Personally I find any unsolicited grammar “advice” unnecessary and incredibly rude, doubly so when it’s not even right. It just breeds toxicity and devolves conversations into pedantry about pedantry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

Sunscreen, also known as sunblock,[a] sun lotion or sun cream

You should really make sure you’re right before being pedantic.

It’s more that the characters have been evolving for a few millennia so they don’t look exactly as they did originally. For instance 山 meaning mountain was originally three distinct mountains and 目 used to be an eye.

I’ve only just started with Godot so I can’t give you anything Godot-specific, but it sounds like you’re asking for the logic to link things together. I’ll make some recommendations here but you’ll definitely have to adapt it to work for you. There’s a few different ways to do this and it depends on exactly how you want your system to work. From what you’ve said it seems like you have (or want) two classes, a PointManager and an EquipableItem (or whatever you’ve called the class in your pastebin).

What do you mean by groups here? You’ve identified global groups as a potential approach and that does seem to be a reasonable approach to access your EquipableItems from your PointManager, but I’m not sure that’s what you’re actually asking about. You’d have to set up a group for each category of item and add your items to the appropriate groups as they spawn, that seems a bit excessive.

The first approach to grouping objects I’d use would be with enums, this gives you fixed pre-defined categories so is useful for assigning an equip slot to each item, for instance.

/// Set up enum
enum ItemSlot {
    HEAD,
    TORSO,
    LEG,
    // ...
}

// Assign slot to item
@export var slot = ItemSlot.HEAD;

You can then verify this at two points: when you try to equip a new item you can verify that that slot isn’t already used, and when you count points you can make sure you only count each slot once. If you want to put an item in multiple slots (eg a dress is torso+leg) you can look into bitwise enums and bitwise logic, but that’s a little more advanced so I’d recommend getting the groundwork in first.

The second approach I’d use is a tags system, this is more flexible and can be be used for categorising outfits into as many categories as you want. The simplest way to do this is just an array of string IDs or ints, but this is more prone to user error since you can typo the string or enter the wrong number. On the plus side there’s no central enum so you can add new categories whenever you want, even creating a custom category at runtime if you need to.

@export var categories = ["Outfit.Clown", "Color.Yellow", "Type.Fun"] // Any arbitrary tags can be added

My first approach here is just to fire an event to make your PointManager recalculate. Ideally your manager would be doing all of the calculation and the equipped items wouldn’t hold any of that logic, but you would need a function on the items themselves to they can check if they can be counted (ie in the correct position). I believe in Godot that would be using the Signals system, full tutorial in the docs here. Event-driven programming is incredibly useful for game dev, even if you decide not to use this approach here I’d still recommend trying to get the hang of it.

Your drag function is doing a lot so it does need split up and simplified a bit, but for our purposes it’ll be enough to combine the two elif branches since they’re doing the same thing, that lets us fire the event in one place for both successful and unsuccessful drag so we can recalculate the score. You’ll end up with something along these lines:

/* EquipableItem */
signal on_equipment_updated;

func _on_area_2d_input_event(_viewport: Node, event: InputEvent, _shape_idx: int) -> void:
   if event is InputEventMouseButton:
      if event.pressed:
         // [..]
         pass
      else:
         if positionIsPerfect: // add position check here
            position = perfect_position
         dragging = false
         audio_stream_player.pitch_scale =0.5
         audio_stream_player.play()
         
         // Fire the event
         on_equipment_updated.emit() // We can optionally pass this item to the event too if needed

// Might need an export or something to be accessible to point manager?
func is_scoring():
   // Check position or any other issues here, return true to score this item
   return position == perfect_position;

/* PointManager */
var score = 0;

func _on_equipment_updated():
   // Reset score
   score = 0;

   // Get equipment (assuming using groups), might need a bit more to access the item script?
   var items = get_tree().get_nodes_in_group("equipped_items")
   
   // Count scoring objects
   for item in items:
      if !item.is_scoring():
         continue;
      // This is also where you'll check tags/categories/etc for bonus points or preventing duplicates
      score += 1;

The major benefit to using events here is that it almost completely decouples your scoring system from your items, your items shouldn’t need to reference your scoring system at all but they’ll still be counted as needed. You can swap in different items without touching the point manager, and you can write a completely new point manager without having to update anything on the items. There’s exceptions for everything, but as a general rule of thumb the more tightly coupled your code is the harder it is to maintain.

