m/s...? Perhaps cameras are not that good yet for light that dim... but it's only a matter of (heh) time until they are.

Or, another way to think about it, is In SC top speed is limited by the Servers. 2000m/s is the fastest speed there is, I went this fast in a death tumble in a 350R over Crusader (engines off) and it turns out 2000m/s is the Server Speed Limit as confirmed by other players who'd also reached that speed due to bugs and other oddities. If existence is a simulation, is 299,792,458m/s the Server Speed limit... and does this mean the 'Verse is currently 0.0006% replication of reality and the server speed cap can be used as a reliable measure against our ability to make an accurate simulated recreation of reality itself in the first place?

And this brings us back to our talk about time-travel: Once we have a simulation which can accurately recreate reality we need not do time travel at all - we can just fast-forward or rewind the simulation like it was a VHS tape and take a look at what really happened in history like we were really there and what will happen in the future to a reliable margin of error, at which point we can learn the simulations future knowledge and recreate its advanced technologies without fear as they would basically have been invented by the simulation, not by physical lived history itself... there can be no paradox or damage to a timeline which has not been traversed... you just need a simulation accurate enough and a computer fast enough to be able to outpace real life to look forward and simulate future discoveries yet to be made.

/logins and has unstoppable need to reply/

The speed of light isn't a speed limit; that phrasing is more a limitation of our words.
The reason it exists is - cause & effect

Special relativity gives the universe a tick over, like a server. If you exceeded the tick over (speed of light) then you run the risk of a race condition where the effect exists before the cause.

That's the "time travel" described.
E.g.
- my beer is full
- My beer is empty
- I drink beer <-- the beer was already empty you drank it in the past

Universe would null pointer as the beer is empty already on drink. Operation should've run as full > drink > empty.

Cause & Effect
So in short, not a speed limit. Everything just gets a bit mathematically fucked if you exceeded it. CERN is still looking for answers, hence why they want to build a bigger smasher.
Think 'Improbability button' from hitchhikers guide.

TLDR; The people who think we live in a simulation might not be wrong

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

/logins and has unstoppable need to reply/

The speed of light isn't a speed limit; that phrasing is more a limitation of our words.
The reason it exists is - cause & effect

Special relativity gives the universe a tick over, like a server. If you exceeded the tick over (speed of light) then you run the risk of a race condition where the effect exists before the cause.

That's the "time travel" described.
E.g.
- my beer is full
- My beer is empty
- I drink beer <-- the beer was already empty you drank it in the past

Universe would null pointer as the beer is empty already on drink. Operation should've run as full > drink > empty.

Cause & Effect
So in short, not a speed limit. Everything just gets a bit mathematically fucked if you exceeded it. CERN is still looking for answers, hence why they want to build a bigger smasher.
Think 'Improbability button' from hitchhikers guide.

TLDR; The people who think we live in a simulation might not be wrong

Ooooooh cause and effect interesting....! is the assumptions as follows: because a state cannot be observed by light that has not yet reached you, any faster than light alteration would nullify the light that has already left said item? Like, the stars are millions of light years away So some of them might not be here right now - but if you travelled to it via FTL and turned one of those dying stars green, the effect on that light already in transit that was not green, would then be in conflict hence why it would be time-travel?

So thought experiment:

Humanity has evolved without eyes. Light means nothing to us and we have no way of detecting it, but we were like bats creatures of echolocation... Would our opinion of the speed of sound be similar...? That going over 330m/s was basically moving outside of time, and if you could go faster than that you would have the same affects? But of sound we know that pressure waves weaken as they expand from their source/reflection and that new pressure waves smother and replace the old...? What of light waves? Do they interact? Can they cancel each other out can a dim white oppress and eradicate a dim green?

Also I'm wondering if you know: it is known light cannot accept extra speed by accelerating the source toward the receiver but can it be slowed down by accelerating the source away from the receiver? I know there is redshift but there is also blueshift. If light doesnt slow using the same experiment in reverse I would suspect the result for accelerating toward means something different to what we think it does...

 

[Yex]

Ooooooh cause and effect interesting....! is the assumptions as follows: because a state cannot be observed by light that has not yet reached you, any faster than light alteration would nullify the light that has already left said item? Like, the stars are millions of light years away So some of them might not be here right now - but if you travelled to it via FTL and turned one of those dying stars green, the effect on that light already in transit that was not green, would then be in conflict hence why it would be time-travel?

