@nprofile1q... uohhh

simplest possible "terraria-like": (placeholder name libreworld, a pun on "open-world")

- `libreworld-gen [options] > world.bmp`
-> libreworld writes a bitmap to stdout
-> one byte per pixel, but only ~10 materials are actually used during worldgen
- air
- dirt
- stone
- sand
- snow
- wood
- leaves
- a couple types of ore
-> rest of the palette is for craftables.
- `libreworld-play [options] player.scm world.bmp`
-> loads player.scm (you'll see) into world.bmp
-> now the game handles all the important stuff like loading chunks, letting the user deform the world (with structural diffs), spawning and managing entities, and of course actually rendering the world as tiles rather than pixels.
-> things like "material "chest" occupies its own block and two blocks to its right" is defined here
-> things like "sand falls" and "water flows" is also defined here
- `player.scm`
-> inventory, equipment, whatever else is defined here

game core implemented in c, with performance non-critical parts and extension, config, modding, etc. implemented in s7 scheme. "business model" (to borrow a term from non-gratis software) is basically luanti: depend on community to make extensions that play nice with each other.

can't wait for the math hellthread on the fedi.
>these niggers have never heard of wheel theory
>axhually, in non-euclidean spa-- ACK!
>thread theme: binaural beats for sleep
>i heil constructivism you stupid formalist kikeslaves.
>guys i think ramanujan might have been a jeet

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... >blane
blane.png

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... i suppose i latched onto the word "equality," yes. but can you blane me?

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q...
>equal opportunity to [found a nation]
what do you mean by this?
>i should get to do this thing my ancestors did while fighting a war on three fronts viz. against barbarians, the unrelenting reality of scarce resources, and the human condition itself
>but i should not be impeded by any other human being in this goal
?
>equal opportunity to speak on the affairs of your society
this is plainly a mutex with the former point. if you can found your own nation, and you choose not to, you should absolutely be subject to whatever the norms of conduct are in your own nation.

overall i tend to agree with you:
>it is natural to say the fourteen words with s/white/$RACE/ for your race
>societies founded on that basis will be much healthier
>it is wise for a society to permit people who have stake in it to complain, not only because of that stake but because of local knowledge, personal insight, etc.

but i think framing this as equality is a fatal mistake. that word is a wedge that will be used to widen and deepen these beliefs as they transmit from generation to generation.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... what does that mean? equal opportunity to do what? and what group is made equal? everybody on earth, only men, only people above 5'7'', all vertebrates?

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q...
>Largely irrelevant. I am saying that, say, a business venture's success should depend on the skill of the person running it, rather than some external force shutting it down because it's not diverse enough.
i agree! i want warlords to rape, torture and publicly execute everybody who tries to exert influence over affairs which are not their own.
>Incorrect. Equal opportunity is given to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, or to reject Him and be left in a godless world of endless suffering.
wrong, e.g. the sentinel island tribals or pre-european amerindian tribes.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q...
you're the one playing word games.
you call yourself an advocate of equality. are you saying people are equal, or that they are not but ought to be? if the former, you are plainly wrong. if the latter, you are destructively wrong; how will you make them.equal?

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... affirmative action is the most equal thing possible, actually.
either your "equality" is descriptive ("something, something, therefore i deduce that everybody has the same opportunities."), in which case simple observation reveals your thesis to be false (a drug addict is not a billionaire, a chinese guy is not russian).
or it is prescriptive ("i observe that people are not equal, but they ought to be") in which case something must take you from now to equality-land. what is that levelling force? what is the appropriate "power", in some social political analogue of watts, to expend on the levelling engine?
the left's answer is "infinity!". if you like equality, this is the maximally good answer.
yours, however, is "less than infinity! somewhere short of infinity!"
with the left, the disagreement ends there. i have no further questions for them, and can proceed to fighting them.
but with you i must ask: where is that line? and why?

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... equal opportunity does not exist in nature. no two creatures have equal opportunity to eat, mate, or locomote. in a classical family, two sons do not have equal opportunity to inherit the estate, and daughters have no opportunity since they have no stake in inheritance.
"opportunity" is as much a meaningless buzzword as "equality". ultimately, whether you call it fortuna or gratia, there is something your rational human mind cannot flatten into a material explanation, which has authority material conditions.
equality in the mathematical sense is also a relation i.e. there must exist two or more things that are equal to one another. are all christians equal? all adults? all men? all humans? all people within a territory?
and furthermore, in the above sense, equality is descriptive. if you insist things are equal which in fact are not, you are 1) plainly wrong, 2) will sooner or later realize this, and thus 3) will apply some coercive levelling force to bring together what nature deemed ought to be apart.
all calls for equality are sedition.
i anticipate a few objections:
- "equality of dignity" : a person affords dignity to another. you have no authority over what dignity A affords B, that is A's authority alone.
- "equality of worth" : worth, too, is subjective. furthermore, it exists in a transitive hierarchy, the very opposite of equality. i would rather have a solid brick of gold than a carton of rotten eggs. i would rather marry this girl than that one. i would rather save this man from a fire than that one.
- "the state ought not value one man over another" : the state ought not exist
- "the law, then" : false, the law ought to be bayesian. if a group is associated with more thefts and fewer murders, the judges' priors must rest accordingly. even for specific individuals, past behavior predicts future behavior.
- "equal dignity before heaven" : false, every religion sees its god/s discern this man from that man, this people from that people, this lineage from that lineage. often as better/worse.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... equality is a false idol and democracy is a false god.