Chaser Zaks

“Art is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone will have their own interpretation.” ― E.A. Bucchianeri What one considers art, may not be considered art to others. I personally see games as a form of interactive art.

Nothing, I will traumatize whoever or whatever is reviewing my data, be it human or AI, just like I do with the government agent assigned to watching me (yes I know you are still there lmao, enjoying the mental pain?). They will have to see all my weird and explicit avatars in SL that most normal people would probably go wtf at.

Here is my take on A.I. art. In my opinion, games are a type of art, so I'll be using that for reference. Some have said A.I.s will be making games in the future. I'm all for it, but it will never be the same as a game made by a human. When I say I am for it, I am interested in seeing wacky stuff made by games. But I am unlikely to find myself constantly playing it, and will not buy a game made by an A.I. But that doesn't mean use of A.I. in games isn't off the table. When a game(or other medium) is made by an A.I., no matter how human it feels, it will not be the same to me, because people putting work, effort, and love into it. If you were to ask me if I would want a game that looks slightly better and is made by an A.I., over a game that was made by a human, I'd choose the one made by a human. But I think a lot of people are taking the concept of A.I. and mis-using it when they could use it to enhance a experience, rather than create a sub-par one automatically. Take the following example: Say you have a game like Skyrim, something very big and complex. A.I. can be used in various forms here to enhance the experience rather than automatically generate it. Such use cases would be better terrain creation. Imagine someone making a world map, it's going to be all smooth and stuff, normally people have to go through and add finer details, but A.I. can be used here to add those finer details such as simulating thousands of years of rainfall creating small details that humans would find too tedious to make. It can also be used to create or solve scenarios a developer didn't put in. Imagine going around and asking NPCs questions they weren't programmed to know, or NPCs actually having simulated lives, or even say for example, a NPC murders another NPC in a alley, thinking they were alone, but another NPC just so happened to be watching, and you need to talk to the murdered NPC only to find out they are dead, but you can solve the murder by asking around and maybe finding the NPC who was witness to it. There is even a game out there called A.I. dungeon, and it is pretty fun because it tailors the story to you. Games that can shift their direction to tailor to the player would be amazing. Even though A.I. dungeon is more of a "generated on the fly" game, I can see it used in games with pre-defined stories, but taking the story off course for a detour for the player. A.I. is powerful and can be used to enhance the experience of stuff, and it can be used in art to deal with tedious task or fix errors humans made(EG: perspective correction). I see A.I. as a good thing, but people are using it in the wrong ways. Or at least, what we are seeing is people creating proof of concepts of different types of A.I.s to see what they can do, rather than applying A.I. to actual uses.

Keep in mind that it is also the business' right to decide whether or not to sell. Caspertech had all the right to say "no" to the acquisition. Personally I do not use Caspertech because I prefer to do my own things because I do the whole "invented here" thing, but I personally see Caspertech being acquired being a good thing, even if I run my own vending system. The chances of them exposing APIs to do something like "llMarketplaceAuthorizePurchase(key resident, integer marketplace_id);", "llMarketplaceRequestPurchaseInfo(key resident, integer marketplace_id);" and "llMarketplaceRedeliverPurchase(key resident, integer purchase_id);" is now greater than ever, and I personally find it benefiticial for me, as it means I won't have to run redelivery cubes(although, I may still run them for a few things).

This exists, it is called user groups. LL does listen, just look at the Jira. Developing software is not easy, especially when all that software has to be intertwined, backwards compatible, and not break, lest ye get yelled at by a hundreds of people because of downtimes. I'll agree regions cost quite a bit, but LL also has to transfer a lot of data. Also sims (simulators) are/is the software that runs regions, regions are what people actually buy. This is a large technical feat, as it'd basically consist of underlay mega regions, additionally some people don't want their land connected to more than what it is connected to. There are already a lot of attachment points, more for premium, and even more for premium plus. PBR is on it's way, and it's mostly up to creators to make content look more realistic.

