Eric recently said he'd be giving some new screenshots soon.
FIA Esports Survey
A survey from the FIA asking what role e-sports plays in sim racing and what role you play in it. Also in which racing simulators you play more and which racing simulator you want to see in e-sports competitions (I think you know the answer to that one
)
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z5RSMZG
)https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z5RSMZG
I don't know much about it but I have crazy idea. I'm not entirely sure if this will work, but if it is, it's a solution to the problem.
It requires two conditions.
1. If the author of the LFSLazy wants its functionality to be part of the game
2. If the developers want the LFSLazy functionality to be part of the game. (I bet the players clearly want to)
Then the author of LFSLazy puts his code on github or something under free access CC0, or GNU or whichever is better (not sure) And then Scawen can integrate it into the game.
As a result, no one's rights are violated and players have the desired functionality. Everybody's happier, right?
But I'm not sure how it would work on part when code putting it out publicly wouldn't it violate the LFS license? And is there any possibility to pass only those parts that the author of LFSLazy added in the code. And if its not, maybe, only members of the repository can see the code, although it will not be a free license anymore.
In general, it is necessary to transfer the code without violating anyone's rights. Is there a solution to this?
It requires two conditions.
1. If the author of the LFSLazy wants its functionality to be part of the game
2. If the developers want the LFSLazy functionality to be part of the game. (I bet the players clearly want to)
Then the author of LFSLazy puts his code on github or something under free access CC0, or GNU or whichever is better (not sure) And then Scawen can integrate it into the game.
As a result, no one's rights are violated and players have the desired functionality. Everybody's happier, right?
But I'm not sure how it would work on part when code putting it out publicly wouldn't it violate the LFS license? And is there any possibility to pass only those parts that the author of LFSLazy added in the code. And if its not, maybe, only members of the repository can see the code, although it will not be a free license anymore.
In general, it is necessary to transfer the code without violating anyone's rights. Is there a solution to this?
I agree that xrg and xrt need to be updated, and that goes for every other car except the rb4. but Eric is working on Tracks right now.
In theory is it possible to make your mod under LFS Vehicle License, and then Eric can use that mod as an update for LFS official vehicle so he doesn't have to spend his time on modeling and texturing?
In theory is it possible to make your mod under LFS Vehicle License, and then Eric can use that mod as an update for LFS official vehicle so he doesn't have to spend his time on modeling and texturing?
Yes, it dilutes the topic and is something that needs to be avoided. But I didn't bring in philosophy, logic and Occam's razor into this thread. Avraham needed that to discuss global warming for some reason. And all I have done each time is clearly show that he doesn't understand anything about the above topics. And then I would get accusations that I was going off topic or engaging in sophistry. It's a convenient position, but how if I wasn't the one who introduced these topics here?
I don't think we should introduce topics that don't contribute to the global warming discussion, especially if you don't understand anything about them.
Now there's a good topic about nuclear power and environmental pollution. Saying we should not litter and segregate trash are pretty trivial things. But still not in my country and many others. So it's still a problem.
I won't pretend to be an expert in nuclear and thermonuclear power field, because I don't understand much about it.
But we know from history that there are some risks associated with nuclear power plant accidents. They are less danger of such incidents now with the increase in safety, but I think its are non-zero probability that something bad might happen again. And there is splent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, as far as I know it's stored in special pools that are quite safe. So, as long as there are no accidents, nuclear power plants are really the best sources of electricity in terms of ecology and efficiency. When it comes to environmentally friendly sources, that have no emissions there are we still have solar energy, wind and hydro energy. And I don't think we need to forget about them.
I can't say much about thermonuclear reactors, and as far as I know they don't exist as practical working models. They still exist as experimental prototypes. So there's not much to say for now. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : Spelling fixed
And of course, you won't provide any proof of what you say.
I didn't think you were on so massive copium...that because I beat you in an argument, you're gonna follow me around the forums to try to get at me. It's pathetic.
But I don't care about you. So how about you just accept the situation and move on?
I think it's just a on and off switch.
Automatic modes can be made in LFS Editor optionally with a switch between the first and second option. But not both at the same time. Because the first automatic mode simulates electric lighting. And the second one simulates luminous paint like on dashes on old cars.
Edit: Although there are probably cars with dashes that have luminous paint and an electric lighting at the same time, but it still for LFS Editor.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
I just thought so because there was a link from the test patch thread.
