kromem @ kromem @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

1,655

Joined

2 yr. ago

The DLC is really the right balance for FromSoft.

The zones in the base game are slightly too big.

In the DLC, it's still open world and extremely flexible in how you explore it, but there's less wasted space.

It's very tightly knit and the pacing is better as a result.

It's like Elden Ring was watching masters of their craft cut their teeth on something new, and then the DLC was them applying everything they learned in that process.

Can't wait for their next game in that same vein (especially not held back by last gen consoles).

Your interpretation of copyright law would be helped by reading this piece from an EFF lawyer who has actually litigated copyright cases in the past:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0

Part of the problem with this approach is that prediction engines are predicted on the idea that there's more of a thing to predict.

So unless they really, really go out of their way with modeling the records to account for this, they'll have a system very strongly biased towards predicting more criminal behavior for everyone fed into it.

I hate that the Smithscript weapons can't be buffed.

Especially for the daggers.

Wanted to pew pew little bolts of lightning buffed daggers doing an additional 200+ damage per hit. 😢

No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there's no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.

As I said in my earlier comment, this narrative was probably appropriated from the forced relocation of the sea peoples into the southern Levant. The Egyptians do have extensive records of conflict with them, who they note in that conflict were without foreskins (as opposed to the partial circumcision more common at the time), and there's an emerging picture of Aegean cohabitation with the Israelites in the early Iron Age along with Anatolian trade with an area where the Denyen were talking about their founding leader Mopsus.

Here's the source for the Noah's Ark as originally a famine narrative: https://scholar.harvard.edu/dershowitz/publications/man-land-unearthing-original-noah

You're welcome to find the material as you like, but I'm telling you that there's a lot more value to careful analysis of it within it's broader context than you (and many others) seem to think. Whether you find that stance condescending or not.

And yet I've not seen anyone figure out that the locusts in Revelations was just a poetic taxonomy for the local middle eastern hornet, Vespa Orientalis, down to the golden crown on its face.

People like to interpret those texts in all sorts of fantastical ways as long as it titillates them, but shy away from actually looking plainly at what's being said.

So by all means don't take it literally. But also maybe don't think that a text written by a syphilitic old man in antiquity is talking about the 2024 United States presidential election without a more compelling case.

Actually, the book of Job is nearly verbatim a combination of the opening of the Canaanite A Tale of Aqhat where Anat petitions El to kill the son of Danel as the lead in to a near copy of the dialogue on suffering of the Babylonian Theodicy. With what appears a sloppy edit to make it monotheistic later on, changing Anat from being a different god to simply 'adversary' and spawning fanfiction for millennia.

Understanding the context helps a lot in meaningful analysis.

Without the context, yeah, a lot can go over your head and it just seem pointless.

Edit: And Noah's ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.

Edit 2: And the eating of the fruit by the first two people was probably adapted from the Phonecian creation myth around the first man and woman with the woman discovering the technology of eating fruit from the trees.

There's actually a lot of interesting stuff in the text when you learn how to spot it between the lines of the revisionism. Both OT and NT.

The problem is you basically only have two camps.

One, that thinks the text as it exists today represents an unadulterated divine transmission.

And the other, that thinks anything to do with it is worthless nonsense.

So there's very few people actually looking at it in between those two extremes, with most engaged with the material clustering around the former, or at very least with an anchoring and survivorship bias around the former cluster.

We're left with audiences for the text that on both sides would be incredulous at the idea that, say, the Exodus narrative was in part an appropriation of the LBA/Early Iron Age sea peoples history when they were forcibly relocated into cohabitation with the Israelites, or say, that Jesus was taking about evolution with the sower parable.

Even though both those things have very compelling cases that can be made given emerging available evidence, the discussion is all about the acceptance or wholesale rejection of canon with little to no discussion of what actually exists in the absence of the BS.

It's most disappointing for the latter group though. While I kind of get the way the trauma of proselytizing and indoctrination turns minds off to anything connected with the material, it's very frustrating that what should be the healthy opposition cedes so many claims of authenticity to the faithfully blind.

Out of context it sounds like something.

But add the lines right before and it's more clearly fever dream gibberish of a dying old man:

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave it his power and his throne and great authority.

Did Trump come out of the sea? Does he look like a leopard with bear feet and a lion mouth?

People have been misunderstanding and trying to extend parts of that text to contemporary events since it was written.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Hillary raised $90 million in the entire month of July.

Harris raised $89 million in a single day in July.

Ah yes, the mythical white woman who would have raised $250 million in 24 hours instead of just a record breaking $100 million.

I really, really, really want to see campaign ads calling Trump out as a coward and chicken.

Dodge the draft.

Dodge the debate.

Like a typical cowardly bully, running away from any fights he doesn't know he can win.

Just 30 seconds of "Is Trump a yellow bellied coward? Clip of him backing out of debate. Followed by the rest of the air time of just a chicken running around clucking."

I'd be very wary of extrapolating too much from this paper.

The past research along these lines found that a mix of synthetic and organic data was better than organic alone, and a caveat for all the research to date is that they are using shitty cheap models where there's a significant performance degrading in the synthetic data as compared to SotA models, where other research has found notable improvements to smaller models from synthetic data from the SotA.

Basically this is only really saying that AI models across multiple types from a year or two ago in capabilities recursively trained with no additional organic data will collapse.

It's not representative of real world or emerging conditions.

There's another reason I think too.

In 2016, it was embarrassing to be for Trump.

But after 2016, it became a purity test.

There's likely households being called up where the person on the phone is legit scared of saying they aren't MAGA if the other people in the house hear.

That's likely far less common for any D households.

And after a $50mm fundraising day, I just have a really hard time seeing it end up as anyone else.

I don't like that it's the case, but at this point it's probably over 90% odds that it's going to be Harris.

I agree Whitmer would be the best chance at beating Trump in general.

But I do think that Harris can still do that job and that there's logistical reasons why it's going to be that.

I wish we'd have Whitmer, but I'm not terrified of it being Harris the way I was if Biden stayed in the race.

And if she picks a good VP that helps round out the ticket with the middle of the country, I could see the new ticket getting momentum.

IIRC she and Newsom said they are not interested in being Harris's VP. Didn't see her saying she wasn't going to be looking for nomination, but open to seeing a source.

Edit: Ah, it's rumored that she said that: https://fortune.com/2024/07/21/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-kamala-harris-democratic-presidential-nomination-gavin-newsom/

Or when she still throws her hat into the ring if delegates are unpledged and people want a more healthy competition for the nomination.

I do think others would be stronger (I especially think Whitmer would be a strong candidate), but I think people underestimate just how weak Trump actually is as a candidate right now.

It just hasn't been capitalized on because Biden was a fucking mummy, but Trump is old and tried. His RNC speech was just exhausting to even watch, and he is falling asleep in most drawn out public appearances.

He's surrounded by yes men who peddle QAnon conspiracy theories and rambles on about things only his most loyal fan base even understand, playing the encore for his fans but leaving any independents or less politically engaged folks bewildered.

None of this was able to be capitalized on by an ailing and addled Biden, but as long as Harris can be halfway coached to focus on these points and juxtapose them, she'll be fine (even if I agree there could be much better options than a previous CA senator and law enforcement pick).