This depends on exactly how you want the items to score together, but we can handle that with the tags we set up before. Let’s say for instance we’re only scoring items with a specific category, we can simply check if the item has that specific tag before we score it.

/* PointManager */
@export var scoring_category = "Outfit.Casual"

func _on_equipment_updated():
   // [...]
   for item in items:
      if !item.is_scoring():
         continue;
      if !item.categories.has(scoring_category):
         continue;
      score += 1;

Or we could use the same idea to, for instance, only score whatever outfit category appears the most

/* PointManager */
func _on_equipment_updated():
   // [...]
   var scored_categories = {}
   for item in items:
      if !item.is_scoring():
         continue;
      for cat in item.categories:
         if cat.beings_with("Outfit."):
            scored_categories[cat] = (scored_categories[cat] or 0) + 1
   // Use best outfit score
   score = scored_categories.values().max()

Obviously this is all very rough but it should at least give you somewhere to start with your logic.

What you’re describing there is an etymological fallacy, a surprisingly literal one at that. By that logic the word “literal” should only refer to written text since it originated from the Latin word for letter, as in alphabet characters. Words’ meanings are defined by how they’re used, you’re complaining about how the word is being used, and you claim anyone using it doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. That is prescriptivism.

Why not? English is full of synonyms. It doesn’t matter whether you think it “makes sense”. Why waste the effort attacking word choice when you knew exactly what they were trying to communicate?

Linguistic prescriptivism is nonsense, you personally not liking how a word is used does not make that usage incorrect.

You can’t fit 25 squares of the same size in that space. If you check the top row there’s 4 squares and space for slightly less than one more square, you can’t fit a 5x5 grid there unless you have smaller squares or a bigger waffle

“Magic system” is a bit of an oxymoron imo. The problem with having hard rules for magic is that that’s not magic, that’s science. You just end up with a world with slightly different physical laws.

Technology can be interesting on its own but a deep understanding of the underlying mechanics kills the magic. A rock that lets you talk with someone over great distance is magic but if you explain it as manipulating imperceptible vibrations in the air you just have a radio.

Do you really want me to go point by point? Fine.

Let’s break this down. So many unverified, regurgitated strawman arguments.

You literally spent the rest of your comment claiming I said things I very obviously did not.

The arguments work so well because it will take me 20 times as long to respond to your gish gallop.

I made four claims, total:

• Electric cars are heavy and this causes road wear. You made a more specific claim that EVs are 20% heavier than comparable fossil fuel vehicles.
• Car tyres shed microplastics. You literally said the exact same thing in your “rebuttal”.
• It’s not green if your electricity source isn’t green. This shouldn’t be controversial, we’ll cover your attempt at a rebuttal later.
• From a “helping the environment” perspective, non-car transport and infrastructure is superior to electric cars. You ignored this point.

It’s not about “loving cars” when clearly, we’re talking about making a personal choice to do what one can.

An actually reasonable point among the bullshit. You obviously can’t access alternatives that don’t exist.

“EVs are naturally heavy”. Modern cars are “naturally” heavy with safety devices, stronger crash structures, and more luxury devices. EVs are only about 20% heavier when you compare them to something within their actual class. This means not ignoring the Nissan Leaf as an EV. This means comparing a Model S to a Mercedes E450 as a quiet, feature-rich luxury car at a high price point. This means comparing the Hummer to a Ford F-450 as both are hulking slabs that have no reason to be daily driven. While we’re here, may as well dip into the part where EVs are “expensive”. Again, compare them to the proper class competitors and stop pretending the used car market doesn’t exist and doesn’t have EVs for cheaper already.