I just thought so because there was a link from the test patch thread.
I don't want to tell you what you need to do. But I think dashboard lighting is something that makes sense when it's nighttime. And nighttime is planned for the dev version with graphics and physics. And probably it will look different with the new shaders and bloom effect and that will have to change again. Specially if its not easy to implement. So maybe it's better to do the dashboard lighting on the development version?
😆
Keep coping and following my posts.
Keep coping and following my posts.
I pointed out at the end of my comment that all my questions were rhetorical except one. That is, I only asked you to answer one question and I again got a huge longread of thesis substitutions and all the other logical fallacies I listed earlier. I don't know why you would waste so much time if you could just answer one question. But this time you were quoting to what you were answering. Even though there were no substantive answers there, it already shows that you are capable of responding in a structured way.
Instead, you decided to make another meaningless statement while referring to logic and not understanding the essence of my question. (or deliberately not answering) There is no logical formalisation according to formal semantics in your quote. And there's not even a logial inference there.
Again you don't understand what logic is. And you're making up your own. So you're just arbitrarily using words.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. A statement in mathematical logic is a sentence expressing a judgement. If the statement is true, it is said to be true if the judgement that constitutes the content (meaning) of a certain statement.Similarly, a statement that is an expression of a false judgement is called false. The truth and falsity are called the logical, or truth values of statements. A statement must be a narrative sentence, and is contrasted with imperative, question, and any other sentence whose truth or falsity cannot be evaluated.
In terms of the depth of analysis of statements, a distinction is made between the logic of statements, or propositional logic, and First-order logic, which includes quantifier theories. Unlike the logic of predicates, the logic of statements studies types of reasoning that do not depend on the internal structure of simple sentences. First-order predicate logic is extended by higher-order logics. I would credit your answer if you answered within the framework of any of these logics. But instead you just don't understand what you are talking about and you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use as usual.
I would have counted your answer as correct if you had simply reduced logic to the generally recognisable Aristotelian laws of logic, even if it was a very outdated and primitive understanding of logic. But you didn't even do that. You apparently don't even know about the 4 laws of logic, since you have constantly violated them. In particular, the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason.
You have substituted the concept as usual. This continues in the rest of your replies to me, like on this example. I think we should agree to disagree so we don't waste each other's time anymore.
Instead, you decided to make another meaningless statement while referring to logic and not understanding the essence of my question. (or deliberately not answering) There is no logical formalisation according to formal semantics in your quote. And there's not even a logial inference there.
Again you don't understand what logic is. And you're making up your own. So you're just arbitrarily using words.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. A statement in mathematical logic is a sentence expressing a judgement. If the statement is true, it is said to be true if the judgement that constitutes the content (meaning) of a certain statement.Similarly, a statement that is an expression of a false judgement is called false. The truth and falsity are called the logical, or truth values of statements. A statement must be a narrative sentence, and is contrasted with imperative, question, and any other sentence whose truth or falsity cannot be evaluated.
In terms of the depth of analysis of statements, a distinction is made between the logic of statements, or propositional logic, and First-order logic, which includes quantifier theories. Unlike the logic of predicates, the logic of statements studies types of reasoning that do not depend on the internal structure of simple sentences. First-order predicate logic is extended by higher-order logics. I would credit your answer if you answered within the framework of any of these logics. But instead you just don't understand what you are talking about and you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use as usual.
I would have counted your answer as correct if you had simply reduced logic to the generally recognisable Aristotelian laws of logic, even if it was a very outdated and primitive understanding of logic. But you didn't even do that. You apparently don't even know about the 4 laws of logic, since you have constantly violated them. In particular, the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason.
You have substituted the concept as usual. This continues in the rest of your replies to me, like on this example. I think we should agree to disagree so we don't waste each other's time anymore.
Yes this patch is already good enough, you can just publish it that would be functional for all players to fully switch to the development version with graphics and physics. I think it would be better for everyone. Thank for your work!
It's true, I also don't suggest many things, because the developed update with graphics and physics is much more important, and should be a priority imao.
So you keep the dialogue going. Okay. But why if you're not answering to my thesis? To make even more substitutes for my theses with your own and demolish them. Convenient.
As usual you don't respond to anything I've said. But unlike you, I don't do that.
And I have a superpower that you don't have. I can respond to an opponent's thesis.
Can you give the logical formula for this statement? Either you don't understand anything about logic, which means you're talking bullshit (as you showed earlier).
