Mirodir @ Mirodir @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

1

Comments

187

Joined

2 yr. ago

I hate to defend Nintendo, but they used their own Emulators in the NES and SNES Mini (Kachikachi and Canoe respectively). I would be surprised if they just yoinked one from the internet here.

I'm guessing they just take the correct prefix (the first 3 letters of the correct month) and append "tember", no matter the month.

Don't wanna be pedantic (yes I do) but after a little bit of searching, the originally presented quote seems correct (without the "and" though, it seems). Your version is mixed with a common misquote "Slowly at first, then all at once." of that quote.

Tangentially reminds me of Richard Feynman's Cataclysm Sentence.

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence was passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?

Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

• not()....See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what's inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns "True" (because no parameter counts as False)
• str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string 'True'
• min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character 'T' because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return 'e' (I'm not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
• ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning 'T' into the integer 84
• range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, ....82, 83] (it's technically an object of type range but details...)
• sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
• chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is 'ඞ' at position 3486.

The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it's only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))

From experience with the beta and memory, your wife (and you) will be able to choose which version to play. Either yours with a ton of DLC or hers with none. You should both be able to use the version with all DLC, but not at the same time.

It's been a while since we tested this though so things might have changed, including my memory...

If you wanna see a language model (almost) exclusively trained on 4chan, here you go.

Presumably. Wouldn't take much to fake that though.

after leaving can’t join another for a year

Can you fix this? There was enough misinformation floating around about this already when this feature went into beta.

Adults can leave a family at any time, however, they will need to wait 1 year from when they joined the previous family to create or join a new family.

it should say something like: "After joining, can't join another for a year"

Despite all that, there was the Warlock who Ninja'd the Sword dropping in Naxx on the final day. Fun times. Now that we're slowly approaching Classic MoP we'll finally see if the masterplan worked out too.

When were talking about teaching kids the alphabet we need to train both individual and applied letters

This is only slightly related but I once met a young (USAmerican) adult who thought the stripy horse animal's name was pronounced zed-bra in British English and it was really hard to convince her otherwise. In her mind zebra was strongly connected to Z-bra, so of course if someone was to pronounce the letter "zed" it would turn into "zed-bra" and not just into "zeh-bra".

That data is also publicly available (of course), so a model could be trained on it. I'd love to say I'd doubt Google/YouTube would ever do that, but at this point nothing would surprise me.

Usually, if there's a scam, someone's making money off it. This is them. They want to keep making money.

I trained the generative models all from scratch. Pretrained models are not that helpful when it's important to accurately capture very domain specific features.

One of the classifiers I tried was based on zoobot with a custom head. Assuming the publications around zoobot are truthful, it was trained exclusively on similar data from a multitude of different sky surveys.

Does it? I worked on training a classifier and a generative model on freely available galaxy images taken by Hubble and labelled in a citizen science approach. Where's the theft?

Reading this comment gave me the idea to get Gemini's "opinion". Ironically, it turns out Google might've actually done better if they did that.

It's a bit of a weird article indeed. I also fully disagree with the author's notion that reading a VN is faster than watching the anime equivalent. And I say this as someone who enjoys reading VNs every now and then. If I wanted to optimize the story/spent minute ratio I would just watch an anime or even better, read a manga.

Overall I hope the article can push a few people who were on the fence to the try reading a VN to finally do so. I doubt it'll affect anyone who was not very interested already. Likewise it also won't do much for people who already took the plunge.

Also I think DDLC isn't a good starter VN at all. All the meta stuff will be lost on the reader and the time before the twist is a real slog that might easily turn people off VNs forever. I would argue the only reason it worked is because streamers had their chats pressure them into continuing and "normal people" had friends who told them the same.

With Larian's previous game having great DM tools and them saying they would've loved to do DM tools for BG3, I think WotC telling them not to is a fair assumption to make.

Good intentions alone don't guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.