Forth

I totally agree in principle, but to give this particular article the benefit of the doubt, I feel they’re specifically trying to directly counter right wing talking points. So rather than saying “being a man is meaningless” to a bunch of people who feel strongly about male identity, they’re instead saying “there’s more than one way to man. Here’s a good male role model now!” to try and reach some middle dudes who are conflicted and getting preyed upon.

I agree that in the fullness of time we shouldn’t focus on this stuff, but I’m a bit worried about perfect being the enemy of good, and continuing to preach to our choir while 40% of dudes fall into a belief that women are the enemy and need to be controlled and shit.

Nah, I mean, I was around when George Bush was the guy. I didn’t like him, I didn’t feel he was a good leader, or fit for the office. I would try to convince people not to support him or the war(s) in the middle east. But he was not a threat to democracy. Except maybe through The Patriot Act…

There was a lot of things I didn’t agree with that Mitt Romney believes. I think voting him in would have been regressive and bad for gay people, etc, who I care about. I think he is wrong about things. But he’s not a threat to democracy. I belive that he believes the things he claims to believe, and that he believes in his heart that he’s doing the right thing. I just disagree with him.

John McCain seemed like an honorable man. Again, I felt that his priorities and mine didn’t line up, but he was nowhere near a threat to democracy.

The reason this dude is a threat to democracy is because he has openly and repeatedly disregarded voting and the function of government, which is kinda democracy’s whole thing. If the votes don’t count, and the results don’t follow the will of the voters, then it’s not a democratic system. If you systematically choose to make it so some segment of your citizens cannot vote, or their voices are not heard, then it’s not a democratic system.

I agree with OP. If there’s a puzzle in a game that’s clearly some kind of water puzzle, but I can make a boat to solve it in 15 seconds and bypass the obvious intent of the puzzle, maybe I feel a bit clever. But if I can solve every puzzle with effectively the same boat… what’s the point of doing the puzzles? I guess because I wanted puzzles? But on the other hand, if I know I can solve every puzzle with a 15 second boat, it feels kinda weird to pretend I don’t have an answer and struggle through anyway. Like, the victory is hollow when I know I could have solved it faster the dumb way.

The number of times in that game I thought “oh, maybe I have to jump up through the floor here to get through this door” and then I peeked through the floor and was like “oh, nope. It’s the damn final boss room again. Not supposed to be here yet, better go back through the floor and try another way to open this door” felt like I was babysitting the game so as to not entirely ruin the experience… and it kinda ruined the experience…

Similar to other people, I think you should own it. Try to think of it not as “I betrayed my character” but rather “my character gave in to temptation and regrets it but has to live with the consequences”, then use that. Play the character as though they are unhappy with the changes, they regret it, but they must soldier on.

People aren’t all perfect archetypes, and characters can have flaws and nuances. And the best part is, if your character up until now had no reason to make the choice you made, maybe it’s time for an out of game flashback. Work backwards… what thing could have happened in their backstory that would explain why they made this seemingly incongruous choice? Why did this tempt them when so many other things did not, and why does this cause them so much shame now. That kind of stuff.

Or don’t! Just some suggestions, since it sounds like you’ve got nothing to lose, may as well try some character development!

I think that’s too much thinking, I’m pretty sure it’s simpler than that. North Americans say “December Twelfth” or “May Forth” or “March Fourteenth” rather than “The Fourteenth of March”.

So they go “March -> 3”, “Fourteenth -> 14”, and you get “3/14” that you can read from left to right as “March Fourteenth”. That’s about it, I’m pretty sure.

And so long as everyone agrees which one comes first it’s not ambiguous. Of course, everyone doesn’t agree, and there are logical reasons to pick the others, but this one is simply in reading order.

Zulu. It’s shorter and cooler

I’ve never been a Twitter/microblog user, but here’s how I gather it worked, presented in the order in which it was developed.

Do you ever think “oh, that’s a funny/interesting thought I had”, but there’s no one around to tell? Or not enough people and you think it had more potential than that? Microblog. Unlike a forum, you just dump in out into the void as-is. It’s a broadcast. Like if every account was a personal /r/showerthoughts.

From there we make it so I can subscribe to my friends. Now when they post their funny thoughts, or even just being like “I feel like tacos tonight, anyone in SF down?” I’ll get their post. Now it’s kinda like open group texting. Except I don’t choose who sees my random thoughts, they self-select. I just broadcast things out there and whoever might be interested might be interested.

That was basically all that microblogs were, at the beginning. A stream of non-topic’d stuff I said, and you can follow me if you want to hear more like it.

