A game can offer an experience that leaves the player feeling satisfied or at least content with how they spent their time. There is a large space of possible interactive experiences that extend far beyond the simple dichotomy of fun vs educational or productive.
A game can certainly be considered predatory if it exploits psychological vulnerabilities to hook someone on engaging gameplay that gives the player very little in return in terms of fulfillment or mental recovery. Whether or not it takes the opportunity to swindle the player on top of that is a matter of degree in severity. Wasting a player's time (or worse, induce stress or other harmful mental states for no good reason) is not a particularly nice thing to do.
You shouldn't need to be a prompt engineer just to get answers to math questions that are not blatantly wrong. I believe the prompts are included in the paper so that you don't have to guess if they were badly formatted.
You only has to ask an AI a complicated question to which you already know the answer to see why you shouldn't trust anything elseit says. LLMs have their uses, but answering questions is not one.
Just want to add that I don't think it's a technological plateau. I think it's capitalism producing shiny and "upgraded" versions of things that are easy to sell. Things that enable accessible and rapid consumption. High refresh rate, vertical high-resolution screens for endless scrolling in apps optimised for ads-scrolled-past-per-second. E-ink devices only good enough that you can clearly see the ads on them as you read your books. Things are just not made for humans. They're made for corporations to extract value out of humans.
I'm just disappointed in the direction of UX they're all taking. Ubuntu Touch was looking innovative and made me excited. Then that didn't happen and now we just have a bunch of Android look-alikes but worse and buggier. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad to have GNU/Linux on a phone either way (especially NixOS Mobile), but I'm not excited to use one.
I don't know if it's just me getting older or if innovation in how we interface with technology has just sort of stagnated. In the past there was so much happening. New input methods (all kinds of pointer devices, joysticks, weird keyboards); graphical paradigms (floating windows vs tiling panes, tabs, stacking, grouping, virtual desktops); display technologies (vector graphics, convex screens, flat screens, projectors, VR headsets, e-ink); even machine architectures (eg Lisp machines) and how you interacted with your computer environment as a result.
As far as I can tell, VR systems are the latest innovation and they haven't changed significantly in close to a decade. E-ink displays are almost nowhere to be found, or only attached to shitty devices (thanks, patent laws) - although I'm excited for the PineNote to eventually happen.
How do we still not have radial menus?! Or visual graph-like pipelining for composing input-outputs between bespoke programs?! We've all settled on a very homogenous way of interacting with computers, and I don't believe for a second that it's the best way.
It has so many interesting possible applications. Declarative and reproducible wine configurations for games and software; universal (cross-distro) packaging (without emulated runtime environments like flatpak); reproducible user environments managed easily with a GUI with trivial version control (both for config and software versions); pre-configuring a system before even setting it up (such as configuring a raspberry pi before you've even bought one so that once you have, you just install and configure everything in one go).
It isn't not the goal, either. Nix is very popular with devs for many obvious reasons, so most of the developments naturally has to do with making that an even better experience. That doesn't mean accessibility is a non-goal; there just isn't a great deal of motivation to work on making the operating system easy for non-devs to use.
On top of the other explanations, it's natural that many, if not most, who decide to check out alternatives don't stick around for various reasons.
They might not have found the right instance for them (or even realized they were supposed to).
They might not care enough about the new state of reddit to leave, after all.
The communities that kept them on reddit in the first place may not exist here so they have no incentive to stick around.
The bugs, growing pains, quirks, and rough UX might have outweighed perceived benefits.
They may have been put off by the model or culture for whatever personal/ideological reasons.
They might still be using fediverse platforms but isolated by fediblocks or by their own choice.
They may or may not reconsider in the future, or their usage of the internet may have changed entirely (so they're out of the game, so to speak).
We should just keep doing what we think is best for the kind of communities we want to see emerge and thrive here. Growth for its own sake is not helpful or valuable.
I maintain #science-space:matrix.org as sort of an entry point to explore scientific communities. Then there is #non-technology:matrix.org which is even more general.
While the basic idea is interesting, the statement is misconceived. It confuses what you believe to be possible with what is possible according to quantum physics.
For your statement to be true, the lottery would have to be set up in such a way that the choice of winning lottery number is decided by the outcome of a quantum measurement which includes the possibility of your number being chosen. The outcome would then exist in superposition, and as soon as you learn the result, you are entangled with it and enter into superposition as well.
But like I said, the core idea is still fun to think about, because this type of branching happens constantly and it becomes an interesting philosophical dilemma of how to think about what could possibly happen, not merely what does (as far as any 'you' can tell). Imagine if you could experience all outcomes of some particular chain of events and how that would affect the way you make decisions.
Something that would make it massively easier is portable/decentralised identities, or at least easy account migration. This should go for communities as well so that a community can exist independently of an instance, or be migrated to another instance with subscribers being redirected seamlessly.
Unfortunately, you're at the mercy of the devs. They'll try to find it there and if you moved it it effectively doesn't exist. What you can do is move it elsewhere and put a symlink to the new location in its place. It'll still clutter your home dir but that way you can at least keep the actual files somewhere else for purposes like syncing (or just keeping it organised on principle).
I really want to avoid clearing the cache because it would bother me a lot to have to reconfigure things again. I don't mind a clean state, but I do mind having my setup wiped (considering how bad devs generally are with putting configuration in $HOME/.cache/ vs $HOME/.config/ and vice versa for application state). Not to mention there may be a thousand other factors involved, so it's very possible wiping the cache wouldn't do any good anyway.
Could it be to identify you as OP?
edit: probably not; there is a different marker for that.