TheJorro's recent activity

  1. Comment on Triumph of the Will and the cinematic language of propaganda in ~movies

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    Noah Gervais is almost entirely audio only, his videos are largely irrelevant to his audio. In terms of the rest, here's a rough sorting from most audio-only friendly to least: Action Button...

    Noah Gervais is almost entirely audio only, his videos are largely irrelevant to his audio.

    In terms of the rest, here's a rough sorting from most audio-only friendly to least:

    1. Action Button Reviews
    2. Jenny Nicholson
    3. Philosophy Tube
    4. Shaun
    5. Three Arrows
    6. Jacob Geller
    7. It's Lit
    8. Lindsay Ellis
    9. hbomberguy
    1 vote
  2. Comment on Triumph of the Will and the cinematic language of propaganda in ~movies

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    YouTube is pretty much the best platform for video essays, which is pretty much the only type of content I use YouTube for outside of tech shows like Linus Tech Tips or Digital Foundry. If you're...

    YouTube is pretty much the best platform for video essays, which is pretty much the only type of content I use YouTube for outside of tech shows like Linus Tech Tips or Digital Foundry.

    If you're interested, there are some other prominent YouTube channels that are either directly related to Folding Ideas and ContraPoints or operate around the same subject matter:

    Lindsay Ellis
    hbomberguy
    Shaun
    Jenny Nicholson
    Philosophy Tube
    Three Arrows

    Other good content of a similar vein but not as related:

    PBS' It's Lit (featuring Lindsay Ellis and Princess Weekes)
    Noah Gervais
    Jacob Geller
    Action Button Reviews

    3 votes
  3. Comment on 8K Gaming - Nvidia RTX 3090 on a LG ZX 88" OLED TV in ~tech

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    There are diminishing returns, of course, but the level of clarity offered by higher resolutions is the real prize. The best tell in this video is when Linus is examining the Doom Slayer model in...

    There are diminishing returns, of course, but the level of clarity offered by higher resolutions is the real prize. The best tell in this video is when Linus is examining the Doom Slayer model in the main menu and comparing it to the pedestal he's standing on. On lower resolutions (including 4K!), the difference isn't as noticeable but at 8K it becomes so because the level of clarity offered is so much higher that it's possible to tell what is of higher quality and what has been getting fuzzed over.

    It's a similar situation to what happened when film and television moved to HD by default. It used to be that anything smaller than a quarter would not be noticeable but then after people started getting higher resolutions, suddenly everything needed to be gone over with a fine tooth comb otherwise it would show up on screens clearly.

    Additionally, yeah, the level of aliasing goes down as the resolution goes up. I don't consider myself someone that needs the best graphics in the world but aliasing is one thing that really pulls me out. Some games have horrible aliasing that I can't stop seeing. There are a lot of hacky methods with modern games to try to address them but they're not 100% and often have tradeoffs. But a higher resolution solves the problem handily. Linus goes over this in the video pretty thoroughly too.

    I'm sitting here with a 144Hz 1080p display myself but I can't deny that the clarity and diminished aliasing of higher resolutions is something I'd love to have one day.

    3 votes
  4. Comment on Please don't say just hello in chat in ~tech

    TheJorro
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Oh no, sorry, I was just saying how I approach people who do this since I assume they're just uncomfortable with connecting with someone. I find that them testing the waters with "hello" is...

    Is there something in what I wrote that said you should be unfriendly about things?

    Oh no, sorry, I was just saying how I approach people who do this since I assume they're just uncomfortable with connecting with someone. I find that them testing the waters with "hello" is something that dissipates as relationships get built. It's extremely rare to get someone who still does it on the fifth or tenth interaction as things get more casual and we both realize the best ways to communicate with each other.