So thought experiment:

Humanity has evolved without eyes. Light means nothing to us and we have no way of detecting it, but we were like bats creatures of echolocation... Would our opinion of the speed of sound be similar...? That going over 330m/s was basically moving outside of time, and if you could go faster than that you would have the same affects? But of sound we know that pressure waves weaken as they expand from their source/reflection and that new pressure waves smother and replace the old...? What of light waves? Do they interact? Can they cancel each other out can a dim white oppress and eradicate a dim green?

Also I'm wondering if you know: it is known light cannot accept extra speed by accelerating the source toward the receiver but can it be slowed down by accelerating the source away from the receiver? I know there is redshift but there is also blueshift. If light doesnt slow using the same experiment in reverse I would suspect the result for accelerating toward means something different to what we think it does...

I would step out from the observable single point of reference (a person's view) and put yourself in an omnipotent map view of the universe. Split it into a grid.
Each grid 'ticks over' based on its own local laws and independantly, and refreshes the local matter state each time. If an action e.g. "Planet exploder" was done from one region to an adjacent region faster than the speed of light, >between the ticks< a planet could be seen exploding as that region ticks over but you'd go... Why?? Then as the adjacent source ticks you'd see the gun fired.

It's easier to visualize the large flat map because scale really breaks the human brain, we just can't visualize the true scale & speed very well. The grid pattern is a falsehood of course, it's not nearly as uniform, gravity we think is more 'welly'

So to answer your question; it's not really based on a human perception as much as all of math's is foundationed on human perception. Think back to the ancient babalonians using feet & arms to measure then calculate area.
We can all agree that it's a bit of an oddity we take for granted, that our maths is applicable everywhere else - given that it's based off of our view. Mind blowing really. But "error carried forward" is something that really saved my butt plenty of times. You can still produce a right answer out of consistently incorrect original values, the answer will just be shifted by that error. When you consider math is linear and infinite on each end.... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3... It's not really a big deal, as long as it's all consistent.

Long story short; if bats could do math then their numbers may be very different than what we come up with. But theyd all be consistently different and exist in parallel to our calculations.

In regards to speeding up and slowing down light. No, light is a constant and doesnt change regardless of extreme or action.
What we perceive in regards to red shift is light being stretched out, the wave length doesn't lose energy (conservation of energy) it just takes up more spaaaaaaaace aaaaas itttttt thiiiiins ouuuut (this message is still the same but it has been stretched). By space, I don't really mean space - again a bit of a limitation of our language when simplifying a really complicated problem.

But from lights point of view; it's normal, everything else just got spaghetti-fied. But then again light doesn't have a point of view. So is it spaghetti or are we all spaghetti in this great big bowl of life?
And now we have left quantum mechanics and into string theory. So let's stop there before we all lose our minds... And also I have work :D

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I would step out from the observable single point of reference (a person's view) and put yourself in an omnipotent map view of the universe. Split it into a grid.
Each grid 'ticks over' based on its own local laws and independantly, and refreshes the local matter state each time. If an action e.g. "Planet exploder" was done from one region to an adjacent region faster than the speed of light, >between the ticks< a planet could be seen exploding as that region ticks over but you'd go... Why?? Then as the adjacent source ticks you'd see the gun fired.

It's easier to visualize the large flat map because scale really breaks the human brain, we just can't visualize the true scale & speed very well. The grid pattern is a falsehood of course, it's not nearly as uniform, gravity we think is more 'welly'

So to answer your question; it's not really based on a human perception as much as all of math's is foundationed on human perception. Think back to the ancient babalonians using feet & arms to measure then calculate area.
We can all agree that it's a bit of an oddity we take for granted, that our maths is applicable everywhere else - given that it's based off of our view. Mind blowing really. But "error carried forward" is something that really saved my butt plenty of times. You can still produce a right answer out of consistently incorrect original values, the answer will just be shifted by that error. When you consider math is linear and infinite on each end.... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3... It's not really a big deal, as long as it's all consistent.

Long story short; if bats could do math then their numbers may be very different than what we come up with. But theyd all be consistently different and exist in parallel to our calculations.

In regards to speeding up and slowing down light. No, light is a constant and doesnt change regardless of extreme or action.
What we perceive in regards to red shift is light being stretched out, the wave length doesn't lose energy (conservation of energy) it just takes up more spaaaaaaaace aaaaas itttttt thiiiiins ouuuut (this message is still the same but it has been stretched). By space, I don't really mean space - again a bit of a limitation of our language when simplifying a really complicated problem.