There appears to be quite a few people having issues setting this up. So I've made a step by step guide on how to setup everything here: https://gist.github.com/FelixWolf/364e8f598717537eabdd790d2369181a

What I have been doing for the past 8 hours. Most of the time was debugging sockets and trying to figure out why they kept blocking despite me telling them otherwise. https://github.com/FelixWolf/blender-sl-puppetry for the plugin, programmers beware your in for a scare.

I felt that adding in "should it" was a important part because it asking "could" shouldn't be asked alone without "should". I didn't read anywhere that op was saying to end discrimination, just: which reads to me as "LL is letting it go on because it would be a headache to clean up", rather than "LL chose to not clean it up as to keep it's existing user base".

This thread seems to have diverted into discussion on politics, so I am going to attempt to try and get that back on track with my opinion on OP's subject matter. Should LL try to "Clean up" SL? Absolutely not. For two reasons: 1. First reason, and probably the most important: All this will do is cause the existing user base to get upset, and have absolutely no impact on the "potential" user base. When I say "potential" user base, I mean those who have heard of or seen SL, or tried it before, and have left because they felt it wasn't the platform for them. Here are some examples: Tumblr had a massive adult content user base. No one wanted it banned, but they banned it to "clean up their image" in attempts to sale Tumblr. This killed a major portion of the user base and devalued it as a asset. VRChat had user mods, a majority of people used mods, but they introduced a anti-cheat resulting in a huge backlash, resulting in lots of users moving to NeosVR or other platforms. (As of this post, it is still going on) YouTube removed dislikes, resulting in millions of people getting upset. People are still upset about this to this day, but YouTube is so big that they are able to take this blow(because "Where else you going to go? We have all the content!") Don't upset the existing user base in hopes to gain a non-existent user base. Because the existing user base is guaranteed, the "potential" user base is not. 2. Second reason, what should be cleaned up? There is a lot of stuff in Second Life, which personally I like because it means there is something for everyone. There is however stuff I do not like, such as "race play" or "racial payback"(as it is called) because thats kinda oof in my book. But there are people who like this stuff, and as long as it stays in RP(despite it sometimes not looking like it is RP exclusive), it isn't hurting anyone and I just choose to turn the other way. I like some things, as some members of the forums will unfortunately know, that I guarantee you that plentiful of people do not support. But people more often than not, will choose to just to turn the other way if they don't like it. This brings into question: What *should* be removed? If we remove one thing that one person doesn't like, why not remove another thing that someone else doesn't like? Take a moment and think of the most extreme thing you like and something you do not like, and consider "What if LL banned the thing I like? How would I feel? How would I feel if they didn't ban the thing I didn't like even if they banned the thing I liked?" Say LL wants to clean it up, could they? Probably, first and foremost they'd remove any banned content that is publicly visible, such as items on the marketplace, groups, and regions/parcels that advertise as such. This would get rid of a vast majority of content. Sure there would still be people who do this stuff in secrecy, but they will eventually get caught, and it'll provide LL with a source to nuke more assets. There would still be the small remnants of it though, or people uploading new content. Take VRChat for example, NSFW is banned, but people do it anyway, and no one gets banned unless someone reports it because they don't spy on their users. What I think LL should do: Stick to what they do best, provide a (mostly) open platform for people to do what they want. Sure there are things that are kinda oof, but someone is enjoying it, and as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process, what's the harm in that? LL should only ban stuff if laws require them to do so, and so far that seems to have worked. If you are ever in doubt that someone is doing something they shouldn't, it doesn't hurt to file an abuse report. LL rather people file good faith incorrect reports than people not file correct reports. You won't be reprimanded for filing incorrect reports in good faith.

