Mirodir @ Mirodir @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

1

Comments

187

Joined

2 yr. ago

Looking at the reviews on Steam, I don't think the setting was anywhere close to the largest problem.

In Roguelikes and Roguelike-adjenct games there are also a few games that get close. (I'd even argue some totally eclipse SV/Terraria in that regard, but that depends on your definition.) Some, but not all, of them are even completely free and open source.

Off the top of my head, a few examples would include Dwarf Fortress, UnReal World and Nethack. Maybe some Space Station 13 servers if you count that too.

Also you can just give advantage if it's such an obviously threatening situation.

That should easily make up for the lost + in Charisma modifier.

I'm guessing they just generate a bunch of pictures, pick the closest and fix the rest in photoshop.

Not like real models aren't already often photoshopped to (near) unrecognizability.

Implying being creator of a popular mod doesn't open a lot of doors.

Merriam Webster says either is okay.

I interpreted it more as a "I'm willing to sacrifice all Ameircan's right for anonymous free speech, which I do value, to take away that of foreigners too." which is a typical braindead racist take.

I think it is meant to imply that they learned something new about their sexuality which puts all their wet dreams into a new context.

I could be totally wrong though. Edit: Turns out I was.

I'm not really sure how to describe it other than when I read a function to determine what it does then go to the next part of the code I've already forgotten how the function transforms the data

This sounds to me like you could benefit from mentally using the information hiding principle for your functions. In other words: Outside of the function, the only thing that matters is "what goes in?" and "what comes out?". The implementation details should not be important once you're working on code outside of that function.

To achieve this, maybe you could write a short comment right at the start of every function. One to two sentences detailing only the inputs/output of that function. e.g. "Accepts an image and a color and returns a mask that shows where that color is present." if you later forget what the function does, all you need to do is read that one sentence to remember. If it's too convoluted to write in one or two sentences, your function is likely trying to achieve too much at once and could (arguably "should") be split up.

Also on a different note: Don't sell your ability to "cludge something together" short. If you ever plan to do this professionally or educationally, you will sadly inevitably run into situations where you have no choice but to deliver a quick and dirty solution over a clean and well thought out one.

Edit: typos

Yeah. I fail to see how it could even be true on a conceptual level.

If it were true, what would happen on that day, or probably a few days prior, is that there would be many new Bitcoin forks that use the same transaction history (and thus the same balances) as Bitcoin. After possibly a short scramble and chaos, one or potentially multiple of those forks would then be seen as the Bitcoin while the rest fade to obscurity.

Cryptocurrencies, especially big ones, fork all the time. All it takes is an individual who wants to make a fork. Yes, that means if you have any currency on that chain before the fork, you'll have that same amount on both currencies after the fork. In the rare case where both blockchains after the fork hold any value/respect though, this gets EXTREMELY funny if someone had an NFT on that chain before the fork. Now they have two NFTs (one on each side of the split) and could sell them to separate people, or keep one and sell one, etc.

For clarity: when I wrote "fork" above I was talking about "hard forks" specifically.

While I agree with you and also agree with the decision to not show it anymore, I do want to highlight this bit that you wrote:

instead dad physically abuses the misbehaving child and nothing is ever resolved

The positive thing is that it never (or so raraly that I wouldn't remember) presented the strangling as anything good or helpful. Instead it was always presented as a shortcoming of his personality. Homer is mentally ill equipped to solve conflicts with Bart non-violently. Strangling him was his only outlet and (at least to attentive viewers) it was clearly and evidently damaging Bart's development. This is for example demonstrated in a scene where Bart has such a trauma that he's getting "strangled" by thin air when he thinks his dad would go for it.

Also, with the knowledge that Bart is, to some extent, Matt Groening's self-insert, that does raise some rather unpleasant questions.

Ignoring the fact that they were clearly talking in orders of magnitude, it was 8MB for a very long time and only recently got increased to 25.

Overtake and MFGhost are both good if you are into racing.

Funny you say this. I've only kept up with Overtake but I liked everything except the actual races. Lucky for me it seems to be a character drama centered around racing as opposed to a racing anime with some drama. Especially episode 4 really won me over and from what I remember nobody did any kind of racing in that episode.

I remember reading a lot of comments reading the opposite in the months leading up to RoR2 releasing. People were extremely skeptical about the game moving into 3d.

Going back to 2d might not be as big of a hit as RoR2 was but I'm sure it'll do fine and the increased name recognition should help get some sales too.

I would assume you could redirect them to where the scent trail is present/stronger again, i.e. very close to their hill.

I went and skimmed the paper because I was curious too.

If my skimming is correct, what they do is similar to adversarial attacks on classifiers, where a second model learns to change as few pixels as possible to confuse a classifier into giving a wrong prediction.

Looking at the examples of dogs and cats: They find pictures of dogs where by making only minimal changes, invisible to the naked eye, they can get the autoencoder to spit out (almost) the same latent representation as an image of a cat would have. Done to enough dog-images, this will then confuse the underlying diffusion model to produce latent representations of cat images when prompted to generate a dog. Edit for clarity: Those generated latent representations would then decode into cat images.

If my thinking doesn't fail me, this attack could easily be thwarted by unfreezing the pretrained autoencoder. In the paper that introduced latent diffusion they write that such approaches already exist. If "Nightshade" takes off, I'm sure those approaches would be refined and used. Even just finetuning the autoencoder for a few epochs first should be enough to move the latent representations of the poisoned dog images and those of the cat images they're meant to resemble far enough apart to make the attack meaningless.

Edit: I also wonder how robust this attack is against just adding an imperceptible amount of noise to the poisoned images.

Same. This episode probably saved the anime for me. I wasn't super feeling it after the first three episodes, but after this episode I'm back to being excited to see where it goes.

I've seen this reposted on the original 196 on Reddit multiple times so saying this is the worst 196 on the basis of this meme being posted makes no sense.

Also nazis are very unlikely to be participating in this community anyway, and if they are then they are either hiding to the point of indistinguishably or getting the ban-hammer really quickly. In the latter case, the problem is solved by the mods and in the former case, with the internet's anonymity, someone fully to be a member of a digital community is just a regular member of the community.

Tankies on the other hand share many more values with the core demographic of this community so they might be less inclined to fully hide their views and their views simmering through might not immediately get them a ban (depending on what they let shine through, of course).

that’s not a problem, that’s a feature

I disagree.

Let's say there are 4 candidates, A B C and D, and a large group of people have them in that order of preference, their (honest) acceptance would be A and B, but they'd much prefer C over D if those were the only two options.

A prominent forecast comes out and predicts a tossup between C or D. They all act in self-interest and strategically list A B and C as approved, to lower the chance of D winning over C.

Now that forecast was wrong about A's low chances for whatever reason and had they solely and honestly put down A and B, A would've barely won. All of them adding C doomed them to have to put up with someone they don't honestly approve of.

As you said before though, if we take this scenario into a single vote fptp system, we have all of them giving their single vote to C. Not only does this harm the chances of A winning even more, it also reinforces never voting for A as "A doesn't have a chance anyway and voting for A would be a wasted vote".

You can also construct a similar scenario the other way around for leaving out a candidate the group would approve of.