4 ms·

It was "too good" in the sense that it was realistic enough that they forgot they were in a simulation, and thought the terminal window was a real native macOS

It was "too good" in the sense that it was realistic enough that they forgot they were in a simulation, and thought the terminal window was a real native macOS window

jhgb 5y ago
But a realistic simulation would have closed the terminal window.
- Kiro 5y ago
  You're completely missing the point.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    That is always possible but also often far from certain.
    - m_antis89 5y ago
      Do keep up your self-righteous attitude. It will benefit you greatly in 5-10 years and we need more like you.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        Why, is something specific scheduled to happen in 5-10 years? Also, I'm not sure why I should consider myself "acting in accord with divine or moral law". I've never done even that, much less have I been "convinced of [my] own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others". That would seem utterly pointless.
        reasonabl_human 5y ago
        Responds to accusations of self-righteousness via a self-righteous pedantic critique. Too bad you can’t use the clown emoji on HN ;)
        jhgb 5y ago
        > self-righteous Again, I'm not even striving to be "acting in accord with divine or moral law". So, no.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        Wouldn’t self-righteous for an atheist be more like ‘acting in accordance with my personal moral law’? Or maybe more acting like your own personal morals are superior to everyone elses.
        jhgb 5y ago
        Maybe, but "my personal moral law" doesn't even come into play here, so I don't see how it could be possibly relevant. The topic is not a morality question so it's a category error.
        reasonabl_human 5y ago
        Perhaps “arrogance” was a better word for the OP to let you to chew on? Can you vet that definition for us too?
        jhgb 5y ago
        Perhaps it was. At the very least it wouldn't have been a blatant category error in the first place.
- isomorph 5y ago
  It was realistic enough to make them expect that their keyboard shortcut would close the window. It wasn't realistic enough to actually do that. So the visual UI was too realistic for them to not have that expectation, but the behaviour was not realistic enough for it to fulfil the expectation.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    That's what seemed confusing to me, since "it was so realistic that it didn't do what I expected when I pressed a certain key combination" seemed like a weird juxtaposition. Maybe it was the dash...

It was "too good" in the sense that it was realistic enough that they forgot they were in a simulation, and thought the terminal window was a real native macOS window

jhgb 5y ago

But a realistic simulation would have closed the terminal window.

Kiro 5y ago
You're completely missing the point.
- jhgb 5y ago
  That is always possible but also often far from certain.
  - m_antis89 5y ago
    Do keep up your self-righteous attitude. It will benefit you greatly in 5-10 years and we need more like you.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      Why, is something specific scheduled to happen in 5-10 years? Also, I'm not sure why I should consider myself "acting in accord with divine or moral law". I've never done even that, much less have I been "convinced of [my] own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others". That would seem utterly pointless.
      - reasonabl_human 5y ago
        Responds to accusations of self-righteousness via a self-righteous pedantic critique. Too bad you can’t use the clown emoji on HN ;)
        jhgb 5y ago
        > self-righteous Again, I'm not even striving to be "acting in accord with divine or moral law". So, no.
        Aeolun 5y ago
        Wouldn’t self-righteous for an atheist be more like ‘acting in accordance with my personal moral law’? Or maybe more acting like your own personal morals are superior to everyone elses.
        jhgb 5y ago
        Maybe, but "my personal moral law" doesn't even come into play here, so I don't see how it could be possibly relevant. The topic is not a morality question so it's a category error.
        reasonabl_human 5y ago
        Perhaps “arrogance” was a better word for the OP to let you to chew on? Can you vet that definition for us too?
        jhgb 5y ago
        Perhaps it was. At the very least it wouldn't have been a blatant category error in the first place.
isomorph 5y ago
It was realistic enough to make them expect that their keyboard shortcut would close the window. It wasn't realistic enough to actually do that. So the visual UI was too realistic for them to not have that expectation, but the behaviour was not realistic enough for it to fulfil the expectation.
- jhgb 5y ago
  That's what seemed confusing to me, since "it was so realistic that it didn't do what I expected when I pressed a certain key combination" seemed like a weird juxtaposition. Maybe it was the dash...