Goodeye8

I feel like we have pretty good concepts and tools for world gen. If games are going to use AI I’d expect the best results to be in quest systems. Most games struggle to procedurally generate good quests. They end up feeling formulaic in almost every aspect.

I imagine even if the quest structure stays the same simple “go to X and do Y” but you let AI generate a good reason to go on the quest it instantly improves the quality of procedural quests.

But that assumes AI can generate a good reason and I have my doubts about that, and a lot of other things AI supposedly can do.

Maybe I’m not old enough but I don’t remember a time where shareware and freeware were part of a physical distribution channels. Most of my shareware I found on the internet and my knowledge of the Amiga public domain comes from Aminet, which started as a FTP site. I still had to get physical discs for full games, but shareware and abandonware I could easily find on the web.

As for for many big companies starting as indies. I’m not arguing “indie” didn’t exist back then, my point was that it was too expensive for most people to be indie. The fact that we had 10-20 “indie” studios (kinda hard to call them indie when most of the time they also ended up being publishers for other studios) back in the day and now we have thousands of indie studios supports my point that it is easier to be indie today than it was when physical media was dominant. Part of it is because of easier development tools, part of it is easier publishing.

Take off your rose-tinted glasses. We would be having this issue with physical goods as well because every game would still be competing for the attention of the customer with every other game ever released. The only thing physical goods would do is chop off the legs of the indie scene because it would simply be too costly to put their random ideas on a disc. Vampire survivors wouldn’t exist without digital releases, Balatro also probably wouldn’t exist. A lot of even weirder indie games wouldn’t exist because the cost of physically releasing them would be too much to take these random chances of releasing something weird.

And why can’t university IT set up the server? No offense but you’re a nobody asking us, also nobodies, how to set up some sort of a funky server on the university network, meanwhile the university pays people to do this for a living.

Where will the server actually be? Will it be in a secure location where only authorized personnel can physically access the machine or will it be behind the trash can in the cafeteria where anyone can access it?

Since you will lose access to it once it’s set up who will monitor the system? Who turns it on in case it somehow gets shut down? Who sets up backups and does rollbacks if something breaks?

What happens to the hardware when research project is over?

To me it all smells like something the IT department should set up. They already know the best practices. They also know whatever security guidelines they need to follow. They will have monitoring systems in place so they could admin the system instead of leaving it without an actual administrator. And they’re probably the ones decommissioning the hardware when the research project is over.

My suggestion is to leave it to the people who are getting paid to do this. It’s one thing to know how to set up a home server on your home network, it’s a different thing to set up a server on an enterprise network.

You’re viewing from the perspective of what would be best for the playerbase. These decisions are made based on what’s the cheapest possible solution to have the playerbase shut up about cheaters so they wouldn’t drive away potential customers.

“Into the kernel” is largely fear mongering.

Until it actually gets exploited.

And it’s such a weird argument to make that just because some other app uploads your entire documents directory (which to be clear is also not okay) you shouldn’t care about being forced into an potential attack vector that can take over your entire computer. Do you also leave your home server unsecured because Google is tracking you through your phone?

I think that’s a bit farfetched. I don’t think any AAA dinosaur feels threatened by Balatro, and if we talk specifically about sports games Balatro is not a threat because that genre has formed its own thick bubble that Balatro could never penetrate.

The more obvious reason is probably true, lawmakers are simply too stupid to tell the difference between using gambling motiffs and actual gambling.

I think “creating a popular kernel” is significantly downplaying his creation. Almost all of the web runs on the Linux kernel and I don’t mean just web servers but also DNS servers and routers. Every android phone uses Linux. Most embedded devices run Linux. Anything “smart” is likely to run on Linux. If your car has anything resembling an operating system it’s probably running Linux.

He didn’t create a popular kernel, he created a kernel that runs the world you live in.

You fucking donkey.

Next time read your source instead of believing you can’t be wrong because you’re too technologically inept to use the fucking find function.

I’m done putting up with your aggressive bullshit.

I didn’t lie about anything. The image made two statements. First statement is that dogs can identify us as humans. That statement is irrelevant to this discussion because I didn’t address it all. The second statement is that cats view humans as “terrible incompetent cats”.

The person you replied to asked for a source about those claim but they didn’t clarify which statement they wanted a source for. Now asking source for the second statement can be interpreted three ways. The person asked for a source for cats viewing as cats, cats viewing us as “terrible incompetent” or the previous two together that cats view us as terrible incompetent cats.

You gave a source for that statement but you also didn’t clarify which part the source verifies. So taking the 3 interpretations:

• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats your source is fine.
• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as “terrible incompetent” your source directly disproves that statement. Therefor your source is no fine.
• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats and as “terrible incompetent” your source is true on the first part but false on the second part which means your source is not fine. If you can’t understand why go back to school to learn classical logic.

Two out of three interpretations means your source is wrong. Just because you want to believe you only addressed that one interpretation where your source is right doesn’t mean you actually did because you never specified which part of the statement you gave a source for. How are we supposed to know that was what you meant?

To put it as plainly as I can put it, had you said “This source only shows that cats view us as cats” I would’ve had no issue with your comment. You left your source open to interpretation and 2 of the 3 interpretations meant you were wrong.

Now this conversation had been over many comments ago if you had just gone “I didn’t think it could be misinterpreted, my bad.” but you continue to demand you were never wrong in the first place. That is why you are getting downvoted and I’m not getting downvoted. You being an insufferable asshole who can’t properly express themselves also doesn’t help. And just to be very clear, I haven’t downvoted you once because unlike you I don’t actually care about upvotes or downvotes.

I already said this conversation is over, your unnecessarily aggressive and rude comment got removed and you still come back with not one but two comments. Do your mental health a service and log off for the next week because you’re acting like a nutcase.

I’m just going to ignore the absolute nonsense you just wrote and say that it’s not my problem if you’re incapable of acknowledging a mistake. Go have a day and don’t bother me.

The image says that. The other person asked for a source for that statement and you gave sources without correcting the terrible incompetent part. I think it’s a fair interpretation that you implied it.

From the very Nat Geo article you linked:

I’ve read articles where you’ve said cats think of us as big, stupid cats. Is that accurate?

No. In the book [I say] that cats behave toward us in a way that’s indistinguishable from [how] they would act toward other cats. They do think we’re clumsy: Not many cats trip over people, but we trip over cats.

But I don’t think they think of us as being dumb and stupid, since cats don’t rub on another cat that’s inferior to them.

They might not be able to understand that we’re a completely different species but they do understand that we’re not your average cat (another evidence of that is that cats generally don’t meow between each other but they do meow with humans) and they definitely don’t view us as terrible or incompetent. They view us as clumsy because based on how they see the world we are in general pretty clumsy.

Bit off topic but another interesting fact is that if we factor in fine motor skills we’re the least clumsiest animal on the planet. Cats have excellent gross motor skills but you don’t see them threading a needle. And very few animals could thread a needle because, well for a multitude of reasons but primarily because most animals simply can’t get that level of precision out of their limbs or mouth or trunk or whatever they would have to use. But for us that is so easy we don’t even question the level of complexity and precision we’re showcasing. Gross motor skills looks like it might bring us down but we’re actually very adaptive when it comes to gross motor skills (see parkour, rock climbing or just gymnastics). We simply don’t spend time developing those skills because most of us never need it. We don’t need to climb over fallen trees or crawl under bushes because if a lot of people need to use that route we just pave a road.