- 0 Posts
- 53 Comments
i always thought of it as the general worsening of something in the pursuit of the short term increase in capitalist benefits (or the delusion of such).
It’s used a lot for products and/or services but underlying those is probably the enshittification of all the supporting structures, mental and physical health of the workers etc.
I could be wrong however.
I agree it’s a bit stark but it does ease up once you get used to the hunting and gathering mechanics, not by much though.
I think the in game reasoning is that the cold your experiencing is already coldest canada, but has an element of extra ice age cold.
Coldness increases calorie consumption due to the heating requirements i think , but i can’t say I’ve been anywhere cold enough to say if it’s accurate or not in the game.
Hmm, i slept on that one because i got it mistaken with Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes which is multiplayer and therefore not my usual jam.
I’ll give it a look.
Gone home was great, another good one was Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture.
The Long Dark feels similar in style, though it has a lot more game elements to it.
Now if only they’d finish the actual fucking game instead of tweaking the multiplayer no-one asked for, releasing a full six part DLC or developing and getting a significant way through finishing a full sequel.
Not salty about that one at all, nope.
Ultimately you must do right because it’s right to do right. . . . You must do it because it has gripped you so much that you are willing to die for it if necessary. And I say to you this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and so precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live.
That tracks.
It’s going to depend on your interest or ability to research. However, if one were to simply buy used items when possible, or choose a brand one thinks aligns with themselves after some research, I think that’s a good start.
Agreed.
Tony’s Chocolonely is a good example of this, it’s not that they are 100% there but they explain why certain decisions were made so i can decide for myself if it’s enough.
If one thinks they might need compromise their morals, I think they should really consider their options. I’d rather pay full price for an old used GPU than give nvidia any money, but that’s my personal opinion.
I do know what you mean, i’m just not 100% sure where the morals/ethics line is supposed to go.
I’m not amoral it just seems like people arbitrarily draw lines and they seem so certain.
I’m not sure where that certainty comes from, because i don’t have it.
I think this is just because car companies weren’t yet starting to surveil their drivers as part of a new revenue stream until 2014. You can read more about it.
interesting, thanks.
I don’t expect everyone to live like this, not everyone has the luxury. But I do hope people atleast try to not pay companies that harm them.
I kind of agree, but this is the kind of thing i mean, almost all companies harm them in some way, from business practices to supply chain, workforce, political donations, equipment purchases, environmental concerns.
I’m not a crazy person, i understand there is a difference between the local corner store buying a bigger truck than they need vs bezos draining whole water tables so he can buy another spaceship, it’s just how people pick the hills to die on in the middle that’s confusing to me.
I have something i use but it’s contextual and inconsistent and by no means gives me the kind of certainty i see in other people.
New is the key word here.
That’s fair, it isn’t how i read it but i can see it’s importance now you’ve pointed it out.
We should be boycotting all companies that we don’t agree with. And NVIDIA is a department of war contractor and American Regime mega donor.
This is nice in theory but the practical application is difficult.
I can get into it, but it’s a common conversation i have on here, almost all of modern society is built on horrific shit, where is the line?
Is it first order disagreements like this NVIDIA boycott, or is it second order as well ? Meaning any company that willingly works with NVIDIA or explicitly buys new NVIDIA gpu’s ?
It’s not a trick question, I’m trying to gauge what you meant by that statement.
To be clear, i’m not saying to do nothing, i’m trying to figure out where your line is and why.
If you actually need something, and it’s possible to need a GPU, then you can buy second hand from within your community. Try to buy as local as possible, look for things like surplus office equipment or at local repair shops.
That’s fair, though i would add a caveat to say “where possible”
As a concrete example, GPU’s right now are ridiculous which means the secondhand market is tight, if your timeframe/need is also tight then it might not be possible to always do the “right thing™”.
In your example of a car, buying a used car is also better than buying a new car in many ways, especially since cars made before 2014 were not able to surveil you.
Agreed.
Why pick 2014, was there some regulatory requirement introduced then ?
Boycott bad companies / practices, and stop consuming the latest slop they put in the trough.
See my question about lines above.
I’d advise you to think of that next time you use any electronics or eat any meat products or chocolate or coffee, drive your car (if you have one).
… wear anything by most of the major clothes or trainer brands , buy anything from amazon or use any of their services, use google services or facebook or instagram or tiktok…or whatsapp.
If you want to argue about selective integrity and conviction , I’m willing to hear your position.
I wasn’t saying buying GPU’s is good, i was saying that the argument that they are optional is weak.
Jobs, social activities, entertainment, groceries, non-emergency medical care.
Don’t get me wrong, cars are a shitty necessity to have, but they are a necessity in some places.
If you want to argue that society should change so this isn’t true, I’m right there with you, but it’s not the reality of now.
