Resized my mouted root partition and now 1 min delayed startup
tal @ tal @kbin.social Posts 11Comments 458Joined 2 yr. ago
tal @ tal @kbin.social
Posts
11
Comments
458
Joined
2 yr. ago
Maybe if they make enough money on this, they can expand and develop The Elder Scrolls and the Fallout series in parallel, as well as whatever else they have cooking, instead of working on only one title at a time.
I don't think that the issue is the quality of their QA. Well, okay, maybe that's a factor, but I don't think that that was the big one for Fallout 76.
Some of the issues in Fallout 76 that they shipped with, they had to know they were shipping with. It wasn't that QA didn't turn up problems, but that they took too-ambitious a plan, ran out of time, and then didn't delay the release to fix all the broken stuff. Yeah, they did a lot of work to fix the game post-release, but by then, a lot of players had already been soured by the initial bad experience.
They did significantly delay the Starfield release, so I assume that they are trying to put this out in a more-sane shape.
That's probably part of it. A big chunk of the aspects that I didn't like about it relative to Fallout 4 -- from killing off slow-mo/pause VATS, to not having a world that can change much, to limited-size "settlements", to limited moddability, to having immersion-breaking other players jetpacking around with not-in-theme names, to having limited story content -- come from the fact that they built it to be a multiplayer game.
But even so. I've seen some footage of the game at release, and it was pretty bad. And not just bugs, but the content...I mean, a Bethesda game not having human NPCs?
I will give them props for putting a lot of effort into fixing the game post-release, but I still feel that the thing shouldn't have shipped when it did. It simply wasn't ready when it went out the door.
Also, some of the fixes they did do that I think people did like -- like reducing the severity of the food/water/radstorm survival elements, which many players didn't like having to hassle with, or reducing the role of PvP, which a lot of the playerbase didn't like -- didn't result in game rebalancing. Like, the player shelters were clearly intended to be a significant element to deal with radstorms, but radstorms are essentially ignorable. Food was intended to play a bigger role, and there are features oriented towards things like reducing the rate of one's demand for it, but that was removed.
If you look at Fallout 4 or even moreso Skyrim, modders went through and rebalanced the game long after the release. I'm not saying that everyone who played those games got to enjoy those changes, but I think that they were good ones. Fallout 76 isn't really moddable in that way, so it's dependent on Bethesda's devs to do all that...and they didn't really do that.
There were no really memorable moments from the game, the way, I don't know, the battle for The Castle or the arrival of the Brotherhood of Steel's aircraft or some other moments in Fallout 4 really stuck with me. I guess to some extent that's part of just having to make a lot of the content something that you play over and over, but it still was kinda disappointing.
And I'm not demanding that they work for free. I bought all the DLC for Fallout 4 and Skyrim. I'd happily have bought something like the (excellent) DLC packs for earlier games in the Fallout series for Fallout 76. But, instead, they only sold mostly-aesthetic content in the Atom Store. Which, okay, great, if someone really wants to decorate their player camp and wants to pay for it could be appealing to someone. But they didn't create a route to pay for more story content, more maps or the like. They did create new free content, but that necessarily has a limited budget, and again, was kinda oriented around multiplayer (and didn't catch on much with me and didn't seem to be terribly popular with players on the fo76 subreddit, either).
There are some things that I did like about it, that I don't think it got credit for. The building mode performance was significantly-improved over 4. They toned down the "everything is dark and awful and evil and every person and company is twisted" aspect in 4, which I think was a big plus; there were plenty of people just trying to live their lives in difficult situations, which felt more like 1. I'm not absolutely rabid about the new areas, but the Mire looked nice by the standards of their engine, was a good use of their engine's godrays. They did a bunch of performance and stability work (that had to happen, given that one couldn't just "reload earlier saves" if something broke in a saved game a la the single player games).
I could have lived with Fallout 76 not being Fallout 5, but what I wished that they could have done was to keep selling single-player content in traditional DLC form. A lot of MUDs and similar games have a "remort" feature where one can start with a new character and earn some persistent rewards for doing so, so playing through story content multiple times is still fun. "New Game Plus", kinda. The online aspect for single-player content would just be to provide DRM, so that people wouldn't just go swipe all the stuff that they're selling in the Atom Store. And the stuff on offer in the Atom Store...ugh. If you look at the mods in Fallout 4, people created high-resolution texture packs, new companions, new story content, and they don't have anything like that for sale. You could have segregated anything that affected balance out of the multiplayer areas, had very solid single-player-only content. It might not have been Fallout 5, but I think that it could have done a much better job of making people who wanted that happier while still providing a multiplayer game for those who wanted a multiplayer game.