[Scored out everything irrelevant because, as you said, “regurgitated strawman arguments” and “gish gallop”]

You agree with my claim.

“cause significant road wear”. They don’t. They’re not special. The additional roadwear is not significant because none of these cars, EV or not, are doing anywhere near the damage caused by commercial trucks. I bet your residential roads don’t have rutting unless they haven’t been repaved in 40 years. Rain/snow/UV degrades non-commercial roads faster than any normal personal traffic can.

Partially true. Commercial trucks are heavier than EVs and cause more wear and “intense” freezing cycles can reduce road lifespan by up to 20%, but residential roads are repaved “every 15 to 30 years” (potentially unreliable source, they sell concrete) but cycle/footpaths need repaved so infrequently it’s difficult to find anything more specific than “as needed”/“when damaged” in a 5 minute search.

“shed microplastics” not significantly more than any other car, especially since most EVs come with hard eco tires that last longer. All tires shed microplastics.

This is you agreeing with what I said.

" are only clean if their electricity source is clean". Not only is this false from a “only research as far as I can touch”, […]

No, this is true from a “I have more than one braincell” perspective. Non-clean energy source = non-clean energy use.

[…] this entirely ignores the energy used and pollution created for gasoline production and distribution. 10 years ago, in the US, a Model S charged by the dirtiest coal factory was responsible for emissions per mile comparable to a car that got about 35mpg. That was better than typical highway efficiency. That is still better than current city driving efficiency. Wanna guess what the comparable emissions ate was for if it was charged in the purely hydropower Niagara region? 260mpg equivalent. Grid power generators are far, far more efficient than a gas car. The power company doesn’t enjoy wasting money, so they’re tuned to run at specific generation levels as efficiently as possible for money’s sake. It doesn’t just apply to the grid, either. A personal generator, again, tuned to run a specific output, exceeds the efficiency of a gas engine revving all over the place to shift gears and move the car it’s attached to. That disingenuous meme picture of the ev charging by diesel generator in the Australian outback was completely false in every aspect (wattage, fuel consumption, and obviously resultant mpg). How do we know? Because it was taken by a bunch of EV nerds that were specifically testing it. They netted about 50mpg on diesel with a personal generator. Again, economy of scale will outperform that further.

[Scored out everything irrelevant because, as you said, “regurgitated strawman arguments” and “gish gallop”]

This is absolute nonsense. Saying that non-green energy sources make your end product non-green is the exact opposite of ignoring fossil fuels, fossil fuels are a non-green energy source. If you’re burning fossil fuels you are by definition not using clean energy.

“only clean if … infrastructure is clean”. You’re implying the current petroleum infrastructure is clean.

Here you just outright lied.

Your implying oil wells don’t leak and spill, they they don’t burn off waste products, that the product is shipped without use of energy and fuel for pumps and trucks, that it’s distributed from the pump without energy, and that gas stations are naturally-occurring geological formations. I specifically ignored this part in the prior section because, through and through, with a hands-on-only investigation, EVs were still more efficient on a per-mile basis than a gas car. They only get better when you’d actor in all the expenditure of fuel for petroleum distribution. For another tangent, this applies to the claims about how dirty lithium mines are. That only makes sense if you pretend we don’t have continuous petroleum disasters and “acceptable levels” of spills and runoff.

And now you’re building a narrative around your lie, nice one.

“electric cars are to save car companies”. Great, that’s capitalism. EVs only “save” car companies if people buy them. People are. Any vehicle they make is to “save” the company because if they don’t sell, they don’t profit, they don’t survive. That argument makes no sense. They’re not donating the majority of their gas cars.

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here but it seems like you’re agreeing with me? Electric cars are to save car companies because their greenwashing gets them sales. People moving away from fossil fuels would use public transport or alternative infrastructure, putting pressure on local governing bodies to improve that infrastructure, making cars less appealing, leading to a death spiral. EVs let the car companies claim to be green so people keep buying their cars. That is, indeed, capitalism.

Your comment is “controversial” because you made baseless claims.