Greater compared to human code? Not sure about that, but I’m not disagreeing either. Greater compared to verified able programmers, sure, but in general?..
Both.
The reasons are quite hard to describe, which is why it’s such a trap, but if you spend some time reviewing LLM code you’ll see what I mean.
One reason is that it isn’t coding for logical correctness it’s coding for linguistic passability.
Internally there are mechanisms for mitigating this somewhat, but its not an actual fix so problems slip through.
I don’t think I’m getting your point here. Do you mean by that, the code basically lacks focus on an end goal? Or are you talking about the fuzzyness and randomization of the output?
The latter, if you give it the exact same input in the exact same conditions, it’s not guaranteed to give you the same output.
The fact that its sometimes close to the same actually makes it worse because then you can’t tell at a glance what has changed.
It also isn’t a simple as using a diff tool, at least for anything non-trivial, because it’s variations can be in logical progression as well as language.
Meaning you need to track these differences across the whole contextual area which, if you are doing end to end generation, is the whole codebase.
As I said, there are mitigations, but they aren’t fixes.
Let’s assume we’re skipping the ethical and moral concerns about LLM usage and just discuss the technical.
it makes an impression on me as if human code would be free of such errors
Nobody who knows anything about coding is claiming human code is error free, that’s why code reviews, testing and all the other aspects of the software development lifecycle exist.
To me it sounds like nobody should ever trust AI code
Nobody should trust any code unless it can be verified that it does what is required consistently and predictably.
because there can or will be mistakes you can’t see, which is reasonably careful at best and paranoid at worst
This is a known thing, paranoia doesn’t really apply here, only subjectively appropriate levels of caution.
Also it’s not that they can’t be seen, it’s just that the effort required to spot them is greater and the likelihood to miss something is higher.
Whether or not these problems can be overcome (or mitigated) remains to be seen, but at the moment it still requires additional effort around the LLM parts, which is why hiding them is counterproductive.
At some point there is no difference anymore between “it looks fine” and “it is fine”.
This is important because it’s true, but it’s only true if you can verify it.
This whole issue should theoretically be negated by comprehensive acceptance criteria and testing but if that were the case we’d never have any bugs in human code either.
Personally i think the “uncanny valley code” issue is an inherent part of the way LLM’s work and there is no “solution” to it, the only option is to mitigate as best we can.
I also really really dislike the non-declarative nature of generated code, which fundamentally rules it out as a reliable end to end system tool unless we can get those fully comprehensive tests up to scratch, for me at least.
Think of it like a jeweller suddenly announcing they were going to start mixing in blood diamonds with their usual diamonds “good luck finding them”.
Functionally, blood diamonds aren’t different.
Leaving aside that you might not want blood diamonds, are you really going to trust someone who essentially says “Fuck you, i’m going to hide them because you’re complaining”
If you don’t know what blood diamonds are, it’s easily searchable.
I’ll go on record as saying the aesthetic diamond industry is inflationist monopolist bullshit, but that doesn’t alter the analogy
Secondly, it seems you don’t really understand why LLM generated code can be problematic, i’m not going to go in to it fully here but here’s a relevant outline.
LLM generated code can (and usually does) look fine, but still not do what it’s supposed to do.
This becomes more of an issue the larger the codebase.
The amount of effort needed to find this reasonable looking, but flawed, code is significantly higher than just reading a new dev’s version.
Hiding where this code is makes it even harder to find.
Hiding the parts where you really should want additional scrutiny is stupid and self-defeating.
Technically there should be some legal recourse, perhaps jail, whether or not that comes to pass is subject to the same shenanigans law enforcement usually comes with.
But that isn’t what they were saying, they were saying that in japan almost no-one is allowed guns so the likelihood that a person was defending their house with a legal gun is very low.
I agree it wasn’t totally clear.
Probably not one that stands up to scrutiny.
If they have fixed programming, the bias would be consistent, but still there, because it would be based upon systems that are already inherently bias.
Any current ML system is beholden to the data/constraints it was built with, if inherent bias exists in the data it will exist in the resulting system.
That’s before you even start taking in to account the infrastructure that would be managing them being potentially corrupt or having their own interpretations of “public safety”.
“These bots from <generic third party> are bringing in more cases against the <“good” people>, but these ones from <tech company with the same bigoted ideology as us> can be tweaked to target the <“bad” people>, which of these two companies should we purchase our inventory from ?”
At Launch the game was heroically broken on ps4, literally unplayable.
PS5 was buggy but doable.
PC was hit and miss, i had a reasonable time with it though.
Agree about the turnaround, like a faster no mans sky, which i would hope with the difference in budget.
Not understanding how it doesn’t qualify under my original statement.
I wasn’t addressing your original post, but i can give my opinion i suppose.