    Even today, since I made that comment, I've had to handle cold approaching people in IT and people in other groups, and there's such a night and day difference with responses. The non-IT person starts with casual conversation, the IT person is straight to business. Everyone responds differently but I find it's all about adapting to the other person. It's not so much about niceties and formats of communication so much as it is getting along with the other person on a personal level. Sometimes I get an IT person who wants to chat casually after the work is done because they like how I handled the actual work with them.


    I suppose it all depends on what the work is. I understand there's something called the "coding flow" that can take minutes to get into, and I've known people who lock themselves away from all communication to get certain stages of work done. For me, I treat their initial reach-out as figuring out the scope and urgency of the work, at which point we agree on a timeline, and then I can resume whatever planned work I have ahead of me.

    4 votes
  5. Comment on Please don't say just hello in chat in ~tech

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    It's not an anti-nerd thing in my experience, as I still am very much the nerd to everyone I deal with, but more of an anti-asshole thing. There are ways to present yourself where you can get your...

    It's not an anti-nerd thing in my experience, as I still am very much the nerd to everyone I deal with, but more of an anti-asshole thing. There are ways to present yourself where you can get your point and preferences across nicely or rudely, and a lot of people who feed the "egotistical jerk in IT" stereotype seem to believe that the message itself is the tone when that isn't true.

    6 votes
  6. Comment on Please don't say just hello in chat in ~tech

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    That the stereotypical IT tech bro subculture has gotten out of control within the company and that people are tired of it and the damage they cause with their rude behaviour. Things like this...

    That the stereotypical IT tech bro subculture has gotten out of control within the company and that people are tired of it and the damage they cause with their rude behaviour.

    Things like this don't cause this level of upset in a vacuum.

    5 votes
  7. Comment on Please don't say just hello in chat in ~tech

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    I hear this time argument a lot but I don't really see how it adds up. I get a lot of cold call messages like this in my role and it takes me all of half a second at most to say "Hey" back before...

    it's a waste of time, and notably is a waste of my time, which is precious to me.

    I hear this time argument a lot but I don't really see how it adds up. I get a lot of cold call messages like this in my role and it takes me all of half a second at most to say "Hey" back before I alt+tab or move to other work and then go back later when they've typed up their query. It's a signal of availability, not a matter of rapid-fire, military-precise timing (which, having worked under, is a very different situation with very different expectations and requires comm training for everyone involved).

    Even if it takes them hours to get back to me after, that's not my time being wasted. I wouldn't count those 10 or 14 hours as my time unless, for some reason, I was sitting there glued to that chat window waiting for a response. I have plenty else to spend my time on so no time is really lost, and if I'm at the point where I'm counting half-seconds as too much of my time, then there are much bigger problems.

    I guess my question is this: why do you see it is "not as polite" to include the greeting and the question on the same line?

    I don't think anyone suggested it wasn't as polite. Some people just aren't as comfortable sending out questions to people they don't know because they feel it's imposing or rude. I'd rather get them used to sending me questions immediately by being genial and friendly to their hesitation, not draconian about time.

    7 votes
  8. Comment on Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media, parent company of Bethesda, id Software, Arkane Studios, and more in ~games

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    There's been a lot of snafus with Bethesda's business side over the last decade (not to be confused with their development studio) between things like how the original Prey 2 situation played out,...

    There's been a lot of snafus with Bethesda's business side over the last decade (not to be confused with their development studio) between things like how the original Prey 2 situation played out, how Obsidian missed out on significant bonuses with Fallout: New Vegas, the paid mods situation, pretty much everything about FO76, and how they financed the various titles over the years (including DLCs).

    My immediate hope is that Microsoft will actually manage these better, based on how MS has really turned it around in the last couple of years when it comes to their own first-party output.

    6 votes
  9. Comment on Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media, parent company of Bethesda, id Software, Arkane Studios, and more in ~games

  10. Comment on Post editing etiquette in ~tildes

    TheJorro
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Okay, I see this entire thread is clearly targeted at me, in everything but name, while you also failed to respond to me on-subject in another thread so this is passive-aggressive on your part....
    • Exemplary

    Okay, I see this entire thread is clearly targeted at me, in everything but name, while you also failed to respond to me on-subject in another thread so this is passive-aggressive on your part.