You did not provide a single source and everyone can see just by reading one post up that you’re making shit up.

You pushed the propaganda of conservative groups,

Please point me to any conservative group which promotes public transport and proper pedestrian or cycling infrastructure. I can see “EVs are greenwashing” being an oil lobby talking point but they’d push in the opposite direction. I’m not in the US so the only prominent US-based pro-EV activist I know is Musk, correct me if I’m wrong but I’m fairly certain they’re very right-wing.

notorious for making arguments that affirm feelings, without asking for facts, based on what their group can experience directly. You’re attacking individuals who do not have the power to suddenly rebuild a town into a pedestrian dream. You’re making it a class war between car drivers satisfied with the status quo and car drivers who support change when they’re both the same class. You’re making the argument that since a little change only helps a little, no one should do anything at all. That attitude keeps us in the same place. Forever.

Again, that only happened in your head. My claim, which I for some reason have to have to restate once again, was that public transport and walking/cycling are far better than EVs from an environmental perspective. I did not attack anyone, I did not call anyone out (except people claiming that EVs are helping the environment), I didn’t even say you should never use an EV if your only choice is to use a car. I simply stated the fact that alternative modes of transport are better.

I also believe you’re wrong when you say individuals don’t have the power to pedestrianise a town, though that does seem to be an honest mistake rather than the bullshit you’re spewing in the rest of your comment. A small number of activists is more than enough to push for pedestrianisation, and while it might not be instant (neither was ripping all that infrastructure out, which I believe happened in the US around the 1960s?) it can be done relatively quickly. Paris is the most recent posterchild for this transformation, I think, they’ve been phasing out cars for about a decade and recently voted to pedestrianise 500 streets with a timescale of 3-4 years. Pretty fast for a change in infrastrcture imo, and definitely shorter than EVs have been trying to get a foothold.

Edit: For completeness, here’s a definition for Gish Gallop, everyone can judge for themselves whether that applies more to my single paragraph or your novel you demanded I respond to point-by-point. I literally had to cut out your final paragraph because I hit comment size limits.

Okay, that’s a lot of words but the entire premise of your “argument” is clearly wrong. Where did I say “compared to fossil fuel cars”? Why not at least compare to one of the alternatives I specifically called out? Is it because you’d look stupid claiming cycling pollutes more than electric cars?

It was very clear I was suggesting swapping away from car infrastructure altogether, not staying on fossil fuel powered cars. The only way I’d see any confusion whatsoever on that point is if you’ve only ever experienced very heavily car-centric infrastructure.

How can your reading comprehension be so bad that you think I suggested burning fossil fuels is clean? Jesus fucking christ.

I didn’t object to the concept of electric cars. I objected to claiming it’s “to help the environment”. Stabbing one person is less bad than stabbing two but if you’re going around stabbing people you’re not reducing knife crime.

I have no objections to reserving charging spaces for cars that need charged, but I definitely disagree with framing electric cars as for the environment. They’re naturally heavy vehicles which causes significant road wear, sheds microplastics via tyre wear, and only uses clean fuel if your electricity source + infrastructure is also clean. Electric cars are to save car companies, public transport and walking/cycle infrastructure is to save the environment.

Edit: No idea why this would be controversial, you guys must love your cars. Even if you’re driving having proper non-car infrastructure still helps you out too. If people don’t need to use their cars they won’t, if other people aren’t driving you’re not stuck in traffic.

There is no middle ground between binary options. You have rights or you don’t. You hate or you don’t. “Just a little bigotry” it’s still bigotry. If I say 1+1=2 but you say it’s 3 that does not make the right answer 2.5.

Your worldview is literally the middle ground fallacy.

Supporting human rights isn’t in any way “gaslighting”. It’s very reasonable to ban someone for being a piece of shit.

You are under no obligation to keep a product you don’t like for any reason, companies aren’t entitled to your money by default. You might have had a point if we were talking about some super rare item only one or two companies manufacture but this is about a HDD dock, you’ll probably find 5 different models with identical functionality just by checking your local electronics store.