But from lights point of view; it's normal, everything else just got spaghetti-fied. But then again light doesn't have a point of view. So is it spaghetti or are we all spaghetti in this great big bowl of life?
And now we have left quantum mechanics and into string theory. So let's stop there before we all lose our minds... And also I have work :D

Many thanks for the answer on light doesn't go slower although it's source could be accelerating away... Hence why it's called the universal constant...

So I'm wondering if we would actually done a superman would we actually go back in time?

If the sun is 8 light minutes away, and I fly to it at twice the speed of light to turn it green the moment I get there, would I not just simply get there in four minutes time and then the light reaching earth turn green 8 minutes after that...? I know there is Relativity - my buddy sat on the pad watching me fly to the sun experiences time differently to me on my ship but in the local star system 4 minutes pass. Regardless of how long it feels like it takes on the ship.

I recall there were two atomic clocks times perfectly and they flew one to Australia and back and when it arrives it was out a little bit. What does this do other than mean that clock is younger? When it arrived in Australia it was still the same local time as the rest of earth?

 

[Bambooza]

Light in a vacuum is the universal constant. It's entirely possible to slow light down like its speed is slower traveling in water than air. In fact this is how they where able to get a picture of a photon.

As for relativity time gets rather warped as you approach the limit. And you start to realize that time is based upon the observers. It's why your clock going around the world was off a measurable amount (Hafele Keating experiment). It's why gps satellites need to have their times updated (time correction) and why muons in Frisch Smith experiment are more present at the top of Mt Washington then their half life decay in earths atmosphere and speed should allow.

So you as the observer continously accelerating would see the universe contracting as you would be able to reach all parts instantly once you reached the speed of light. So traveling from the sun to Pluto would be just as fast for you as traveling from one edge of the universe to the other.

Now me as the observer on earth you traveling from the sun to Pluto and back would take 11 hours and you traveling from one end of the universe to the other would be well beyond its heat death. It's why even if you have infinity energy you simply do not have enough time to get up to speed.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Light in a vacuum is the universal constant. It's entirely possible to slow light down like its speed is slower traveling in water than air. In fact this is how they where able to get a picture of a photon.

As for relativity time gets rather warped as you approach the limit. And you start to realize that time is based upon the observers. It's why your clock going around the world was off a measurable amount (Hafele Keating experiment). It's why gps satellites need to have their times updated (time correction) and why muons in Frisch Smith experiment are more present at the top of Mt Washington then their half life decay in earths atmosphere and speed should allow.

So you as the observer continously accelerating would see the universe contracting as you would be able to reach all parts instantly once you reached the speed of light. So traveling from the sun to Pluto would be just as fast for you as traveling from one edge of the universe to the other.

Now me as the observer on earth you traveling from the sun to Pluto and back would take 11 hours and you traveling from one end of the universe to the other would be well beyond its heat death. It's why even if you have infinity energy you simply do not have enough time to get up to speed.

Far out. So no going back in time for us, just jumping forward in time. If you want to skip Monday just go fly at light-speed for a light-day and BAM for you it's Tuesday in the blink of an eye and you don't have to loose that day of your life like you would if you spent it sleeping!

That is... if ageing doesn't continue... Tell me oh one who is so knowledgable in the ways of Science (Monty Python reference), is time frozen for the travellers and their biological processes making them younger? Or is it perceptual only and they still age every minute of their journey?

And if time is theoretically frozen... how would their propulsion system, their machinery, their electronics function? An engine needs to expend energy to propel. if time has essentially stopped for it... it won't be able to expend any more energy to propel itself faster... or reverse thrust and slow itself down...?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

all of math's is foundationed on human perception. Think back to the ancient babalonians using feet & arms to measure then calculate area.
We can all agree that it's a bit of an oddity we take for granted, that our maths is applicable everywhere else - given that it's based off of our view. Mind blowing really. But "error carried forward" is something that really saved my butt plenty of times. You can still produce a right answer out of consistently incorrect original values, the answer will just be shifted by that error. When you consider math is linear and infinite on each end.... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3... It's not really a big deal, as long as it's all consistent.

Long story short; if bats could do math then their numbers may be very different than what we come up with. But theyd all be consistently different and exist in parallel to our calculations.