    And you're lying.

    I was just getting annoyed at the fact I'd replied to a comment, when half of it was deleted - the half of it that I responded to.

    It was ONE SENTENCE. Look at my comment. By what right do you claim that one sentence that I removed for being unfair is half of my comment?

    I find it interesting how this is twice now that you've taken a fraction of a percent of a work and identified it as a major part of a work. Here you suggest one irrelevant sentence that I removed for being unfair was half my comment. In your comment to me in that thread, you also suggest that one early pithy sentence of the article that you falsely identify as sensationalist means the entire article is sensationalist.

    I even replied to you explaining why that read of the article is totally off-base, but you never responded. Instead you made this thread and these comments where you then apply that same type mischaracterized reading to my own comment. I find this behaviour of yours highly uncouth.

    Why are you repeatedly mischaracterizing other people's words and work like this?

    Now, for everyone's edification, here's the sentence that you claim is half of my comment (or some approximation of what it was because I deleted it):

    To me it seems like the only outrage happening here is from you and @thistle because you are both irate that people would choose to discuss something to the point that you're accusing the author of the opposite of his point, and accidentally agreeing with them as a result.

    I think a cursory look at my comment there would show that there is no way this sentence was half my comment, or even relevant to any points I actually did make or comment on there.

    I deleted that line from my comment yesterday because I thought that was an unfair thing to ascribe to you both. It did not relate to the rest of my comment (about how they had clearly not read the article) and it was something of a personal attack. You two seemingly identified outrage in an article where there wasn't any and perhaps I was wrong to say either of you were outraged, but I still find your comments both highly suspect for various reasons, which I went into detail about there and you have still failed to respond to, opting instead to do.... this.

    I also removed that line within mere seconds to minutes of posting. It's not like I went back an hour later and removed it, or even after you had commented. I must have removed that while you must have been mid-typing up your reply.

    I don't see why my removing that line is cause for you to go to such great lengths of... well, outrage. I even told you upfront I removed that line, so I was upfront with you the whole time as well, and yet here you are sneaking around as if some great insult has been thrown at you. This is totally unreasonable behaviour. I don't know why you feel so strongly that I keep a naked, unfounded accusation of you participating in outrage for the sake of it up.

    It's wild to me that you're far more interested if I called you outraged or not (and then edited that out of my comment) than you are in actually fairly addressing or discussing an article someone took the time to submit. Are you here to fairly and sincerely read and comment on other people's submissions at all?

    I would say it's good etiquette to remove such things from comments. The real bad etiquette that's happening here is:

    1. Your passive-aggressive edit in that other comment
    2. This passive-aggressive thread where you want to force your values on others
    3. Your consistent mischaracterization of what others are saying or have said

    Finally, I want to address this line in your passive-aggressive edit you made instead of actually responding to me properly, on-subject:

    BTW @TheJorro, normally good etiquette on websites which don't store comment edit history is to strikethrough bits that you want to remove,

    This website was built for users to have total control of their own content. I frequently edit my longer, my involved comments (such as this one) as my ideas change even after I post. I am upfront with people when they reply during that period if there has been a substantial change, as I was with you. I introduce disclaimers if a major part of my comment or argument has changed, which was not the case with that comment. Deal with it.

    6 votes
  11. Comment on Is the University of Edinburgh right to rename its David Hume Tower? in ~humanities

    TheJorro
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    FYI: I removed that callout line and rejigged the ending a bit because I felt I was being unfair. The language you're identifying there is such a miniscule part of the overall article. Writers...

    FYI: I removed that callout line and rejigged the ending a bit because I felt I was being unfair.

