shoo @ shoo @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

82

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's kind of a funny example because, on a quick skim, nothing he did was exceptionally clever or unusual (other than workarounds for not having source code). R* basically paid him 10k for some basic profiling that they never bothered to do.

I agree, real code always has tradeoffs. But there's a difference between a conceptually simple change taking 3 weeks longer than planned and 6 months. The reality is game code is almost always junk and devs have no incentive to do better.

Getting a feature functional and out for launch day is the priority because you don't have any cash flow until then. This has been exacerbated with digital distribution encouraging a ship-now-fix-later mentality.

This means game devs don't generally have experience with large scale, living codebases. Code quality and stability doesn't bring in any money, customer retention is irrelevant unless you're making an mmo.

When a dev with game dev experience says something should be easy to fix, it's under the assumption of a reasonable code base. Most games are built off of common engines and you can sometimes infer how things are likely organized if you track how bugs are introduced, how objects interact, how things are loaded, etc...

When something is a 1 day bugfix under ideal conditions, saying it will take 6+ months is admitting one of:

• The codebase is fucked
• All resources are going to new features
• Something external is slowing it down (palworld lawsuit, company sale, C-suite politics, etc...)
• Your current dev team is sub par

Not that any of those is completely undefendable or pure malpractice, but saying it "can't" be done or blaming complexity is often a cop out.

Well for one they're a consumer who paid for a functional game. Nobody expects drivers to break out power tools and mod their car right off the lot.

It's even more embarrassing when modders do fix it. Some random guy with no source code access manages to fix an issue in 3 weeks that a whole team couldn't fix in 3 years.

Unpopular opinion but the bots were more fun. You could immediately spot human opponents because it devolved into defensive peeking until someone pixel-perfect portals directly behind the other. When 90% of gunfights end with someone getting shot in the back it doesn't feel like a fun flanking mechanic anymore.

while harder difficulties turn enemies into sponges that absolutely destroy you in 1 or 2 hits.

Sounds like a normal dark souls experience to me, I see no issue

A. The game is actually art and the artist vision includes an option making it playable for more people

B. The game is a product that they want to sell to more people, adding difficulties sells more

I don't see the issue either way. Why care what audience it's conforming to, you'll either enjoy the game or you won't?

Isn't it the inverse of that? And Hemingway always struck me as more of a "write drunk, edit buzzed" guy

As for middle school, exactly what did you learn that you think is so useful for daily life?

Off the top of my head: basic biology so I'm not dumb enough to be antivax. History subjects that require more than elementary maturity so maybe we can avoid another Holocaust. Enough physics, ecology and chemistry that I can comprehend how climate change is happening. How basic statistics work so I'm not completely lost when someone throws around misleading data.

None of that is automatic from a 4th grade education and is crucial to be a functioning citizen. Learning to take unquestioned GPT answers is not a substitute for actually learning any of those.

You either went to a painfully bad pipeline of schools or were too dumb to recognize the important parts.

Good god, if you went through an entire education and don't realize how fucked of a take that is I don't know what to say. Go try again at a different school maybe?

The problem is offloading critical thinking to a blackbox of questionably motivated design. Did you use it to solve problems or did you use it to find a sufficient approximation of a solution? If you can't deduce why the given solution works then it is literally unknowable if your problem is solved, you're just putting faith in an algorithm.

There are also political reasons we'll never get luxury gay space communism from it. General Ai is the wet dream of every authoritarian: an unverifiable, omnipresent, first line source of truth that will shift the narrative to whatever you need.

The brain is a muscle and critical thinking is trained through practice; not thinking will never be a shortcut for thinking.

Nothing catches cigarette tar better than an asbestos filter 🚬👄

Fun fact: cringe comes from an Old English word which meant to crumple or fall in battle. So power word cringe must be a synonym for power word kill 🧙

I know it's 1/48 cup but that's a stupid fraction and doesn't follow any logic, one of the main reasons it should be thrown out

Well, it could be sarcasm but:

1. It doesn't make sense, what is the witty commentary?
2. Their post history is abrasive and aggressive about silly stuff like this

There's nothing inherently more natural about cooking in the metric system, people just prefer base 10 these days. People balk at 4 quarts to an arbitrary gallon but love 1 liter being the arbitrary cubic volume of 10 ten-millionths of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole passing through Paris [but not quite].

Cooking by volume was natural before everyone had accurate kitchen scales. You didn't have a digital tare button in the 1800s but you did have a bunch of containers in common sizes.

what happen when you need 3/4 of a cup ? Or 1.5 cup ?

Generally you have 4 sizes: 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. You just use a combination of 2 sizes (1+1/2) or multiples of your smallest size (3x1/4).

You usually don't need high precision for cooking, common ratios are good approximations (1:1, 1:2, 1:8, etc...). Baking is a different beast and I don't know how people did it before weight.

Also, fuck tablespoons and teaspoons. They should just be replaced with 1/16 cup and 1/32 cup.

Since I've seen you trolling in multiple threads and know you get a kick out of it, I'll bite:

What in the world is wrong with this humor and why does it have anything to do with modern males?

I don't think it's that crazy or draconian at all. You're still free to engage in the safest way possible. You have confidence that it's a safe location and your drug of choice isn't cut with fentanyl. Why would there be a black market? Addicts generally don't like buying from untrustworthy sources and passing out in alleyways.

There's a strange pushback to accepting that humans are physical creatures that evolved for certain stimulus. Society functions by self restraint and a social contract that says, for example, my neighbor won't go into a stimulant induced psychosis and assault me. Its not a poor reflection on his moral character, that's just how a human reacts to the substance.

It's kind of a childish libertarian view to demand full personal freedom at societies' expense. Your freedom to use a drug anywhere at any time means that the rest of us have to distribute narcan at the library, regulate 45,000 liquor stores, hire more police to counter intoxicated driving, and expand EMS to handle completely preventable emergencies. All that to save you a weekly bus trip to the casino?

Changing the economic system has no impact on any of that, those are the set costs of addiction. Addiction doesn't cease being a problem because you give up on preventing it. You're undermining the money going to social services by avoiding simple deterrence-by-inconveince

Any safety and recovery programs are a lot easier to manage when you know exactly where your source is and who's using. Safe injection sites already exist and have been shown to eliminate overdoses and increase access to social services without any honeypot effect or increased drug use. Adding safe and tested drug sales to the site is a pretty logical step.

Requiring transportation is a detail for implementation, you already need it to do anything in the USA. Unless you think every person has a right to get drugs delivered to their doorstep?

There's reasonable balances between free and total access to liquor stores on every corner and locking up every bathtub moonshiner.

A good part of the reason prohibition failed was 10,000 years of societal dependence with no alternatives. Humans aren't built for the sedentary lifestyle and structured civilization we've built up and we really do need something to compensate.

We now have the technology and medical knowledge to reliably treat mental and physical ailments, we don't need ethanol as our cure-all. If I could snap my fingers and swap professional treatment and healthy recreational norms for traditional drugs I'd do it in a heartbeat.