I said to Sherine way back in 2013, when anyone who's 20 years old now was only 7 years old, that I wanted people to either use <redacted> in a short amount of time, or in a long amount of time. Not in a medium amount of time. This is one of those things that I said that I'm not entirely sure afterwards why I said it, like when I said, "Therefore, change is necessary."
I can speculate why I said I didn't want it to take a medium amount of time, but I won't bother. It should have been obvious that I preferred a short story, but presumably at some point a medium amount of time had passed, and at that point I preferred that it take longer than it already had. Perhaps this was around the time that I hid all of the posts after 2012. (Other than the ones that mentioned Demi Rose, which I might have deleted, as I said I would if she didn't share it.) So I can't exactly complain if takes "a longer time + 1 day", repeated an arbitrary number of times.
"If information is hidden or obscured, is the intention the same?" Someone's thoughts are usually hidden. What if they weren't?
Someone who values honesty should prefer outcomes where information being temporarily hidden leads to the same results as when information is known immediately.
And so, the question: is sadness negative happiness? If someone experiences sadness, is it like the total amount of happiness in their life being lower? If someone experiences 1000 days of minor happiness, experiencing 1 Happiness per day, and then learns something that causes them to experience 1000 Sadness, does it cancel out all the happiness?
This is about goals. Is the goal to experience the most Happiness? Or is the goal to maximize Happiness minus Sadness? When helping other people, which of these goals is better? This is not a situation where one expects to have both of these goals and they conflict, as with the explanation given in <redacted>.
The first goal, where one accounts only for Happiness, encourages people to live a long life. It also encourages deception. People often consider it difficult it feel more than one emotional state at a time; either they are happy, or they are sad, rarely both. So hiding a thing that could cause someone sadness can allow them to feel happy, even if they later learn the thing and are sad.
(Unrelated: I misheard the lyrics to Stratovarius - Millennium as "two hundred days, forevermore".)
Confidence: sometimes the benefit of confidence (and who would intentionally act in a way without a reason) is that being confident, and wrong, leads to others having a worse opinion of you.
It's possible that even when trying one's hardest, one cannot help a specific person. If the goal is, in fact, to help this person, then a switch from a projection of providing a small help to this person, to providing a small harm (close outcomes within the total possibility space, which ranges from "large help" to "large harm"), leads to a large change in behavior.
It can be difficult someone else to realize this is the explanation for a course of action. Some people think that if they truly try to help someone else, then of course they will be able to do it; that interactions where someone does not appear to try to help someone else are simply because they do not want to help that person. Along with helping others, a common motivation is to help the self (although the book, The Selfish Gene argues otherwise), and from this perspective, changes in behavior result instead from a switch in projection from a small help to the self, to a small harm to the self, rather than it being about helping or harming someone else. Someone who does not think it's possible for someone to be unable to help someone else may fail to understand some interactions.
I watched the drama I linked above, even though I said I wouldn't watch any dramas unless Imane <redacted>. As a vertical-form drama, it isn't something that seems intended to be watched together by multiple people. Someone who watches it is watching it by themselves. In several instances, the female lead acts in a way which might be confusing to someone who expects others to always act selfishly.
I don't expect that Demi Rose will <redacted>. I'm not emailing her, because it seems apparent that it would be better if I had high confidence in my evaluation of whether or not there is a government conspiracy. Right now I am, obviously, trying to avoid any actions that could seem helpful. Like when the admiral left the bridge and went to the front of the ship, after giving bad instructions. (I don't have any ability to give instructions, but if I would, then I not try to give bad instructions; I would just say <redacted>.) This is like how it seems clear that it would be better if I had high confidence in whether anyone is interested in me.
So, even if <redacted>, if nothing interesting happens then I can be confident that there's no government conspiracy. If, for example, Demi Rose's Like count on Chirp Club suddenly rose to above 18,430, or she said something even if it's not related to <redacted>, then a government conspiracy would also seem to likely. But if I emailed her, and then this happened (she said something on Chirp Club), then it would be unclear whether a government conspiracy exists.
Ok, I edited this, but now the edit isn't showing up. First time this has happened. If I hadn't gone in to edit this again, I wouldn't have noticed. Test.