But sometimes I’m surrounded by strangers, like at a conference. At these points I want to know what random people I don’t follow are all saying about FooCamp. Search already exists so I can see all tweets with the word “cat” in it, but I can’t find a way to fit FooCamp organically into every post, so hashtags get invented as a social convention to say “that was my message, but here are some other keywords for search purposes”. Later they got linkified and so people started putting them inline, but originally they were just at the end and just for extra categorization.

So now the tool does two things. I can just broadcast out any thought I have without having to care about where to put it, etc. It all goes on my feed and anyone who has chosen to care about me will see it. And I choose who I care to receive broadcasts from because they’re cool, and it doesn’t matter what they’re talking about. But also I can tag a particular message with some categories, and that will allow strangers to see my messages if they happen to be looking for messages in that category, but obviously a single message can be in multiple categories.

Then later famous people and governments showed up, and people followed them because they love go hear what famous people talk about. But if you don’t follow them, then you don’t hear from them.

That’s basically it! So it’s kinda like the opposite of a reddit/lemmy/forum/usenet model. Rather than topics that have content posted by people, it’s people who post content that sometimes has a topic. Like a large group-chat (among friends or colleagues) where you’re not really sure who is in the chat, but you don’t have to care. You can prefer one over the other (I know I do), but fundamentally they’re not trying to solve the same problem as lemmy, they’re just a totally different model for communication. More like a friend group than a discussion group.

No, you got that backwards. If it’s a long distance: km. But small distances for work is feet and inches.

I don’t know the answer to the title, so I’ll answer the body. The answer is “it depends”.

If you’re talking to someone in a technical setting, then servers are the physical machines. The computers themselves, sitting in a room somewhere. Or maybe a virtual server that pretends to be a physical machine, but runs on a real server that sits in a room somewhere. Whereas a website is some location you can put into a web browser and get content that “feels” like it’s all one thing.

The reason this distinction matters is because you can host multiple small websites on a single server. For example there’s no reason a particular machine couldn’t host 10 different lemmy instances, if it’s got enough processing power.

But on the other hand a popular website may have its work spread across multiple servers. Maybe I’ve got a database server, which is a machine that only runs the database. And then maybe I have a few different web servers that actually serve “the webpage”, but I’ve also got a cache server that stores part of the webpage and serves that when it can, etc. Websites like Facebook or Twitter are considered one website but have thousands and thousands of servers.

But if you’re talking to someone in a non-technical setting, yeah they’re basically the same.

I have two criticisms of this view.

The first is the distinction between “replacing humans” and “making humans more productive”. I feel like there’s a misunderstanding on why companies hire people. I don’t hire 15 people to do one job because 15 is a magic number of people I have to hit. I hire 15 people because 14 people weren’t keeping up and it was worth more to my business to hire another expensive human to get more work done. So if suddenly 5 people could do the work of 15, because people became 3x more efficient, I’d probably fire 10 people. I no longer need them, because these 5 get the job done. I made the humans more effective, but given that humans are a replacement for humans, I now don’t need as many of those because I’ve replaced them with superhumans instead.

If I’m lucky as a company I could possibly keep the same number of people and do 3x as much business overall, but this assumes all parts of my business, or at least the core part, increases at the same time. If my accounting department becomes 3x as efficient but I still have the same amount of work for them to do because accounting isn’t the purpose of my business, then I’m probably going to let go some accountants because they’re all sitting around idle most of the time.

It used to be that a gang of 20 people would dig up a hold in the road, but now it’s one dude with an excavator.

The second thing is the assumption that AI art is being evaluated as art. We have this notion in our culture that artists all produce only the best novels and screenplays, and all art hangs in a gallery and people look at it and think about what the artist could have meant by this expression, etc. But that’s virtually no one in the grand scheme of things. The fact that most people know the names of a handful of “the most famous artists of all time”, and it’s like 30 people on the whole earth and some of them are dead should mean something.

Most writers write stuff like the text on an ad in a fishing magazine. Or fully internal corporate documents that are only seen by employees of that one company. Most visual artists draw icons for apps that never launch. Or the swoopy background for an article. Or did the book jacket for a book that sells 8 copies at a local tradeshow. If there’s a commercial for chips, someone had to write it, someone had to direct it, someone had to storyboard it. And no one put it in a museum and pondered its expression of the human experience. Some people make their whole living on those terrible stock photographs of a diverse set of people all laughing and putting their hands into the middle to show they’re a team.