Your original criteria of “AAA done right” were:
“solid ending, no monetization beyond a full expansion for less than retail, and good story”.
So the comment:
Releasing a broken beta version for full retail price is not “AAA done right”
Doesn’t so much point out how cyberpunk doesn’t fit your proposed criteria, but rather that “baseline release quality” should also be in the list.
Which i agree with, I’d go as far as to say “should be a playable, functional game at launch” is a baseline requirement for any type of studios that wishes to be considered “Doing things right”.
Fair enough, came in a bit hot there, my bad.
I’d argue that it not being a legal threat doesn’t matter too much in this case because they aren’t looking for legal control, so much as “effective” control.
If they can stop you without needing for it to be signed in to law, then they’ll take that, if they can get a law as well, then I’m sure they’ll take that too.
Don’t get me wrong- its not that I don’t care about censorship, its that I don’t really view this as censorship because the consumption and purchasing of the “censored” product is still completely possible. Contrarily, if this were signed into law I would have a big fucking problem with it.
Censorship isn’t a binary, but we can agree to disagree on that one i suppose.
To this part though
purchasing of the “censored” product is still completely possible
Not really, there are numerous titles available exclusively on itch.io and steam, those are effectively censored by your rationale as you can no longer purchase them at all.
Honestly steam gift cards don’t work at all here because it’s not a ban on buying the games using a card, it’s a ban on steam listing the titles at all, on threat of losing the payment services.
Crypto cash and gift-cards are great if you have effective access to them.
- Crypto is out for most people for obvious reasons (technical knowledge, dearth of places that actually accept crypto)
- Cash works until it doesn’t and governments and big tech are trying their hardest to make it as difficult as possible, there is a big push to go cashless.
It’s not that people find cash less convenient because they are lazy (some are i suppose), it’s because it’s being purposely deprecated as much as possible, or just straight up doesn’t apply to the paradigm, such as online purchases.
The reason I brought this up is because I have seen it proposed that this issue will expand beyond the scope of digital marketplaces, which I find downright laughable.
As i said, this already happens, it’s weird in how it’s applied tbh, but that’s neither here nor there.
https://www.adyen.com/legal/list-restricted-prohibited
Mastercard just says : “brand-damaging Transactions” and doesn’t elaborate, at a quick glance.
A good example of this is casino’s and other gambling related physical locations, there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a payment processor to work with gambling, assuming they even give you the time of day.
People WILL stop using visa cards if you can’t use it to buy condoms and there’s an ATM in the gas station.
Sure for that specific thing, hard to pay cash at amazon or other online only retailers.
I firmly believe that if this issue is pressed further, at the very least Valve will js stop accepting payment directly through payment processors.
That i’d be interested to see tbh, because as i said there isn’t an equally available alternative to card payment processors (and it’s not even close).
If they did go crypto only for instance, there’d be a big move to crypto for some, but that’d be a significant loss to take on principle alone.
I do not believe “what they define as NSFW will expand!”
And that’s the core of your problem, puritan activists don’t generally have the capacity to think “actually, the thing i wanted other people to not be able to see is gone, i think I’ll leave it there” because the censorship isn’t the goal, the goal is control.
It’s even worse with organised puritans , because even if a few hang it up you’ll always find a few willing to just go a little further or have differing opinions on what is “acceptable”.
I would lay good money on this not actually being as far as they originally wanted, it was just what they could get for now.
I don’t understand why people are bitching that the companies that they choose to use have so much power over their purchasing decisions. “First this, next sex toys! Then contraceptives!” Like Jesus fuck bro have you not heard of cash?
Firstly, it’s the payment processors, you know the monopoly of companies that you need to take payments from regular people.
Secondly, payment processors can and will stop providing payment services for shops that carry physical goods they deem unacceptable.
(yes crypto exists, no it’s not equivalent yet) (yes steam cards exist, no it’s not equivalent and unless i’ve missed something itch.io doesn’t have an card system)
As far as cash goes, is there a new slot where you can put the cash monies directly in to the pc/console and it credits your account ?
Or do you mean, go to the store and buy a physical copy of the hundreds of thousands of games that don’t have physical editions ?
They could stir up interest by actually finishing the first game.
There are supposed to be 5 story episodes, i think the last released episode (4) was three years ago.
Since then they’ve released a full DLC and are close to releasing the second game from what i can tell.
I’m not bitter or anything, i haven’t got past the second episode yet, so this makes zero difference to me personally.
Incorrect, as you immediately point out in the second half of the sentence.
The correct amount of RAM is the amount that covers your workload and the baseline overhead of supporting components, in this case, an OS.
As a general rule, windows uses significantly more RAM for baseline.
Agreed, but we can push back on them pretending that it has nothing to do with their (subjectively shitty) choices.