I mean, an automated grammar checker should get this. Shouldn't even require a human editor.
Plugging it in there catches it and suggests "least buggy".
I imagine that LLMs have been trained on his reviews by this point and are vigorously producing articles exploring the intersection of pop gaming and the Elder Things.
I used to think the Bethesda glitches were cute too until 76 came out.
I enjoyed Fallout 76, but I also ignored it until something like three years after release, at which point it was in a decent state.
It wasn't Fallout 5, which is what I really wanted, but I got my money's worth out of it.
Only bug I hit that was kind of obnoxious was the occasional inability to pick up an item from a corpse, where one would have to look away from the corpse and then back. While being a bit immersion-breaking, it was also pretty easy to work around.
Honestly, the whole Fallout series has been pretty buggy, starting with Fallout 1, but still, a good series. Some of it just comes from the complexity of having a bunch of scripts running that can interact in odd ways in a relatively free-form world.
One of my bigger wants for Fallout 5 is easier diagnosing of problems with mods and trying to be more-robust against such problems. Maybe produce more-foolproof API functionality for common script tasks or something.
JavaScript can be used to identify a user through Tor in a number of different ways. This is why Tor Browser comes pre-bundled with the “NoScript” plugin. This plugin can either reduce or disable JavaScript’s ability. When the plugin is set on the “Safest” setting, JavaScript is completely disabled. This level of security is required to completely stay anonymous and secure on Tor.
There was a point in time when I used NoScript, but years back, I stopped, as it had simply become impractical to browse the web with the degree of breakage that switching off Javascript by default produced.
I'm not saying that the article is wrong about it being necessary, but I think that from a functionality standpoint, that bar may be a high one. Maybe if you are just browsing a specific site or so, but I think that for general use of the Web, it's going to be a problem.
Bring back Twitter
I've never had an account on the service before or after the rebrand, and for the three or so people who I occasionally glance at the accounts of, I normally use nitter.net.
However...was there actually any significant functional difference associated with "X" rebrand?
The most-significant technical shift that I was aware of was many years back, when they increased the tweet character limit.
I broadly agree that "cloud" has an awful lot of marketing fluff to it, as with many previous buzzwords in information technology.
However, I also think that there was legitimately a shift from a point in time where one got a physical box assigned to them to the point where VPSes started being a thing to something like AWS. A user really did become increasingly-decoupled from the actual physical hardware.
With a physical server, I care about the actual physical aspects of the machine.
With a VPS, I still have "a VPS". It's virtualized, yeah, but I don't normally deal with them dynamically.
With something like AWS, I'm thinking more in terms of spinning up and spinning down instances when needed.
I think that it's reasonable to want to describe that increasing abstraction in some way.
Is it a fundamental game-changer? In general, I don't think so. But was there a shift? Yeah, I think so.
And there might legitimately be some companies for which that is a game-changer, where the cost-efficiencies of being able to scale up dynamically to handle peak load on a service are so important that it permits their service to be viable at all.
It sounds like it's just trusting whatever people plonk in in searches, so you can presumably poison their database with whatever GPA and SAT score you want.
UN experts say Islamic State group almost doubled the territory they control in Mali in under a year
Jump
The kind where America is expected to go solve everyone’s problems
Well, the current government in Mali is the result of a military coup. The previous, elected government was friendly with France, and the new, military coup crowd is friendly with Russia.
Then when the coup guys decided that they didn't need to hold elections when they said they would, they got condemned by the US.
Russia, China block UN Security Council from supporting new sanctions on Mali
Russia and China blocked the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday from supporting new sanctions on Mali for its military leaders’ decision to delay next month’s elections until 2026, a blow to the restoration of democracy in the troubled West African nation.
So I vaguely imagine that said government probably isn't asking the US to become involved, because the US's position is that they should have held elections.
They can also cause flooding problems downstream, because they store up a lot of water which can be released suddenly if the dam breaks.
NEW LEBANON, N.Y. — On the Saturday before the Fourth of July, about 25 residents of New Lebanon, N.Y., were cleaning up after a beaver dam broke on Thursday in Pittsfield State Forest, flooding the town.