Personally I am kinda glad they brought down the hammer on political stuff. Political threads have always ended up heated with name calling, or just echo chambers because anyone with a disagreeing opinion would get dominated out of the thread(or too worried/scared to get engaged in the thread due to this). As a result, it presented a hostile environment to new combers who may have differing view points. My understanding is Second Life is for everyone, and political threads have kind of shown otherwise(at least, in the eyes of a new resident. Regulars would know that "that's how the forums have been"). Political threads have done nothing but cause drama and further a divide between residents on the forum. So I say good riddance to them. However, I do agree that if this policy is to apply to residents, it should also apply to the featured/community news and picture of the day(which is technically picture of the week, sometimes month). By not having the same policy for the higher ups brings a conflicting and potentially worse message than "politics allowed just don't fight". Conflicting because: If the forums are not for politics, why is politics being posted on the front page? Worse because: Stating political opinions while silencing those who may critique such opinions. This can read even worse than residents fighting, as it'll be seen as "Second Life is not for everyone".

After reviewing their covenant, I found the following: All sales are final is a keyword here, you entered an agreement where you are not obligated to a refund. Additionally, depending on how one may interpret it, "A refund will not be given for any time remaining on the tenancy." is also in effect. While I personally find it scummy to refuse a refund on a tenant if they "reserve the right to terminate it for any reason", it is an agreement. Even then, LL is unlikely to get involved. Now, the second part is that quote is the zoning and resource usage. If you were using more than your fair share of avatar slots, OR using residental land for a "private party club" as said specifically in the covenant, then you would have violated the covenant, thus are subject to eviction. One can argue the owner wishing good luck as a "go ahead", but one can also argue that they did not know what type of land zoning you were in. If I managed many many parcels, I certainly wouldn't know what tenant is on what land unless I looked it up in a database. I also recommend removing the name, as per LL's no name and shame policy. But, back when the 3rd party exchange program was around, I used a paysafecard to buy $50 of L$. It worked fine until up to the last month it was allowed, in which they shutdown their bots the moment they were told the program was closing, but still had their site operating and accepting payments. I lost $50 that day, and no one was able to do anything about it because LL doesn't get involved in that stuff, and the company was in England or something and had no contact info. So I know how you feel in this regards, it's a poopy situation to feel absolutely helpless when losing a bunch of money. Now I do have to take what you read as "their word against theirs", so I have no idea if the covenant changed, or if you were in violation of the rules, or whatever, so I can't really say if the company is good or bad, but assuming you are telling the truth, it is this kind of behavior which makes me not like LL's no name and shame policy. It's a double edge sword though: One hand, they tell people ceviet emperor, but then remove any way for people to make other's aware of bad behavior of sellers. On the other hand, you have people who don't tell the whole story, and can smear a company's good reputation.

My main account, this one. Saltyalt resident, my secondary account, runs on bot client. Chasertester resident, I use this account for testing issues on the jira. Works as a sandbox environment and also low lag avatar that I can take anywhere. automatedtests resident, bot that runs on a cron job to test grid stuff. Account I won't disclose, I suffer from anxiety and worry about breaking rules unknowingly or bringing an avatar that is unwelcome to a location. I use it to grab copies of rules and get the general feel/vibe of a location. My first account, don't use it but keep it for sentimental value. My second account, don't use it but has a lot of older stuff on it.

Op did. "I question if it should be allowed on the grid."

This is treading dangerous waters of censorship. If we ban something that looks vaguely like something someone considers bad, we might as well ban anything that anyone complains is offensive. They flew American flags too, should we ban American flags? What about antifa stuff, should we ban that because some people find that as promoting violence? To me this seems like a straw man thread.