I have never heard anyone claim returning something is “extreme” before. It’s so mild it should be one of the first options you consider, especially when you ordered online and didn’t get the chance to see the item before purchase. You shouldn’t get saddled with shit just because there’s some “feature” you hate which you weren’t aware of when you bought it. For that reason where I am you’d have a legal right to return almost any order within 14 days of receipt no questions asked, or longer if there’s a defect.

From your description it sounds like they haven’t complied with a legally binding ombudsman decision. The ombudsman is the last stop before legal action, you should get in touch with a real solicitor rather than ask for anonymous advice online.

An N322A form might be what you need to enforce the decision, but if I were you I’d check with Citizens Advice or a lawyer first.

Removed by mod

In that case it’s the app handling code blocks poorly, you’re complaining to the wrong person.

 ⢰⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼ 
⠀⢿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⠴⠶⠖⠒⠛⣿⣽⡟⠛⠓⠒⠶⠶⢤⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⠴⣯⠏ 
⠀⠀⢿⣯⣿⠷⣶⣤⡴⣶⣶⣤⠤⠤⣤⣄⡀⠀⣀⡤⠶⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠿⣼⠿⠦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠲⢦⣄⣀⣤⣴⠒⣻⣿⣿⢻⣿⣿⣿⠋⣩⣴⠋⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣦⣼⣟⢷⣷⢹⣿⣌⣿⡟⢺⣿⠛⠻⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⠤⠖⠒⠒⠛⠒⠒⠒⠦⠤⣤⣀⠀⠀⢀⣤⠖⠛⢿⣇⠐⡾⣷⣿⡟⢚⣿⣷⣿⠶⠋⠁⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⠻⠾⢿⣾⣮⣗⣸⣿⣆⠄⠀⠙⣦⡖⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢉⣷⡟⠀⡀⢨⣽⣿⣽⣶⢿⡿⠛⠛⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠛⠉⠙⠻⢿⣷⣶⡂⣸⡟⠓⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠞⠛⣧⣄⣿⣾⣿⡋⠉⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⣠⠾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡁⠀⠈⢳⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠋⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣫⣶⠟⢦⡀⠀⠀⣀⠹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⢿⡷⣾⠀⢀⡞⠁⠀⠹⡄⢻⣿⣿⡆⠀⠘⣿⣦⣤⣀⣀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣶⣿⡯⠀⢀⣾⣿⡿⠋⢀⡞⠀⠀⠙⢆⣀⣿⣻⣯⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠷⠛⢳⡞⣻⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⡀⢻⣿⣿⣦⣠⣿⡯⣷⡉⣽⠿⠿⠟⠉⣹⡯⣿⣷⣤⣾⣿⣿⠁⠀⣼⠃⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⡍⠏⠁⠉⢷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠁⠀⠀⠈⡱⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢷⠈⣿⣿⣿⠟⣿⣇⡝⣮⡈⠀⠀⠀⣴⡟⠀⢿⡟⢿⣻⣿⣇⠀⣰⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⡄⠀⠀⠀⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠇⠀⠀⠀⡼⠃⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣠⣤⣼⠿⣿⢿⠃⣰⠋⠈⠁⢻⡙⢶⣴⠟⣹⠃⠀⠀⠱⡄⢹⣿⣟⠲⢿⠤⠤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠸⡆⠀⠀⠈⣧⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡏⠀⠀⠀⣰⣃⣤⠖⠋⣉⡡⢆⣠⠟⠁⣼⣿⡿⢸⣇⠶⠊⠀⢸⣷⠛⠉⢳⣿⠀⠀⠐⢶⠹⡌⣿⡿⣆⠈⠱⢦⡐⠦⣄⣉⣙⣶⣄⣹⡀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠀⠀⢰⣶⣿⣿⣿⡿⢿⣥⣶⣟⣁⣠⣞⣽⠟⡇⢸⣿⡀⣀⡴⠋⢹⡄⠀⣸⣉⣻⣦⣄⣸⣰⡇⣿⢹⣮⣷⣤⣤⣿⠿⠞⣛⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠂⠀⠀⢿⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⡟⠀⠀⠀⢹⠋⠳⢿⣿⣷⡶⠦⢭⣽⣾⣿⡟⠰⢷⣘⣿⠁⠿⠋⠉⠙⣿⠉⡿⠉⠉⠉⠏⢩⣿⢠⣟⣐⣿⣿⢷⣾⣷⣒⣩⣿⠿⠟⠉⠀⢱⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢠⡇⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠻⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⡟⣠⣾⣳⣽⣷⣦⢠⠄⣖⢹⣿⠃⠃⠠⠂⣰⣿⣿⢿⣧⣄⣻⣿⣿⣛⠟⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡄⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣸⠿⠋⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