I really enjoy this consistent predictable error factor. In my younger years I was very interested in photography and with Digital came new advancements in how compact cameras could be. Lenses were able to be miniaturised in to form factors just not possible with chemical photography because Digital no longer needed the lens to produce a perfect image as films silver halides did.

A lens for a digital compact camera, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera, mirrorless (in comparison to SLRs) Compact System Camera and Mobile Phone camera etc produce a distorted image which lands on the sensor fish-eyed or barrel-lensed which the camera then in real-time photoshops back into the undistorted image you expect it to be, even before you take the image. Its the predictable designed error which can then be corrected accurately in every unit made which makes us think our imaging devices still have indexicality (a direct photonic link) with the subject being photographed where in fact the picture you see on the screen or in the viewfinder of those those cameras is more of a real-time simulation of the subject...

...if you want a close to real image, pick up a DSLR while they still exist as the viewfinders use mirrors you see the image as it passes through the lens in - their lenses are as close as we'll get to a true to true capture of the referent, but even then digital SLRs also have the feature to adjust the image taken to remove known consistent errors with lenses in their libraries, such as vignetting when zoomed in or using extreme apertures.

 

[Bambooza]

Far out. So no going back in time for us, just jumping forward in time. If you want to skip Monday just go fly at light-speed for a light-day and BAM for you it's Tuesday in the blink of an eye and you don't have to loose that day of your life like you would if you spent it sleeping!

That is... if ageing doesn't continue... Tell me oh one who is so knowledgable in the ways of Science (Monty Python reference), is time frozen for the travellers and their biological processes making them younger? Or is it perceptual only and they still age every minute of their journey?

And if time is theoretically frozen... how would their propulsion system, their machinery, their electronics function? An engine needs to expend energy to propel. if time has essentially stopped for it... it won't be able to expend any more energy to propel itself faster... or reverse thrust and slow itself down...?

Well given the half life of the particle means it would be hard to detect at mt Washington and yet it's very abundant that means for the particle time passes slower for it the us. Thus if you did manage to travel at the speed of light you would have no way to stop as no time would pass for you. The key would be to travel close to the speed of light so you could time when you should stop.

 

[Bambooza]

I really enjoy this consistent predictable error factor. In my younger years I was very interested in photography and with Digital came new advancements in how compact cameras could be. Lenses were able to be miniaturised in to form factors just not possible with chemical photography because Digital no longer needed the lens to produce a perfect image as films silver halides did.

A lens for a digital compact camera, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera, mirrorless (in comparison to SLRs) Compact System Camera and Mobile Phone camera etc produce a distorted image which lands on the sensor fish-eyed or barrel-lensed which the camera then in real-time photoshops back into the undistorted image you expect it to be, even before you take the image. Its the predictable designed error which can then be corrected accurately in every unit made which makes us think our imaging devices still have indexicality (a direct photonic link) with the subject being photographed where in fact the picture you see on the screen or in the viewfinder of those those cameras is more of a real-time simulation of the subject...

...if you want a close to real image, pick up a DSLR while they still exist as the viewfinders use mirrors you see the image as it passes through the lens in - their lenses are as close as we'll get to a true to true capture of the referent, but even then digital SLRs also have the feature to adjust the image taken to remove known consistent errors with lenses in their libraries, such as vignetting when zoomed in or using extreme apertures.

It's interesting to think there is a limit to how small the lens and digital sensor can be before they capture to few light photons.

 

[Talonsbane]

My best example of cause & effect is fairly simplistic, but periodically TESTified. If you drink enough fluids, eventually you'll need to pee.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Aloha good TESTies, today's topic is exploration of the following post which could easily spiral out of control over on the original thread so have at it here in The Outside:

The last Disney Star Wars movie

Need to put the latest brouhaha somewhere. https://apnews.com/article/mandalorian-gina-carano-lawsuit-lucasfilm-disney-37be85aeaa856492e3d5008add8e5100

testsquadron.com

“. . .many times it’s best to trick the audience into watching what you want to present. . .”

So, it doesn’t really matter what the audience wants. It’s what the creators want that matters. [...] delivering The Message.

Firstly:
To address the point of the matter - yes it's what the Creators want. Look at Star Citizen, all the publishers said "There is no audience for this, we can't spend money making it as no one will buy it". Yet here we are with an audience of 5 million+ backers and $674 million raised to date and real tangible progress in the art of computer games technology and development.

