Yeah, show me how to not get into debt and be able to afford both land and a house. People usually don’t have half a million+ lying around burning a hole in their pockets.

I honestly don’t care about the story that much in games. A good story is nice, if the gameplay is there. If the only thing that is actually good about the game is the story… I’ll just read a book instead.

Nah, Diablo 4 is much more fun when leveling from 1 to 70 or so. 70 - 100 is just doing the same things over and over with barely any rewards. It’s the other way around there, leveling is fun, endgame is dogshit.

Usually “game starts at max level” is used for MMOs like WoW. Where all the leveling is seen as annoying bullshit fetch quests and at max level you do dungeons and raids.

The story or the gameplay? Because all I wanted to do was play a fun MMO, get items and do dungeons with other people. Instead I did quests like hit 3 rocks with your basic ability. Great! Hit 3 more rocks with the same ability. Done? Now run between 4 NPCs and talk with each of them. Great, now kill 8 enemies over there. Run back, talk with 2 more NPCs. Run through the city and interact with 8 lamp posts, the interaction takes several seconds each, because why not? …

I really tried to power through this absolute bullshit, but after a few hours I simply gave up. It only got worse, not better.

As you say Heavensward, I still hear that there is a ton of dumb quests then. Like the story is right at a critical point and they send you off on hours of fetch quests before you can continue?

The story or the gameplay? Because all I wanted to do was play a fun MMO, get items and do dungeons with other people. Instead I did quests like hit 3 rocks with your basic ability. Great! Hit 3 more rocks with the same ability. Done? Now run between 4 NPCs and talk with each of them. Great, now kill 8 enemies over there. Run back, talk with 2 more NPCs. Run through the city and interact with 8 lamp posts, the interaction takes several seconds each, because why not? …

I really tried to power through this absolute bullshit, but after a few hours I simply gave up. It only got worse, not better.

Not just for series, this is the same with games.

“The first 50 hours of Final Fantasy 14 suck, but the expansions afterwards are worth it!”

“The game starts at max level!”

I can’t stand it. And it’s not like the game magically gets much better, it just feels pretty okay for someone who just wasted months of their time on the bad parts. Of course you’ll enjoy mediocre parts later on after suffering through that crap.

A game has to start being fun ten minutes after the tutorial tops. Why play it otherwise?

Seriously? Breaking Bad was awesome all things considered. But if you are not hooked by season 1 you won’t like it, period.

The middle part of the series was a drag, too many filler episodes. Strong start, strong end, but if you don’t like the start don’t even bother.

I’m only upvoting this so I’m not the only one today who regrets to have eyes.

Without knowing the actual implementation:

I’d wager comments are preserved and don’t get cleaned up over time. Because if content gets deleted the instance has to federate the deletion to other instances to clean everything up (like an event system). If the instance just vanishes there would be no deletion request happening.

If deletion was automatic when an instance goes down we’d have already lost thousands of comments due to the outages lately :)

That’s the case when an instance just straight up shuts down, right?

But if a user deletes their comment this also gets propagated to other instances. Do instance admins have a nuke button to initiate a delete for all content?

Just fyi: You’re on lemmy.ml, so part of your comment got caught in the slur filter…

Other instances can write and see ‘bitch’ :-/

I started at .ml and came here afterwards.

.ml is a bit better stability wise (though it also had worse days…) and on top of that they have a slur filter. So if someone calls you ‘bitch’ (‘bi.tch’) all you see is ‘removed’ on lemmy.ml. While the entire rest of the fediverse can read what I just wrote :-/

You need to actually have sex to catch an STD…

Multi-threading is difficult, you can’t just slap it on everything and call it a day.

There are languages where it’s easier (Go, Rust, …) but parallelism is an advanced feature. Do it wrong and you get race conditions or dead locks. There is a reason you learn about this later in programming, but you do learn about it (and get to use it).

When we’re being honest most programmers work on CRUD applications, which are highly sequential, usually waiting on IO and not CPU cycles and so on. Saving 2ms on some operations doesn’t matter if you wait 50ms on the database (and sometimes using more threads is actually slower due to orchestration). If you’re working with highly efficient algorithms or with GPUs then parallelism has a much higher priority. But it always depends on what you’re working with.