"Regulate" means "Remove ideas/concepts/views I don't like" these days. Highly against this and kinda sadden Rosedale would even suggest regulating virtual worlds. Also lol at LEGO's statement: “The next version of the internet must be designed with children’s wellbeing in mind” Ah yes, the classic "think of the children". Children are not the only people on the internet. It is a parent's job to regulate a child's internet usage, not web zone operators. We are not day care providers. To me, this sounds like corporate giants see "the next internet" and want to grab control of it before it becomes "big" like the internet is today so they can steer it how they want it, not how the people want it. This means ads, bans on NSFW content, bans on content that is objectionable, bans on ideas that they don't like, stomping out competition, etc. Online spaces belong to the people, not corporate giants. If they want to make their own fantasy dictator world where they rule with an iron fist and stomp out ideas they disagree with, they can do so on their own platforms. However the moment they begin trying to tell what people can and cannot do with their own spaces is where I put my foot down. Actually no, I put my foot down now. The second we allow corporate giants to tell people how to do stuff is the moment we give away the ability for any new start up alternatives to stuff. Just look at YouTube for example. No one likes YouTube, no one wanted downvotes removed(except corporate giants who got sad because everyone thought their film was dog excrement), no one wanted google+ integration, and unless you are a multi million subscriber good luck with dealing with DMCA abuse. But what are we to do? It's the go to place for videos. We could create our own but no one will see it or use it and it'll just fade into obscurity. This has nothing about making "the next internet" safe, it is all about control and corporations wanting to be the government of the world.

Hyenas did nothing wrong. They get a bad rap because of didney portraying them as vicious kill stealing scavangers, when in fact a majority of what people believe about hyenas is actually wrong.

As a mostly gay guy, I don't like this idea for the following reasons: First and foremost it feels segregationy It will create a echo chamber It will be a target for trolls Assuming this means "LGBT" as in referring to people who are gay/lesbian/trans/etc, rather than the political group/umbrella that is "LGBT". If it is the political group, that will make the suggestion worse as it is really just a umbrella term for anything left-wing(Not that I have a issue with left-wing views), in which case it'd just be a political forum, which we all know politics are a great way to keep a community peaceful(/s). Either way, I see it as unnecessary. I state my opinions on stuff and there will always be people to try and counter my opinions. I find that as a good thing because: It opens the door to discussion It allows me to attempt to fix mis-understandings, biases, and other similar stuff It allows me to hear what others have to say on the subject By putting it all in one subforum, it kinda takes away the ability to have such a discussion as it'd only be populated with those interested in the subject matter. Sure, some people do not like LGBT people, they will voice their opinions, and I think that is a good thing as it will set up a discussion that can help turn those dislikes into neutral feelings. Also the whole "well why not a hetero sub forum" and "because it everything is hetero by default" arguments are really dumb. My take on it is that if the "default" is "hetero", that means "LGBT" people are not "normal". I dislike that the counter argument made by those in LGBT is that "the default is hetero" because it means I am not a normal person, which trying to be normal is hard enough as it is for me due to aspergers. I am just a person who happens to be male and also find males attractive, it doesn't make me any less normal than a guy who likes girls or a girl who likes guys. We all bleed red, and that is what makes us all one group known as Human. tl;dr: I feel that these types of threads should just be in the "Making friends", "Lifestyles and relationships", and "General discussion" subforums and people who are being butts should be tried to reached out to to change their mind or just report them if you are lazy.

Very much could be a internal joke name. In internal groups I am in, we've mispronounced or misspelled stuff by mistake and found it so funny we started calling it that internally, that might be what happened here.

Thread seems to have gotten derailed with political opinions, but that was to be expected when talking about politics. In short to answer op: LL has no reason to ban Russian accounts. At the time, there are no sanctions that call for such action. If sanctions that would call for this are put into place, I doubt LL will ban the accounts anyway, they are more likely to put up a Geo Fence to block connections from Russia, thus allowing those who may leave Russia to connect. However L$ withdrawal may be affected for those in Russia due to banking sanctions.