[continued from parent]
- Third, I'd ask why British farmers are permitted to do things like raise meat. If there is truly an overriding concern about the population starving due to lack of ability to trade, then one wants to maximize the caloric output of existing British farmland, and one of the most-effective way to do that is to produce grain rather than meat; producing meat requires a lot of wasted potential calories. I remember once reading a statistic that if the US did nothing other than become vegetarian, that the surplus generated alone could feed all of Europe. Similarly, maximizing the ability of British agriculture to feed the British public involves shifting over fully to grain -- and more-generally, plant production. One could obtain meat from abroad, and meat would be a pleasant, but unnecessary luxury that could be readily foregone in the event of our highly-implausible blockade. Now, I guarantee you that British agricultural associations are not going to like that approach at all, because it will make British beef farmers unhappy, but if there truly is the danger that Save British Farming is proposing, then that is a more-effective solution than the one that they are proposing.But maybe Save British Farming is just grain farmers? Let's look at their website. Ooop, it's complaining about the Australia-UK trade agreement. And looks like they've got pictures of sheep next to their "being flooded by foreign cheap food" bit. And Australia is a huge sheepmeat producer. And it looks like the major concern about that trade agreement was from beef and sheep farmers: "The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has warned that freeing up the UK-Australian trade in meat will lead to hundreds of British cow and sheep breeders going out of business."The woman complaining is Liz Webster. If we look at her Twitter (well, X) feed, she's complaining about competition for British beef producers: "Wonder why Australian beef is cheaper than British beef? The video on the left is 🇦🇺 govt funded feedlot houses 70,000 animals fed only grain to fatten quicker. Our British cattle on the right graze across acres with plenty of trees for shade. Each has a passport."
She's not worried about British food security. She might be worried about the economic viability of her business, but that's a different matter.
EDIT: Okay, there's one more possible scenario. I'm not totally being fair. It is hypothetically possible that if a sufficiently-large chunk of the world's food producers decided to embargo the UK, to simply voluntarily refuse to trade with the UK, and then maybe put economic pressure on all the other countries sufficient to keep them from doing so, then they hypothetically could starve out the UK. Even in cases where sanctions have been imposed, food is generally allowed in, like with Iran. And food is a commodity, not easy to do that, but hypothetically, it could indeed happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodpower
In international politics, food power is the use of agriculture as a means of political control whereby one nation or group of nations offers or withholds commodities from another nation or group of nations in order to manipulate behavior. Its potential use as a weapon was recognised after OPEC’s earlier use of oil as a political weapon.
So, maybe that could be a concern. But...one significant caveat:
The four main nations that export enough agriculture to be able to exert food power are the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.[1]
So, basically, the UK's closest allies, the rest of Five Eyes, would have to collectively decide that they were going to go and starve the UK and then set off to try to get the rest of the world to go along with it.
EDIT2: And let me add one more, final point. The UK today is a net food importer. About a third of British food is imported. If the aim is to domestically produce all food required, then -- going back up to the question of why British farmers are permitted to produce meat today -- I would ask why the pre-existing situation, one about which said farming groups have been quite happy, has not been producing complaints of "food security".
Liz Webster, head of campaign group Save British Farming, told The Telegraph in February: “We live on an island in a particularly difficult climate with a very short growing season. If we don’t have any food security in a world which is chaotic, we know what happens because it happened in the last two World Wars – we are exposed to a food crisis.”
You can trade for food. You are part of the wealthy world and can outbid just about anyone else. Even in the event of a global famine, it's not gonna be the UK at the bottom of the food chain.
But the World Wars!
You were blockaded then.
Who is able and willing to blockade the UK today? That'd require a hot war. And what is the kind of insane scenario one can produce in the present world where the UK would be need to be facing down a blockade, and can then militarily pull out ahead after doing so?
- The UK is one of the more potent naval powers in the world. Trying to cut the UK off from the ocean is something that only a few countries could even realistically attempt.
- The UK is in NATO. Virtually all of the world's major naval powers are in NATO. NATO Article 6 explicitly covers attacks on the ships of member states in the North Atlantic as being in NATO's scope. You'd have to have at minimum NATO breaking up for this to even be conceivable.
- The UK is a couple miles offshore of France and even absent the Royal Navy, the UK has extensive ability to do anti-submarine warfare, knock enemy warships out of the area, shoot down aircraft in the area, and generally keep the English Channel open. So at least mainland Europe is going to have to be in opposition, since it's very dubious that anyone is going to have an easy time interposing themselves between the UK and mainland Europe.
- Even absent the entire rest of NATO and absent the entire Royal Navy, the UK and the US are allied. As things stand today, the US would reasonably be expected to win a naval war against the rest of the world combined. China is the closest thing to a peer today, and trying to fight a naval war against the UK and US concurrently in the Atlantic (a) sounds pretty unlikely and (b) probably one of the worst battlefields that China could possibly choose for something like that.
- The UK is a nuclear power with second-strike capability. Nobody, absolutely nobody -- and I include the US -- is going to try to wage an all-in war against the UK where the aim is to starve the British population without asking some very serious questions about the risk of a nuclear war.