The publishers then released their own versions of the SC vision seeing the market present itself but with their publisher hand on the tiller based on what they know their audience wants, and these games have come and go with no lasting impact on the sector as we suspect SC is going to have. Yes, SC could still fall short of mainstream success, but it will achieve so much more than any Starfield or other such title because it already has: Innovative progression. Exactly what the Creator was looking for, for decades.

So perhaps the Star Wars example should be taken more as Publisher constraints and interference rather than the creator of a franchise choosing to make it X, Y or Z? When a business knows its audience and you are not part of it... you are not a member of the audience they are making the media for...


Secondly:
If this whole The Message concept is the case (which it may or may not be I have not to this point seen any evidence to support it beyond culture war conspiracy theories) - Someone with money, access, privilege and power enforcing their will on an unwilling demographic of the population...? This a story as old as the human race itself isn't it...? Examples from the past being real population impactful Slavery, Racism in the form of segregation and apartheid, Sexism in denying 50% of the population the vote until relatively recently... if "The Message" is actually a thing and the Star Wars Fandom really is being oppressed with a specific message of some kind... is there no trace of irony here about discontent considering recent history, progression away from those oppressions and what the core underpinnings of what the Star Wars story arc are actually about?

If you have a problem with the movies being lame because they stories being made are crap, fair enough a poor tale is a poor tale. If you have a problem with the message inside the stories regardless of how good/bad they are, it's possible you are exactly who the story was made for in the first place. (If "The Message" is indeed a thing)



The above two points are not gospel, they are not blanket and indeed in point 2 I have openly accepted I've seen no evidence that the core concept of it even exists so they may not even be based on reality. These are points to discuss and explore, and I welcome your input

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Howdy and welcome back to another episode of The Outside, today's philosophic topic:

"In a forum for a game set 930 years in the future, are current events irrelevant?"

Recent world events societal, social, political and humanitarian have a habit of creeping into topics in threads otherwise not about them, and while they are undeniably very important (if not sometimes against the forum rules in content like politics and religion), in the context of SC and the 'Verse does any of this philosophically speaking actually matter in so far as relevance goes?

For example 930 years ago from today 2024 is 1094. Dunno about anyone else but I can't sell you shit all about anything that happened anywhere in the 1090's.

It could be argued recording technologies are much more advanced today but I have media such as VHS and 110 film in my house from 1994 which I have no technology to view the contents of right now let alone 900 years in the future and some proprietary digital file formats from the 80's and early 90's are now obsolete and unreadable.

So will the 'Verse we play in know much more about today in 2024 than we know about 1094, and how relevant are current affairs in boards for a setting set so far in the future with that context in mind?

 

[Talonsbane]

Howdy and welcome back to another episode of The Outside, today's philosophic topic:

"In a forum for a game set 930 years in the future, are current events irrelevant?"

Recent world events societal, social, political and humanitarian have a habit of creeping into topics in threads otherwise not about them, and while they are undeniably very important (if not sometimes against the forum rules in content like politics and religion), in the context of SC and the 'Verse does any of this philosophically speaking actually matter in so far as relevance goes?

For example 930 years ago from today 2024 is 1094. Dunno about anyone else but I can't sell you shit all about anything that happened anywhere in the 1090's.

It could be argued recording technologies are much more advanced today but I have media such as VHS and 110 film in my house from 1994 which I have no technology to view the contents of right now let alone 900 years in the future and some proprietary digital file formats from the 80's and early 90's are now obsolete and unreadable.

So will the 'Verse we play in know much more about today in 2024 than we know about 1094, and how relevant are current affairs in boards for a setting set so far in the future with that context in mind?

The best I could remember while reading the above, was about The Battle of Hastings. So I looked it up & here's a blurb summary from Wikipedia.

"The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of William, the Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson, beginning the Norman Conquest of England. "

Bare in mind, that I was always a history buff while growing up, so things like this have stayed with me through the years.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

The best I could remember while reading the above, was about The Battle of Hastings. So I looked it up & here's a blurb summary from Wikipedia.

"The Battle of Hastings was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of William, the Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson, beginning the Norman Conquest of England. "

Bare in mind, that I was always a history buff while growing up, so things like this have stayed with me through the years.

Yeah, I searched the net for events in the specific year 1094, I found jolly bob-all except for a dude in Scotland along with his half-brother (and an army) invaded England, won the battle but then later got beat back to Scotland and killed and his half-brother then joined the bloke who killed his kin, and is named heir. And even then it didn't really make much sense as it was basically bulletpoints rather than a log of what went on.