I think you all are giving LL too much of a hard time. LL is aware there are issues and they are around fixing stuff, though there are only so many people that can fix a specific number of issues at once. A lot of people seem to think the solution is to just add something like this to the code: bug issue = getBug(); if(issue.exists()) { issue.fix(); } but it isn't that simple. Second Life's group chats would be, in my opinion, one of the most complex things in Second Life, and when you go to fix it, you either fix it properly or break it entirely. LL wants to do the "Fix it properly" solution, because downtime for one critical feature means overtime for them, as well as an even more upset user base. Group chat, from what I understand, works as peer to peer, except where peer is a region instead of a user, which means there are a LOT of connections going around. IIRC, it involves the initializing resident's region to tell the simulator "Hey, start a session!", which then asks the dataserver to store that as the current session and get every agent that is online and find the region they are in, and use that to find what simulator the region is on, and then notify every simulator about the incoming chat message. Then every chat message sent to a group needs to be sent to every region(sometimes resulting in over a thousand regions being notified for large groups). It is a very complex beast, and one mis-step in fixing it can cause the whole thing to collapse. Ideally, my fix to it would be to do what IRC does, and make dedicated group chat servers, which can spin up additional nodes as needed and do load balancing by only having regions communicate with one connection to a chat server, instead of making thousands of connections to many different regions just to send instant messages. But this also involves rewriting a LOT of code, and isn't as simple as just saying "oh well we can take out this circuit breaker and put in a new circuit breaker!". Instead it is more like taking the entire circuit breaker box out and putting a whole new circuit breaker box in.

NO PROMISES, but I am going to look into adding steam deck support to the viewer (or branch of the viewer), people could pick the code out of that if they want to add it to other viewers. Steam dick support will include: Support for the on screen keyboard module Modified skin to fit more in the steam deck style as well as fitting the native interface Joystick configurations Again, this will be a personal project of mine. I may be on a team for a TPV, but this absolutely does not mean it will be added to said TPV, hense personal project.

Meta's stocks are down because: Facebook is facing lawsuits, which may affect their ads, which has investors less confident in it. The lawsuit may cause them to be less able to collect information which will affect targetted advertising, which means less accurate ads, thus advertisers may not be as interested(because why advertise to someone who has no interest in a specific thing?). This has already cost Facebook around $30 billion in stocks. Facebook's "metaverse" promised to be state of the art, but it isn't even as good as Second Life, yet alone Active Worlds(a different metaverse). There was even more advanced than Facebook's metaverse. If I had to put a pin point on it, I'd say facebook's metaverse is more on par with Worlds.com, but worlds.com has the excuse that they've never updated their client software in 20+ years, facebook's is brand new. You can't even dance in facebook's metaverse. No one likes Mark Cuckerberg anyway. It has nothing to do with Second Life or metaverses, thus will not affect Second Life.

IMO making it so people *cannot* see what a item is or who made it, to me means to not support the creator. If you wear something and you like it, you should by all means allow people to inspect the item. Because if someone sees it and they like it, then that means the creator will get more traffic on the marketplace, thus supporting the creator and helping them make even more stuff in the future. If the concern is over copybotting, copybotters don't need to click the item. They just have to right click the name tag and click export.

Yes and no, must mostly no. There isn't a way to make a script to mine crypto on a viewer, but it is technically possible to mine crypto in a web browser context, but it is horribly inefficient and not worth the time. However it is possible to package a crypto miner with a TPV, but I guarantee you LL would slap them so hard they wouldn't know what hit em. Tl;Dr: no, you need to stop worrying so much, it isn't good for your health.

No. Look at targets are what power the inverse kinematics that make the head move. It also adds context to a few things but I forget what. People who use look at targets are just looking for drama. Why would any sane person turn them on? They look awful. I did make a feature that increases the privacy of look at targets though. If you are using firestorm, you can limit the distance from your head that the look at target is allowed to travel. This introduces a slight issue where it doesn't track moving objects but it is barely noticable. Personally if I had to choose, I'd prefer if LL made showing the names and origin beam a TPV violation, or rather just make offering it as a feature rather than a debut setting a TPV violation, rather than outright removing it together. Still I don't think it needs to be changed.