So, what is the scenario that one is trying to hedge against? A scenario in which NATO has broken up and the UK is concurrently fighting France and the US at least? Because that scenario really seems like one where there would be rather larger military concerns than running low on food. I also think that if that is a realistic concern, then the UK would probably not be doing the military collaborations that the UK does with either, for starters.
But then why would the head of the campaign group Save British Farming say such a thing?
Well, maybe because they're an industry advocacy group, and it's in their interest not to be competing with agriculture from abroad?
Let's hypothetically say that there is an actual, real national security threat involving food shortages. Okay. Let me suggest a few things:
- Probably a lot of the UK's military strategy needs to be redone, since it is probably improperly relying on alliances if it's needing to hedge against this route. If the UK has a serious concern about fighting a conventional war against France and the US concurrently, then it needs to do a lot of things differently.
- Second, I'd want to understand what combination of enemies the UK is going to be facing that can impose a blockade on the UK but cannot otherwise defeat the UK militarily.
[continued in child]
More-generally, if you see something of this form:
community@instance.name
Where the community above is:
pixelart@lemmyloves.art
You can just plonk that into the search field in kbin, and it'll bring up a page where you can subscribe to it.
You can also link directly to the search -- and doing so apparently also works on lemmy servers, since the URL format is the same:
[Search link](/search?q=pixelart%40lemmyloves.art)
Yields:
When talking about computers, it was always 1024.
The problem is that each time you go up another unit, the binary and decimal units diverge further.
It rarely mattered much when you're talking about the difference between kibibytes and kilobytes. In the 1980s, with the size of memory and storage available, the difference was minor, so using the decimal unit was a pretty good approximation for most things. But as we deal with larger amounts of data, the error becomes more-significant.
| Decimal unit | Binary unit | Divergence |
|---|---|---|
| kilobyte (kB) | kibiyte (kiB) | 2.4% |
| megabyte (MB) | mebibyte (MiB) | 4.9% |
| gigabyte (GB) | gibibyte (GiB) | 7.4% |
| terabyte (TB) | tebibyte (TiB) | 10.0% |
| petabyte (PB) | pebibyte (PiB) | 12.6% |
| exabyte (EB) | exbibyte (EiB) | 15.3% |
AI will also solve the housing affordability crisis too so you won’t need to worry about that…right?!?
I mean, realistically, I do expect someone to put together a viable robotic house-construction robot at some point.
https://www.homelight.com/blog/buyer-how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house/
A rough breakdown of the overall costs of building a home will look like this:
Labor: 40%
Also, I'd bet that it cuts into materials cost, because you don't need to provide the material in a form convenient for a human to handle.
I've seen people creating habitations with large-scale 3d printers, but that's not really a practical solution. It's just mechanically-simple, so easier to make the robot.
I don't know if it needs to use what we'd think of as AI today to do that. Maybe it will, if that's a way to solve some problems conveniently. But I do think that automating house construction will happen at some point in time.
They know nothing they haven’t seen before
Strictly speaking, you arguably don't either. Your knowledge of the world is based on your past experiences.
You do have more-sophisticated models than current generative AIs do, though, to construct things out of aspects of the world that you have experienced before.
The current crop are effectively more-sophisticated than simply pasting together content -- try making an image and then adding "blue hair" or something, and you can get the same hair, but recolored. And they ability to replicate artistic styles is based on commonalities in seen works, but you don't wind up seeing chunks of material just done by that artist. But you're right that they are considerably more limited then a human.
Like, you have a concept of relative characteristics, and the current generative AIs do not. You can tell a human artist "make those breasts bigger", and they can extrapolate from a model built on things they've seen before. The current crop of generative AIs cannot. But I expect that the first bigger-breast generative AI is going to attract users, based on a lot of what generative AIs are being used for now.
There is also, as I understand it, some understanding of depth in images in some existing systems, but the current generative AIs don't have a full 3d model of what they are rendering.
But they'll get more-sophisticated.
I would imagine that there will be a combination of techniques. LLMs may be used, but I doubt that they will be pure LLMs.
But now every boot takes an additional 60-90 seconds with a blank screen.
Hmm.
Maybe whatever changes gparted did altered the root partition UUID; after it doesn't come up, maybe your distro has some sort of fallback to find the partition?
In /etc/fstab, you may have a line that looks something like this:
UUID=3aafadcd-1d21-4c82-97f8-f872f341bbe2 / ext4 errors=remount=ro 0 1If you run
blkid, you can check and make sure that the UUID matches.Or, as someone else mentions, maybe it's waiting for the deleted swap partition. Should be in the same file. Can comment out the reference to said swap partition.
EDIT: Wait, I'm being silly. The reference to the root partition that you're gonna care about is gonna be in the grub config file, not /etc/fstab. On my Debian system, that's at /boot/grub/grub.cfg.