Depending on your tech stack you might not even have the option to properly use parallelism, for example with JavaScript (if you don’t jump through hoops).

At this point you’re just arguing to argue. Of course this is about the math.

This is Amdahl’s law, it’s always about the math:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/AmdahlsLaw.svg/1024px-AmdahlsLaw.svg.png

No one is telling students to use or not use parallelism, it depends on the workload. If your workload is highly sequential, multi-threading won’t help you much, no matter how many cores you have. So you might be able to switch out the algorithm and go with a different one that accomplishes the same job. Or you re-order tasks and rethink how you’re using the data you have available.

Practical example: The game Factorio. It has thousands of conveyor belts that have to move items in a deterministic way. As to not mess things up this part of the game ran on a single thread to calculate where everything landed (as belts can intersect, items can block each other and so on). With some clever tricks they rebuilt how it works, which allowed them to safely spread the workload over several cores (at least for groups of belts). Bit of a write-up here (under “Multithreaded belts”).

Teaching software development involves teaching the theory. Without that you would have a difficult time to decide what can and what can’t benefit from multi-threading. Absolutely no one says “never multi-thread!” or “always multi-thread!”, if you had a teacher like that then they sucked.

Learning about Amdahl’s law was a tiny part of my university course. A much bigger part was actually multi-threading programs, working around deadlocks, doing performance testing and so on. You’re acting as if the teacher shows you Amdahl’s law and then says “Obviously this means multi-threading isn’t worth it, let’s move on to the next topic”.

You still don’t get it. This is about algorithmic complexity.

Say you have an algorithm that has 90% that can be done in parallel, but you have 10% that can’t. No matter how many cores you throw at it, be it 4, 10, or a billion, the 10% will be the slowest part that you can’t optimize with more cores. So even with an unlimited amount of cores, your algorithm is still having to wait on the last 10% that runs on a single core.

Amdahl’s law is simply about those 10% you can’t speed up, no matter how many cores you have. It’s a bottleneck.

There are algorithms you can’t run in parallel, simply because the results depend on each other. For example in a cipher where you first calculate block A, then to calculate block B you rely on block A. You can’t do block A and B at the same time, it’s not possible. Yes, you can use multi-threading to calculate A, then do it again to calculate B, but overall you still have waiting times while you wait for each result, which means no matter how fast you get, you always have a minimum time that you’ll need.

Throwing more hardware at this won’t help, that’s the entire point. It helps to a certain degree, but at some point the parts you can’t run in parallel will hold you back. This obviously doesn’t count for workloads that can be done 100% in parallel (like rendering where you can split the workload up without issues), Amdahl’s law doesn’t apply there as the amount of single-core work would be zero in the equation.

The whole thing is used in software development (I heard of Amdahl’s law in my university class) to decide if it makes sense to multi-thread part of the application. If the work you do is too sequential then multi-threading won’t give you much of a benefit (or makes it run worse, as you have to spin up threads and synchronize results).

That’s really weird. But I can explain one value there:

You set it to 650 GB (1000 bytes), fdisk might show you GiB (1024 bytes) though. Which would be 634.8 GiB.

It’s the same as you buying a 1 TB disk and you only get a 977 GB partition out of it.

No clue about your other apps though, sorry.

There’s this Computer Science 101 concept called Amdahl’s Law that was taught wrong as a result of this - people insisted ‘more processors won’t work faster,’ when what it said was, ‘more processors do more work.’

You massacred my boy there. It doesn’t say that at all. Amdahl’s law is actually a formula how much speedup you can get by using more cores. Which boils down to: How many parts of your program can’t be run in parallel? You can throw a billion cores at something, if you have a step in your algorithm that can’t run in parallel… that’s going to be the part everything waits on.

Or copied:

Amdahl’s law is a principle that states that the maximum potential improvement to the performance of a system is limited by the portion of the system that cannot be improved. In other words, the performance improvement of a system as a whole is limited by its bottlenecks.

You are on lemmy.world, the person I responded to is on lemmy.ml.

Same here, I started with lemmy.ml and that was nice (as lemmynsfw.com was defederated). But their random slur filter was too annoying, especially when the rest of the fediverse sees the actual words.

So I switched to lemmy.world, but I probably already have 50+ NSFW communities in my block filter and they keep coming :(