@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Yep, that's the one. It's brutal. I've read that if you know how the mechanics of the mission work it's not too bad, but going into it blind on an Ironman playthrough went very poorly indeed.

Grats on the clear! Classic Ironman is no joke, I assume the same is true for Commander Ironman in XCOM 2. I've tried a classic Ironman run in the first game, which came to an unceremonious end in the Newfoundland mission. I knew it to be an infamous mission but hadn't played it before, so I brought my A team... which got wiped out. This kills the campaign.

Overall I think XCOM 2 is neat, but not as good as the first game. I think the theme is a lot less interesting, and I dislike the constant pressure it puts on the player, especially at the strategic layer. And I might be unusual in this, but I actually thought the end of the story in the first game was really interesting and was looking forward to seeing where they went with it... but then they abandoned it. I don't hate XCOM 2 or anything, but EU is imo the better of the two overall.

But, fundamentally, I don't think the labs care about art or prose style.

That is probably true, but not really indicative that things will improve. The labs do care about programming, and LLMs still suck at programming. So even the thing the labs have put probably the most effort into, the machine is still below the level of a competent human.

You could be right. I figured that he was intoxicated with something, but there are all kinds in this world.

That is possibly the oddest thing I've ever seen on the Internet. I can only imagine the level of regret that dude felt when he sobered up the next day.

Also, if you do have reliable reference material in hand, you can ask the LLM about topics within it and have something to double-check to make sure the clanker isn't just hallucinating. It can be more effective than reading the references straight through, depending on your learning style and how the material is written.

That makes sense. If there has been a rise in sex tourism, are there establishments which cater to that by having girls who speak Chinese and Korean? Or is that not really acceptable due to the politics you mentioned?

Thanks for the info, it was super interesting. I didn't know there was such a wide variety in the sex trade in Japan. Though of course, it's not like I'm particularly knowledgeable about the sex trade in the US, so it stands to reason I know even less about a foreign country.

I thought that soaplands and the like had a strict "no foreigners" policy? In which case it wouldn't matter how quick the flight was, you wouldn't really be able to go to Japan to get laid.

I have long said that the actual threat to democracy in our country is the hyper partisan attitude that led to calling Trump a threat to democracy. I still believe that, and I think we are likely to see that continue to erode our democratic government even after Trump is out of office.

I hope that LLMs will become so cheap and reliable that all the previously hidden stupidity will be aired out for all to see soon enough.

LLMs are one of the things making people stupider (and are themselves very stupid), so you shouldn't hold your breath on that.

The text explicitly tells you that it was pre-ordained. The text explicitly tells you that if the characters we follow didn't step up, someone would have. I can't stop you from selectively ignoring that to fuel your interpretation, but you're well into the realm of making stuff up and not going off what the books actually say.

That is exactly how it's portrayed in the book. Your interpretation is explicitly contradicted by the text.

While Seldon is able to predict with broad strokes the various crises that the Foundation faces, the polity relies on the genius of various great men to get them out of these crises.

No it doesn't. The entire point of the Foundation premise is that the "great men" are just responding to the inexorable forces of history, and if it wasn't the characters we see, it would be someone else who stepped up. Asimov does invoke the great man theory of history, but it doesn't happen until the sixth story (in the second book). In the first book it's all historical forces, all the time.

Don't bring up the EU, nobody reads that.

The EU is widely read and beloved by Star Wars fans. Hardly "nobody".

My parents have way more backbone than to let that get to them.

I'm not forgetting that at all. But I think your argument is missing that there was not only the group of fans who loathed the prequels. There were also fans who enjoyed them quite a bit. I remember going to see Phantom Menace as a teenager with my friends, and we all came out of that movie stoked about how cool it was to see the Old Republic and the Jedi order at its peak, things we had only imagined before. I fully acknowledge that there were fans who very vocally and bitterly hated the prequels, but they were not even close to unanimous among the fan base.

As I said: I knew perfectly well that wouldn't have been acceptable. I don't think being strong minded even comes into it. I'm actually a pretty stubborn person (as many people can attest), but I'm not a fool either. I don't waste my energy on things that have zero chance of success, and as a child I didn't waste my energy on nagging my parents as a result.

My experience is that they will want what they want, and you can't really fight against it too hard, because that makes them want it more. It all ends up being a negotiation, whether you want it to or not...

That makes no sense to me. When I was growing up, if my parents disallowed something, that was all there was to it. Sometimes, if I could, I might try to go behind their backs (e.g. trying to catch Power Rangers on TV even though it was banned), but it was never a negotiation and nor did I have any illusions that I had a say in what was and early allowed. As I am not a parent I can't offer any meaningful advice or critique of any kind as to what the difference might be, only to say that your statement here is completely at odds with my experience growing up. And my parents were hardly super strict, either. It was simply well understood by both sides that this stuff wasn't remotely up for debate.

Not to the same extent as now, IMO. The prequels have their haters, but they have just as many fans. The sequels are so bad that even some prequel haters have softened their stance and talk about how at least Lucas had a vision, even if it was imperfect. The sequels do have fans, to be sure, but they are by far in the minority whereas opinion on the prequels was much more evenly split.

My man!

So if there's no economic benefit, why the tax breaks? Is it just plain bribery, i.e. the tech guys bribing the local government?

It certainly seems to be that way.

[free speech maximalism is like] Lions fandom. The adulation of a losing team for the purpose of not having to pick between real contenders.

I think you're dead wrong about Lions fans, and by extension free speech maximalists. They aren't sticking with a losing thing because that's easier than choosing between possible contenders, they are sticking with the losing thing because they truly love it and are unwilling to abandon it no matter the cost. I think that this is noble and something more people should emulate, personally. The world is a shitshow these days precisely because so many people evaluate their principles based upon the results they get from them, rather than sticking to "sorry, but this is just plain right and I don't care if anyone else agrees".

I imagine you'll point towards the two attempted Trump assassinations and Charlie Kirk, but I'm unconvinced this is out of the ordinary for a particularly controversial political figure.

I'm somewhat on the fence about Trump (I can't remember any president in my lifetime having actual assassination attempts, however controversial, but presidents have been assassinated before so it's at least not unheard of), but Kirk? No way. It's completely out of the ordinary, hell, completely unheard of as far as I know, for people to go out and murder a political commentator. No matter how reviled that commentator is.

Not spending a third or more of your life in toil should be attractive to everyone.

It's attractive, but there's almost no shot of that happening even if the tech is everything people believe it is. Come on, man, these tech companies are run by sociopaths. If they have an incredible AI that can do the things they say, they will use it to put all of us peons in the dirt serving them. There's no outcome to this thing which results in "John Smith gets to live his best years in comfort", it's either "the tech doesn't actually work" or "the bastards in charge of the tech use it to screw us all".