I have been designing a cartridge in the back of my brain, and if this could assist before I start letting magic smoke out of my c64 it would be awesome.

In an ideal world (yeah, I know), it should result in them being paid for what they actually do.

The failure of the demonstration got vastly more coverage than if it would have if the, um rock?, just hit the window, went donk and fell down. If your goal was to communicate to the maximum number of people that you had put bulletproof glass in your cars, it would be quite a reasonable tactic.

Tesla Q3 sales will be the same tomorrow.

It doesn't surprise me that any particular companies sales are down at the moment, how does Tesla compare to other car manufacturers out of interest.

If you extend your logic to expression of virtues in that manner, then you should fully accept the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist church as unoffensive.

That there are plenty of people prepared to add their own claims of moral deficiency to this thread makes it seem like there is certainly an atmosphere where a statement like that can be interpreted in that manner.

I have only been noting that declarations of position that come across as moral judgements of others can offend people.

On the other hand "All USA , no foreigners made this" might offend some.

"No Belgians were involved in making this product" might be found to be more offensive. Yet consistent with "100% Made in the USA".

The distinction is in what they are broadcasting with their message.

Would you think it reasonable for a mens health magazine to choose to not feature obese people on the cover?

But on the other hand,

Would you think it reasonable for people to feel singled out when they choose to make a public declaration that they will never put an obese person on the cover?

They are offended by your vitriol and the tone that suggests the claim is indisputable.

There is no double think there.

I should note that you changed the statement from say to consider themselves. It is entirely possible (and rather frequent) for people who do not consider themselves good at basketball to say that they are. People who actually are good at basketball quite often do not feel the need to say so, because it is apparent when they play.

I can change "consider themselves to be rationalists" to "say they are good at basketball" because that is just a change of premise. It leaves the structure the same.

Making a declaration that you are rejecting AI can come across as implying use of AI is a moral failing. There are certainly people who overtly claim it is a moral failing.

I think the people who are offended are perceiving this as as statement impugning their character.

You could say there is little overlap between people who are good at basketball and those who say they are good at basketball.

That statement does not have any effect on your ability to judge them by watching them play.

So it does depend on what you mean by rationalist.

I think it is vastly more likely that those who feel like everything they say is incredibly important might just be idiots who self identify as rationalists, and those who are rationalists are doing more thinking than broadcasting.

There was another thread yesterday about coding for the joy of it, I entirely support that too. I have written a few Dweets in my time, but the author of Littlejs is one of the masters of the form https://beta.dwitter.net/u/KilledByAPixel/top

Diversions are one of the most discouraged things ing game development. The most common advice to a starting developer is "Limit your scope" I think that advice might need some recalibration. If a developer has a neat idea for a thing, they might now be able to explore it and integrate it into a game over a few days instead of pausing the core game for several months so they develop an idea while their money runs out.

This shows people are using AI to make games that they know hardly anyone will play.

Making things for the joy of making them is wonderful to see.