Even if every artist with a name that anyone knows is unaffected by this, that can still represent a massive loss of work for basically all creative professionals.

You touched on some of these things but I think glossed over them too much. AI art may not replace “Art”, but virtually no one makes money from “Art”, and so it doesn’t have to replace it for people to have no job left.

Also, while we’re at it, there are some individuals who are friendly and flexible and could probably make a relationship work with many people. And some people are stubborn grouches that couldn’t even mesh with themselves if there was an exact copy.

Also, one third of all people live in China or India alone. So of those 3ish billion people, there’s a 1 in 3 chance they live in India or China and likely don’t speak English. It’s so wild that a lot of people’s soul mates grew up in the same neighborhood they did, were exactly the same age, and went to the same school…

Depends on what you want. I’ve been liking Godot, but I’m an “Open Source” person. There’s definitely more of a community around Unity or Unreal.

But Godot is free in both ways and relatively user friendly, and since you’re uninterested in hiring a hundred people, using a tool that you like is fine, even if it’s not the most popular.

There’s a course I’ve never used called Learn GDscript which teaches the inbuilt language for Godot (GDScript) in the browser with fun interactive tasks. It looks neat, but I’ve never tried it myself. You can use other languages with Godot, but I recommend the GDScript. It’s very similar to Python and is well integrated into the engine.

So from there it’s about screwing around! Like other people have said, you’re not going to whip up the game that’s in your head in anything like the time frame you probably think. Even if you think you’re being realistic, it’s probably even worse than that. But I don’t say this to discourage you, I say this to prevent you from discouraging yourself!

If you can get a game where a green circle goes through a maze and then text shows up on the screen that says “you did it”, that should be viewed as an accomplishment! It’s simple, sure, but it’s something you did. Try to break your game’s features up into micro chunks that are playable. It’s easy to spend 6 months working on something and making progress, but not in any way you can show friends or whoever, and can’t even really “play” yourself. That can be demotivating. Try as much as you can to have something playable as often as possible. It will feel much more like real progress if you constantly have something you can demo.

And also don’t underestimate how much a bit of art and sound effects can change an experience. Silent 2D boxes is fine to test things out, but even a free art and sound effects pack makes a huge difference in how fun a game can feel. It can make even a simple premise suddenly feel like a game.

Good luck, have fun! Oh, also once you’re done tripping over your feet, maybe try a game jam! They’re good exercise.

Agreed.

But, to be clear without giving spoilers, by “simulation game in space” it means getting in a ship and flying from planet to planet, while dealing with things like gravity and momentum. In my opinion just the right amount of challenge that it starts hard but doable, but is possible to get good at in the late game. So that was lots of fun.

Also, while I will not reveal plot here, I feel given feedback from some of my friends that didn’t like it the way I did, that maybe setting some tone expectations may help. The gameplay experience is mostly about exploring the planets, learning stuff, observing things, and making connections in you, the player. There’s archeological evidence out there in space, and it’s your job to figure out the history. It’s not boring, though! It feels more like a giant puzzle. But you should go in with an exploration mindset and if a particular path doesn’t work out, maybe it’s not time yet. Just try exploring something else!

One of my friends was too “goal oriented” and just kept hammering a given path over and over and it made them frustrated, which is a shame.

Also, while the DLC is also good, I waited until after the main game to play it, and I’m glad I did. I don’t know how it works to have the DLC running at the same time as the main game, but they’re two pretty independent stories / investigations and I wouldn’t want to get accidentally caught up in one while trying to piece together the other. I feel like that would be pretty confusing.

To any followup posters, remember no spoilers!

I think the normal issue prohibiting e2e encrypted messages being actually good is that end to end encryption requires keys, and keys require verification, and verification requires a trusted outside channel.

As it stands I would want a secure line to some random user I don’t know anything about, so I need a key. Where do I get a user’s key? I ask the same untrusted admin of their lemmy instance for it and they give it to me. How do I validate this key is actually this user’s? I don’t, I just trust the key the admin gave me. Then I encrypt my message and send it over.

So it protects against an honest instance being attacked later. Or against a shortsighted admin who might feel a little like peeking but hadn’t thought about being dishonest yet.

But in exchange for a smidge of security, what you gain is that new clients can’t read any DM you received before you started using it, or a buggy client who hasn’t synced the keys lately sending a message that only 2 of your clients can read but not the one you’re using right now. Or a phone falling into a toilet and effectively taking all your DMs with it because either there was no UI to back up your keys, or there was one but you didn’t use it because no one ever uses it, or there is a UI to backup the keys but no UI to import them on the next client, etc.