    The language you're identifying there is such a miniscule part of the overall article. Writers often don't get a say in the headline, and that sentence is referring to Hume going from celebrated British philosopher to being labelled a racist via placards. That's the fall from grace it's referring to, and it's "astonishing" only because of who it is and what his place is in the British philosophical canon.

    Regardless, it's such a tiny part of the article that isn't anywhere near what is actually being argued or said. The vast, vast majority of this article's writing is not sensational at all, and none of the writer's actual argument is. All the quotes I posted above, for example, don't seem sensationalist and those are probably some of the most important bits of it.

    Do you not find it odd that the comment you're replying to is actually in total agreement with the article but is portrayed as "I don't care about this cancel culture shit and the author is just so full of outrage, I bet he'd try to cancel Heidegger" even though the argument is completely about not throwing out someone's professional achievements with their personal views?

    My problem with both your notions of "who gives a shit" is that it's disrespectful to people that may actually want to think about this (after all, someone thought this would be interesting to share and the least people can do is read it and give it a fair comment, not "I don't give a shit about this and neither should you"), and in this case it's also unfounded since you're both agreeing with the author anyway. This is an article that gives a shit in exactly the way you both want to, and yet the guns are pre-loaded coming in to dismiss it because of a mistaken assumption of what it's actually about.

    I don't see what possible value there is in coming into a comment section specifically to express such disdain and disinterest when it only serves to provide more attention and sensationality. I don't think this article is emotional or sensational at all but I feel more emotions coming out of these responses to it (that also falsely ascribe those same high emotions to the relatively emotionless article). I don't go to an Imagine Dragons concert and ask all their fans why they like the band, that just seems like I'm trying to be as upset as possible and am going out of my way to make myself miserable while also giving them attention by virtue of attending and participating in their event.

    2 votes
  12. Comment on Is the University of Edinburgh right to rename its David Hume Tower? in ~humanities

    TheJorro
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    I'm sorry but did we read the same article? 635 of the 1098 words are not about this at all. It's actually arguing for the same thing you are here. It says so in the sub-head, right under the...
    • Exemplary

    I'm sorry but did we read the same article?

    635 of the 1098 words are not about this at all. It's actually arguing for the same thing you are here. It says so in the sub-head, right under the title. In fact, the concluding paragraph of the article says almost the same thing you did:

    So before abolishing or renaming memorials to those who have views that offend or even distress us, maybe we should instead challenge our understanding of what such memorials are for. They are not there to encourage hero worship, to elevate certain figures above criticism. They are there to remind us of what made certain people great, without asking us to forget the their all-too human flaws.

    The first 463 words are just the context and premise of the actual argument.

    Also:

    I wonder if the author would be similarly outraged the renaming of something commemorating Martin Heidegger, an important 20th century philosopher and proud Nazi Party member.

    Um... this author is pretty level-headed to the point of being anti-outraged (and that's pretty much the point of this essay in the first place: encouraging a level-headed approach to problematic historical figures that separates work from personality) and you seem to be accidentally agreeing with them anyway. It's pretty clear the author would argue that praise for his science is not praise for his politics. There's a good 175 words dedicated to finding a method to do it too:

    The idea that the dead should get a free pass on prejudice because they are “products of their time” is too permissive. But the idea that they should be judged entirely by today’s, justifiably higher standards is too harsh. It would leave virtually all the dead condemned.

    A middle way is to ask whether in praising a person’s achievements we are inevitably praising their prejudices too. Colston would fail this test. Subtract slavery from his biography and you are left with nothing. His “achievements” and his racism are inextricably linked.

    However, many others pass the test. Plato and Aristotle both lived in a city state that was run on slave labour. In an important sense, they depended on slave labour to produce their work. But it is also true that virtually every British writer of the 19th and early 20th century was a beneficiary of empire. That does not mean their work is imperialistic. Similarly, 99 per cent of the work of the ancient Athenians is completely detachable from the slavery that made it possible.