⡽⣽⣾⣿⣦⣬⠞⠏⠀⢤⣼⣿⣿⣿⢱⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠈⠙⠲⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⢰⣄⣤⣾⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⠶⠋⠁⠀⢀⣾⣿⢿⣿⣾⣇⢹⡏⣻⣿⠞⠀⠀⠀⠰⣿⣏⣸⡇⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢦⣀⠀⠀⢸⢳⣦⡞⢸⡇⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣷⡼⣯⡽⢿⣆⣤⣞⣋⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣸⣿⣿⣧⠬⠹⣯⣬⣿⠉⠹⣄⠀⠀⠀⣰⠏⠉⣿⢤⣿⠟⠲⣾⣿⣻⣧⣤⣤⣤⡤⠤⠤⠽⠿⢦⡼⠛⣷⠛⢿⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡄⠘⠃⠀⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣷⣄⠀⢻⣿⠏⢦⠀⠈⠐⠀⠸⡁⠀⡟⠙⣿⠟⠀⣠⣾⣿⣾⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡇⠀⠙⢀⡿⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣇⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠿⣄⠈⢿⡆⠀⠀⠀⢴⡿⠀⣠⠟⣠⣾⣿⢿⡽⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⢿⣶⡈⢦⢸⡇⠀⢠⠀⢸⡇⠐⢁⣼⣿⢿⣯⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⠀⢠⡏⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢶⣿⣿⣳⠀⠀⡇⠀⣼⠀⢸⡇⠀⣜⣿⣹⠶⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⠁⠀⠀⢀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠈⢣⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⣯⡃⢸⡇⠀⢹⠂⠈⡇⠀⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢠⡞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣽⠷⣼⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⢷⡰⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠔⠁⠀⠀⠀⣠⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣴⣿⣦⣀⣠⣀⣤⣿⣧⢾⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠶⠃⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⣆⣉⣷⢦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡜⠿⣷⣿⣿⠿⣽⡿⠛⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⢊⣁⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠦⣄⣠⢿⣩⡷⡄⠈⠙⠓⠤⢤⣀⣙⣦⣈⣻⣦⣾⣁⣠⣞⣁⣀⠤⠴⠚⠋⣀⣿⣻⣧⡀⣀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⠦⣟⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⢿⡿⠷⣿⢿⡯⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⣿⡾⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠓⠶⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣶⡿⢸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠴⠞⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Is this better?

Uploading your consciousness to a machine wouldn’t really extend your lifespan. Think of it like moving a file from one device to another; the file isn’t actually moved, you just get a copy on the second device. You and your digital clone will also begin to diverge immediately as the lived experience of being a new digital entity would be different from continuing life as a meat person.

The closest you can get is to Ship of Theseus it; get a machine implant which gradually takes over brain functions as cells die or parts of the brain fail. Single stream of consciousness in a single body, now fully digitised. Incidentally this is also closer to biological processes to replace cells, though the brain cells renew much less frequently then other cell types. I think some areas don’t naturally get replaced over a lifetime too but I’m not certain on that, either way you’d want to go faster than natural cell replacement.

Alternatively you could make the transfer process dissolve your meat brain. Personally I’d say you are dead and your clone lives on but its the same argument as Star Trek style transporters; the clone still feels like it’s you so if they got to where you want to go does it really matter?