And I question any sources, especially those that are not subject to any verification and falsification. But as my quote says, this source contains conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence. (strong or weak) any probabilistic conclusion is an inductive argument.
How come I can't access it if you provided the links yourself. Let's say you don't want to understand what I'm writing to you. But do you even understand what you're writing?
I've already said that it only contains probability conclusions. Which is a reduction to induction.
You're talking about yourself. I have often noticed in the course of the dialogue that you like to project your mistakes onto others. That's exactly what's happening now.
I didn't say anything about that, it's another thesis of yours that you substitute for the logical fallacy I mentioned in your other yours theses. It is convenient to do this when you do not respond to the theses of the interlocutor, but invent something of your own.
And saying that something is the "most probable" is an inductive argument. Again...
Yes, and that's why you call a man that you know nothing about a child who needs to go back to school..It's very responsible and humble and there's nothing personal about it.
You lie and commit thesis substitutions (strawmen), appeal to authority and majority as an argument, and others such logical fallacies that I pointed out earlier.
At the same time when you were talking complete rubbish I still tried to respond to you with respect. But if you don't want to communicate with respect, why should I? But I'm still trying, though. I find it harder each time I respond to disrespect with respect.
Ohhh... This means that you don't have to answer the interlocutor's questions and theses. You can instead make up your own and answer them. I see how that works for you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it. I consider it a matter of respect in a discussion to respond to questions and to specific thesis.
You yourself mention probabilistic inference and logic here. In the same comment you talk about "kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments" You're the one talking about deduction and induction here. What is wrong with you? Or do you not understand at all what you are talking about?
Once again, you are once again dissing your own knowledge of philosophy.
Inductive argument is an assertion that uses assumptions or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty which leads to probabilistic conclusions. They are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from known premises is true.
Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Premises are offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
In other words reasoning by induction are assessed as strong or weak - as more or less probable.
And deduction as valid or invalid - as in formal logic.
That is you yourself constantly talk about logic, but you never make any logical deductions yourself and only make attempts at inductive arguments. Which is what I keep pointing out. Which makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Over and over again. All questions except the first about the logical formula are rhetorical. I still give you a chance to prove that you understand what you are talking about and I will try not to make any unambiguous conclusions in advance. But answering questions and my theses is what is hard to expect from you.
As usual you don't respond to anything I've said. But unlike you, I don't do that.
And I have a superpower that you don't have. I can respond to an opponent's thesis.
Can you give the logical formula for this statement? Either you don't understand anything about logic, which means you're talking bullshit (as you showed earlier).
And I question any sources, especially those that are not subject to any verification and falsification. But as my quote says, this source contains conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence. (strong or weak) any probabilistic conclusion is an inductive argument.
How come I can't access it if you provided the links yourself. Let's say you don't want to understand what I'm writing to you. But do you even understand what you're writing?
I've already said that it only contains probability conclusions. Which is a reduction to induction.
You're talking about yourself. I have often noticed in the course of the dialogue that you like to project your mistakes onto others. That's exactly what's happening now.
I didn't say anything about that, it's another thesis of yours that you substitute for the logical fallacy I mentioned in your other yours theses. It is convenient to do this when you do not respond to the theses of the interlocutor, but invent something of your own.
And saying that something is the "most probable" is an inductive argument. Again...
Yes, and that's why you call a man that you know nothing about a child who needs to go back to school..It's very responsible and humble and there's nothing personal about it.
You lie and commit thesis substitutions (strawmen), appeal to authority and majority as an argument, and others such logical fallacies that I pointed out earlier.
At the same time when you were talking complete rubbish I still tried to respond to you with respect. But if you don't want to communicate with respect, why should I? But I'm still trying, though. I find it harder each time I respond to disrespect with respect.
Ohhh... This means that you don't have to answer the interlocutor's questions and theses. You can instead make up your own and answer them. I see how that works for you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it. I consider it a matter of respect in a discussion to respond to questions and to specific thesis.
You yourself mention probabilistic inference and logic here. In the same comment you talk about "kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments" You're the one talking about deduction and induction here. What is wrong with you? Or do you not understand at all what you are talking about?
Once again, you are once again dissing your own knowledge of philosophy.
Inductive argument is an assertion that uses assumptions or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty which leads to probabilistic conclusions. They are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from known premises is true.
Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Premises are offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
In other words reasoning by induction are assessed as strong or weak - as more or less probable.