    12 votes
  13. Comment on Supergiant's Hades has exited Early Access, currently 20% off in ~games

  14. Comment on Emily Ratajkowski - Owning my image in ~design

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    There's a ton about this out there and I haven't read enough to begin summarizing it accurately but there is a large movement in the arts communities that has realized that art and art criticism...

    There's a ton about this out there and I haven't read enough to begin summarizing it accurately but there is a large movement in the arts communities that has realized that art and art criticism produced or approved of by white men has been overrepresented to the detriment of other perspectives and viewpoints for a long time, which many women and people of colour have felt the pointed ends of.

    It's a common enough thing that it's been lampooned quite well a few times.

    This isn't a new notion either, one can easily look back at how the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen were received popularly at their time, or read what Mary Wollenstonecraft had to say about how the sexes were treated in regards to art.

    In this case, it's worth reading the material surrounding the quoted part because it shows that Ratajowski feels pressured to accept it as art because of who and what it is even though her initial response is quite different. It's not quite "white man art" of an argument but the sentiments she discusses do trend towards that particular line of thought in how she feels pressured to accept it as art immediately.

    5 votes
  15. Comment on Scientific American endorses Joe Biden: We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now in ~science

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    Well... what has he not been bad at?

    What perspective is being counted as "objective"?

    Well... what has he not been bad at?

    2 votes
  16. Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    You're right in this, the games were designed differently. THPS didn't have manuals originally so lines were generally a lot shorter unless you could find some way to link things up. THPS2 was the...

    You're right in this, the games were designed differently. THPS didn't have manuals originally so lines were generally a lot shorter unless you could find some way to link things up. THPS2 was the first game with manuals but had a design that was essentially a refined version of the first game's. THPS3 was the first to really start introducing long, unbroken lines throughout all the levels.

    4 votes
  17. Comment on AVIF has landed in ~comp

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    I think that first comparison is equal quality comparison, or at least it's supposed to be. When you use the pop-out comparison, the original format seems to be a 498kb version AVIF. It looks...

    I think that first comparison is equal quality comparison, or at least it's supposed to be. When you use the pop-out comparison, the original format seems to be a 498kb version AVIF. It looks better than the 74kb JPEG, which effectively changes the road to be grainer, static, and with banding but that's the only significant difference. The 28kb AVIF is definitely much worse than both but at least better quality than anything else near its filesize.

    I guess the takeaway from this is that AVIF is best when you really, really need to get the smallest file sizes.

  18. Comment on The Xbox Series S will launch for $299 USD on November 10 in ~games

    TheJorro
    Link Parent
    I'm so curious to see how the Xbox versions will be received by the general public via retail. I've long held a theory that a big factor of the Wii U's failure was its confusing naming scheme...

    I'm so curious to see how the Xbox versions will be received by the general public via retail. I've long held a theory that a big factor of the Wii U's failure was its confusing naming scheme (alongside terrible visual marketing), this will be the second (and probably weirder) opportunity to see that play out.

    3 votes
  19. Comment on So you’re still being publicly shamed in ~tech

    TheJorro
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    You took 29 words out of a 659 word comment in order to respond to something completely out of context. You ignored all the other examples actually provided in that comment to insert this notion...

    You took 29 words out of a 659 word comment in order to respond to something completely out of context.
    You ignored all the other examples actually provided in that comment to insert this notion that wasn't at all being referenced in the original comment, which was pretty clear about what kinds of examples were in discussion.

    And you did it all to imply that that person is okay with someone committing suicide.

    How is your comment an argument that's not in extremely bad faith?

    EDIT: @JackA I reported that comment for the exact reason here. If you'd like transparency, then here it is. This wasn't about shutting down opposing viewpoints, it was about shutting down falsely portraying what someone's position was to the point that you edit what they're really saying to imply that they're okay with making someone else kill themselves. I reported no other comments in this thread, and no other "opposing viewpoints" have been removed.

    6 votes