First edit:
'Mi Mi Mi - โคโยตี้สาวสวย 2015 South Pro Caraudio Show[All I Ever Wanted, ?] [tanMWQs9yEw]-audio edit.txt'
Beats don't match chord at 575, 424
End before ~397.6
Maybe skip from 397.3 to 588.4, otherwise to 616
ffmpeg -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 395 -i "$in" -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 586 -i "$in" -vn -filter_complex "[0]atrim=end=2.3[t],[1]atrim=2.3,[t]acrossfade=d=0.1:c1=qsin:c2=qsin" -t 10 audio.WAV; ffplay audio.WAV
or 0.2 dur, or
ffmpeg -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 395 -i "$in" -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 586 -i "$in" -vn -filter_complex "[0]atrim=end=2.6[t],[1]atrim=2.3,[t]acrossfade=d=0.4:c1=qsin:c2=qsin" -t 10 audio.WAV; ffplay audio.WAV
Full, some volume adjustment
ffmpeg -seek_timestamp 1 -i "$in" -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 586 -i "$in" -vn -filter_complex "[0]atrim=end=397.6,volume=-1.6dB[t],[1]atrim=2.3,[t]acrossfade=d=0.4:c1=qsin:c2=qsin,volume=-0.5dB,astats" -b:a 120k audio.webm
Wrong, gives peak dB of 18:
ffmpeg -seek_timestamp 1 -i "$in" -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 586 -i "$in" -vn -filter_complex "[0]atrim=end=397.6,volume=-1.5dB[t],[1]atrim=2.3,volume='lerp(-2.2dB,-0.4dB,clip(t,30,31)):eval=frame',[t]acrossfade=d=0.4:c1=qsin:c2=qsin,astats" -b:a 120k audio.webm
Fixed:
ffmpeg -seek_timestamp 1 -i "$in" -seek_timestamp 1 -ss 586 -i "$in" -vn -filter_complex "[0]atrim=end=397.6,volume=-1.5dB[t],[1]atrim=2.3,volume='lerp(-2.2dB,-0.4dB,clip(max(t,0)-30,0,1)):eval=frame',[t]acrossfade=d=0.4:c1=qsin:c2=qsin,astats" -b:a 120k audio.webm
Second edit:
Xaryu Reacts to Warcraft III Cutscene - YouTube
Why did Jesus ask the Father to “let this cup pass from me”? | GotQuestions.org
WC3: https://youtu.be/IpKFsGiutZ0?t=876 story inspired by Native Americans
I said I couldn't complain since I preferred that <redacted> happen in a long length of time rather than a medium length of time, but am I complaining. I have several tabs open of YouTube videos (loaded without Javascript) that are, basically, about problems with World of Warcraft as it currently exists in various forms. I wasn't expecting to watch them since, if I didn't make this edit, they would just cause me to be unhappy as problems I can do nothing about because <redacted>. I'll just briefly link them:
Why Tanks Stop Tanking - YouTube (recent video, but probably similar to e.g. Why No One Wants to Tank in TBC Classic - YouTube while this is probably a comedy video, maybe very old: World of Warcraft: Who's the Tank? - YouTube)
You Can't Be Selfish in Classic WoW - YouTube (seems like it could be similar to these videos that I didn't watch: Why It's Rude to Suck at Warcraft - YouTube and Why It's Rude to Suck at Warcraft LIVE | PAX West 2024 - YouTube)
Everything Wrong With Classic WoW Comes Down To ONE Thing - YouTube
"My Vision For Classic Plus" -Xaryu - YouTube
Naxxramas Broke WoW Itemization FOREVER - YouTube
THE MOST HILARIOUS WORLD OF WARCRAFT ELECTION I'VE EVER WITNESSED - YouTube
I will briefly comment about the second-to-last video. Part of the intent was so that players could use the tier sets for raiding. The creator of the video has a helpful thumbnail (displayed when loading the page without Javascript, which is something that YouTube didn't do when it first switched to the new design ~10 years ago: no Javascript just meant a blank page) which clearly states his views, even if people don't help him by contributing watchtime. This creator is known for playing paladins in World of Warcraft. The Tier 2.5 set had 'hybrid' stats, which meant it was pretty good for PvP — though it didn't really support builds that relied on offensive abilities that scaled with spellpower, instead of physical damage stats — but paladins were not brought to raids for their offensive potential.
I actually remember a video from around 2006 where a paladin showed off their dps on the boss Patchwerk, but both an analysis of abilities and mechanics, and real data from raid logs makes it clear that paladins don't have the dps of warriors in Classic. The point is, some players were fine with being 'pidgeonholed' into a certain role, which for paladins was healing, just like it was for all hybrids except maybe feral druids. And they viewed itemization which allowed them to use the tier sets they got from raiding, to progress in raiding, rather than being forced to use non-set items, to be better. (607 characters, not as brief as a 140-character Tweet when Chirp Club launched.)
I'm fine with disregarding those videos. The video that I did try to watch was this one:
[107k views, at 15:35, 01 Jul 2026]WoW is too famous for its own good. - YouTube
I stopped when it seemed I would probably get too upset from continuing to watch it (I don't even remember exactly why at this point), as a problem I couldn't do anything about because <redacted>.
So it's reasonable to say that, if I were to die in my sleep today, the total amount of happiness I have experienced would be greater than if I had died in my sleep yesterday. I am not trying to make myself unhappy, and I largely succeed at this.
No comments:
Post a Comment