Johnathan Blow, the head up his ass developer of massively overrated indie game Braid, comes to Anita’s defense by proving what a piece of shit he is.
The best part is when Anita’s boyfriend is called out and busted about lying that Feminist Frequency is non-profit. Of course no sane person thought that they weren’t pocketing all the leftover kickstarter money ($150k - $10 cost of her videos), but now it’s public.
Two piece of shit art thief scam artists being defended by piece of shit autistic game maker. Do any sane people still think the SJ movement is legit?
Shit, I actually LIKED Braid. Now I feel bad for giving Johnathan Blow my money.
laugter-stuffs asked: Okay. It's come to this. I'll have to use a paradox I hate with a burning passion. A man goes back in time and kills his grandfather. Then he ceases to exist and never gets to go back in time to kill his grandfather.
This one I puzzled over for some time a while ago and I’ve come up with a solution that I quite like:
Imagine the world is, in fact, a computer program. Here is how a computer program works: There are lots of errors, sometimes, things that don’t work quite right or happen in a way that the program doesn’t account for. Normally, when people encounter this paradox, they imagine the universe suddenly coming to an end or rebooting or something. This might be true if we were coded by a sloppy or lazy programmer, or one with a profound lack of foresight.
However, most programmers encase their code in “try-catch” statements. These statements basically try to execute a block of code, and if it works, then fine. If it doesn’t, then it gets thrown to the “catch” block, which handles the error and decides what to do from there. Using these try-catch blocks, you can handle an error gracefully, even one you never expected to happen. This way, you don’t have to account for every eventuality, you can just provide a failsafe so that it won’t cause your code to stop working. This way it just throws an error message and moves on.
So how would this affect our hypothetical scenario? Well, imagine everything that ever happens in real life as a series of interconnected “procedures.” These procedures execute preset code, sometimes based on input, and often output something for other procedures to handle. If we were to imagine real life as being made up of these, we could imagine that attempting to kill your grandfather would execute these procedures flawlessly right up until the moment that it tried to erase all of his descendants from history, which would throw an error.
Let’s back up a moment. In this analogy, reality would have to be deterministic by definition. This is how a computer program works. Let me explain: There is no such thing as a truly random number. When you roll a die in a computer program, the result is determined entirely by the ‘seed’ you put in. It just generates a number based on the input. We use this to create numbers that might as well be random by inputting the current date down to the microsecond, or atmospheric noise, things which are constantly changing and which will basically never give the same result. For this reason, if you gave a program the same seed, it would always generate the same thing.
Thus, we can imagine our programmed universe as a long, long series of randomly generated results stemming from a single seed (the same way worlds are generated in Dwarf Fortress or Banished). This means that everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen has already been determined by that seed, all the way down to the heat death of the universe. Therefore, everything you have ever done has already been decided, including all the descendents you will ever have. Make sense?
This obviously renders time traveling impossible at first glance, because it implies changing the course of events. It could be coded in by specifically accounting for it and generating the time travelers as you went, maybe back-tracing them as you went. Alternatively, you could just allow the past to be freely editable, and loop back around the world generation every time it happened, changing the course of history as you go back down. This is what we assume happens, but it has an obvious problem: If you create a paradox, this will create an error.
And now we’re back where we left off. Here’s the solution to this error: You just ignore it. You know how sometimes Windows gives you popups with the options to ‘Try Again,’ ‘Abort,’ or ‘Ignore?’ It’s kind of like that; you just refuse to parse the code that gives the error and skip it. So when your grandfather’s code tries to call the procedures that will handle his death, the code just refuses to run them, because they generate an error when it tries to go back down the line and erase all of his descendants. The error was caught and handled gracefully, however, which means that the program won’t crash. If you stabbed him in the chest and he’s bleeding all over everything, it will happen exactly as you might expect except he won’t die. He’ll be in terrible pain, bleeding internally, but he won’t die. He simply will not; the code won’t run to let him. Skilled doctors could probably save him, and he’d likely go on to procreate anyway. If, for some reason, he spent the rest of his life in a coma, to the point where the program couldn’t handle the error buildup and any possible chance of him fathering children went out the window, it would have to throw a bigger error and handle the exception further up the chain.
The result of this would be that you would not be able to stab him. No matter how hard you tried, you would be unable to force yourself to do it. The code would run and see the horrible mess it would create, and it would just throw an exception and your hand would, functionally, stay where it was. Now, this doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t be stabbing him, it would just be that every time you went through with it, it would create a sort of ‘doomed timeline’ that the program would discard and start over from where it began, giving you the impression that you couldn’t do it.
This would result in different numbers being generated for that nanosecond, resulting in you not doing it but trying again a moment later, for the same result. So, you’d just stand there, desperately trying to will yourself to kill him, to no effect. No paradox, no problem. You’d probably just give up and go home.
And that’s how you solve the grandfather paradox with computer science.