And deduction as valid or invalid - as in formal logic.
That is you yourself constantly talk about logic, but you never make any logical deductions yourself and only make attempts at inductive arguments. Which is what I keep pointing out. Which makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Over and over again. All questions except the first about the logical formula are rhetorical. I still give you a chance to prove that you understand what you are talking about and I will try not to make any unambiguous conclusions in advance. But answering questions and my theses is what is hard to expect from you.
Speak for yourself. If you are done with the dialogue then don't mention and dont lie about me.
Why are you always so fond of substituting what others tell you? Why not just respond to actual theses or questions, and making up strawmans instead?
I never said what I'm saying "scientific truth" Whatever that means.
On AGW, I was just saying that it's the most likely, but we don't have definitive proof of AGW.
On the dangers of GW in the future. All I said was that I don't have enough data to accurately predict the future. But you know exactly what the future holds. And that's what concerns me. And that's it. Stop lying about what I'm saying.
All you're offering at best (when you're not lying, or making logical fallacies which happens quite a lot in this thread apparently by excellent philosophical education) is an attempt to make an inductive argument. All I'm saying is that an inductive argument is not necessarily true. Only a deductive argument is have truth value.
I don't understand what you're talking about, if you're talking about tidal forces from the moon, then the fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth just reduces those forces.
Yes, Tidal forces do not only operate in ocean waters. Tidal waves are also formed in the Earth's crust and mantle. But due to the intractability of the Earth's crust, the amplitude of these "solid" waves is much lower than the amplitude of ocean tidal waves, and their length, on the contrary, is many thousands of kilometres. So the "solid" tidal waves run in the Earth's crust with almost no resistance, and the associated braking moment of forces (and the resulting deceleration of the Earth and acceleration of the Moon) is much smaller.
So I don't see how moving the moon away from the earth can generate more heat, rather the opposite. But it's a very long process. And which is unlikely to be synchronised with existing global warming.
In fact, the Earth is not a perfect sphere. Because of diurnal rotation it is flattened at the poles; the heights of the continents are different, the shape of the surface is distorted by tidal deformations.
So if there were no tides now, the shape of the Earth is still not perfectly spherical. If the Earth were entirely covered by an ocean and not subject to the tidal effects of other celestial bodies and other such disturbances, it would have the shape of a geoid. In reality, the Earth's surface can vary considerably from geoid in different places. To better approximate the surface, the concept of a reference ellipsoid is introduced, which coincides well with the geoid only at some part of the surface. Geometric parameters of reference ellipsoids differ from those of the average terrestrial ellipsoid, which describes the Earth's surface as a whole.
I have a question. Does LFS have rider weight control on the bikes? In reality, rider leans to better pass the corner. We've had a bit of an argument on social media. Some people think that the non-visual leaning of the rider happens in sync with the steering axes. Some people think there's no rider weight control in the LFS.
And if it's not there, then why not?
And if it is, can it be optionally made into a separate control?
And also add forward/backward leaning for stunts.
And if it's not there, then why not?
And if it is, can it be optionally made into a separate control?
And also add forward/backward leaning for stunts.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Bike handling has changed a lot, before I could not really ride bikes, I was constantly falling, at low speeds there was a wobble, and now even I can go fast. The controls now are much easier, and more predictable, thank you! Great bike update!
But overall it was amusing to watch a man who presents himself as a philosopher talk rubbish about Occam's Razor. It was clear from the way he put it in out of place that the person did not understand what he was talking about. I even set up one test and purposely gave him the opportunity to break down his argument with the usual deductive arguments. But it wasn't noticed. I didn't expect otherwise, though.
All I'm saying is that people should at least try to follow the rules of argumentation and make deductive arguments, not reduce everything they have to induction. I think anyone who has taken philosophy 101 (or any basic philosophy course) understands the problem of induction and that only deductive arguments are valid.
I urge you all to raise the level of discourse to an adequate level that assumes at least some reasoning behind what you are saying.
All I'm saying is that people should at least try to follow the rules of argumentation and make deductive arguments, not reduce everything they have to induction. I think anyone who has taken philosophy 101 (or any basic philosophy course) understands the problem of induction and that only deductive arguments are valid.
I urge you all to raise the level of discourse to an adequate level that assumes at least some reasoning behind what you are saying.
I'm not even going to start reading this longread, because as I said earlier you can't provide arguments and maintain an adequate level of discourse and apparently all you can do is stoop to appeals to personality and\or insults.
I was talking about only your false statement and I have clearly proven why it is false. This is exactly what the believers in the inevitable prediction of a terrible future in this topic are unable to do. Prove your own statements or prove others' statements false. All I see here are empty theses without any proof in this thread.
In order for us to understand each other, we need to formulate our thoughts correctly. Otherwise, instead of dialogue, you get nonsense.
I've already noticed that you like to substitute your thesis. And to argue with and defeat a straw man that you made up yourself. But why you do it in literally every post you make? Isn't it more interesting to argue with the theses of your opponents? And the fact that you also substitute the thesis of all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for didn't bother you at all. Well, either you did it deliberately
1. Let's start with the fact that no one has denied the advances of science. Nor has anyone denied global warming in this thread.
2. Theory does not equal practice. Graphs, correlations and predictions of the future do not equal a working and functioning system in reality. Do you know what the Law of identity is? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be talking such nonsense.
3. Doubt is first and foremost what scientists themselves do, and that is why they verify and falsify their claims, hypotheses and theories. Read what scientific scepticism is. But when it comes to climate change, suddenly everyone is an expert. Who know exactly what's going to happen in the future.
But I don't know. If you're such great fortune tellers. Tell me, for example, which lottery ticket to buy to win a lot of money.
looks great! Feel free if you want to show more
What about new layout objects?
As I understand it, they don’t need a dev patch with graphics and physics in order to fully work, can they be added to this test patch?
As I understand it, they don’t need a dev patch with graphics and physics in order to fully work, can they be added to this test patch?
No problem, and it's exactly the kind of principle I can support if it's an existential threat to humanity. You can see where I defend this in another thread. But right now I don't see how global warming can be an existential threat to humanity, even if the bad scenarios of current predictions come true.
Gutholz, I recommend using more correct phrasing, otherwise we can reach a lot of strange conclusions that way.
You realize that this statement is unprecedented and too broad? And it's too easy to disprove. It makes me wonder how you make such claim.
I'll start by assuming that since we're talking about global warming, we're talking about the earth. (although your statement doesn't specify that)
And if we are saying that the "earth never before have temperatures changed so rapidly" then why do you provide a link to graph that only account for 22,000 years?
The Earth has been around for billions of years, and you're saying "never before have temperatures changed so rapidly".
For example, researchers consider that Dino-Killing Asteroid Impact Warmed Earth's Climate about 4.5- to 5-degree [C, or 8.1 to 9 degrees F] change in average temperature for 100,000 Years.
This change is higher than it is now. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
But I hope you just worded your thought incorrectly and meant the last 20,000 years, which I can agree with. But 20k years is nothing compared to the entire history of the earth.
And that's even worse.. Your linked article contrasts human emissions only with volcanic emissions. No other non-human emissions are in question there.
And you refer to my quote where I talk about the comparison of human emissions and all non-human emissions. And for all non-human emissions you substitute volcanic activity, which is a clear substitution of the thesis.
Even if we're only talking about carbon dioxide emissions (and there's a lot more going into greenhouse gases) there 42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You substituted all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for. That's not correct.
You realize that this statement is unprecedented and too broad? And it's too easy to disprove. It makes me wonder how you make such claim.
I'll start by assuming that since we're talking about global warming, we're talking about the earth. (although your statement doesn't specify that)
And if we are saying that the "earth never before have temperatures changed so rapidly" then why do you provide a link to graph that only account for 22,000 years?
The Earth has been around for billions of years, and you're saying "never before have temperatures changed so rapidly".
For example, researchers consider that Dino-Killing Asteroid Impact Warmed Earth's Climate about 4.5- to 5-degree [C, or 8.1 to 9 degrees F] change in average temperature for 100,000 Years.
This change is higher than it is now. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
But I hope you just worded your thought incorrectly and meant the last 20,000 years, which I can agree with. But 20k years is nothing compared to the entire history of the earth.
And that's even worse.. Your linked article contrasts human emissions only with volcanic emissions. No other non-human emissions are in question there.
And you refer to my quote where I talk about the comparison of human emissions and all non-human emissions. And for all non-human emissions you substitute volcanic activity, which is a clear substitution of the thesis.
Even if we're only talking about carbon dioxide emissions (and there's a lot more going into greenhouse gases) there 42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You substituted all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for. That's not correct.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG