You're welcome, but I'm sorry?
14,907 karma · joined May 14, 2012
Note that these eyes need not be static, even when I am. I can easily imagine myself flying through some space, looking out through those eyes, even if I'm in my chair. I can also have them grow a body and interact with the imagined scene in front of me.
While it doesn't replace what I'm seeing in the real world, it takes up some attention - I might not be paying as much attention to things physically in front of me.
And the player numbers still don't make sense. If you want to compare to a game from the same publisher that was actually good, look at "What Remains of Edith Finch". Released a decade ago, still 4x Mixtapes's player count, roughly the same length, but somehow no 20 video game magazines falling over themselves to give it 10/10 ratings.
You can slap as many 10/10 ratings and astroturfed reviews on it as you want, but I've played too many of these games to not recognize this as below average in its weight class (i.e. price). It's maybe a 6/10, carried by its presentation and vibe, which are okay if you're in the mood for it. And to give it that kind of score I'm looking past its most cringe-inducing moments, immature writing, and bland story - which is being extremely charitable considering it's a game that should be carried by its writing, but isn't.
The only way you can enjoy that game is if you haven't been spoiled by better titles yet - because you've probably not played many narrative-based titles, or maybe not played many video games at all. If it's one of the only video games you've ever played, that fact alone would've made it somewhat exciting. The first time you've had cotton candy it was great as well, but now that you have more developed taste, you probably won't consider it haute cuisine.
I'm sure there's literally dozens of people who actually enjoyed it, and good for them, but we need to have some standards if we're to have any at all. And "well someone out there ought to like it" is not an argument.
tl;dr: If this game is truly one of the best games of all time - as reviews would have you believe - then we need to recalibrate the scale. There are hundreds of games in its genres one should pick up before Mixtape. It only stands out for being pretty.
It's not even in the top 5000, because it is objectively terrible. People would rather play the original Life is Strange one more time (despite a remaster being out), than play this game.
At some point you really have to start getting suspicious why it keeps coming up.
The number of reviews vs. number of actual players online doesn't make sense when compared to peers in its genre either. It has a similar number of reviews as Life is Strange Remastered, but it loses to the 4 years old re-release of an 11 years old story-based game by an order of magnitude. For a genre that that has extremely top-heavy player count charts this doesn't make sense.
Funnily enough Life is Strange Remastered had a bit of a revival around that game's release, probably because people decided they'd rather play LiS.
Entertainment media entertaining nobody is just objectively bad at its job and the blatant astroturfing and nepo-baby-pampering adds an unsavory dimension to it.
A 8 years old graphics card can still play modern games. Ten years ago playing a modern game on hardware that old would've been unthinkable.
And with how the market is right now, we'll be stuck on the current "reference level" of hardware for a while longer.
You can take half an hour out of every week inconveniencing yourself to protect your battery, or you can spend an hour once a year just putting in a new one (or having it done for you in-store if you're using an Apple device) and save yourself the nagging worry.
Some terms and ideas are just shit, especially in the early stages of something new.
Wrapping an .md file in all this circus, with lingo carefully designed to hide the fact that under the hood you're really just dumping another text file into the LLM's context , helps nobody but people's AI psychosis.
But I guess "my LLM can use skills" sounds a lot cooler than "my LLM can read text files", so we'd rather keep pretending really hard.
You do not solve "losing russian roulette" by adding more empty chambers. One bullet in 600 chambers is still one bullet too much. How about we don't play the stupid game in the first place?
There's many slices of ~10-20k people you can divide the US (military) in, many of them overlapping.
What is the chance that in some year at least one of the slices will say "Hey, we had excess suicides!" - much higher.
The largest threat isn't bombs falling on our heads, it's incompetent fools leaving the door open to their enemies.
These aren't mistakes that can be excused. Failing in one's duty to steward important infrastructure must mean immediate replacement of leadership.
Edit: I read it. Yep.
We have text interfaces refined by humans for decades and there's an endless sea of training data for them, but they imagine these amateur-hour homegrown solutions will ever outdo an agent with shell access?
It's just going to be your typical meatgrinder and attrition warfare.
The reality is that fighting China would be a proper all-out war, not whatever this spitting match with Iran is.
Keep fighting the good fight.
I provided you a map showing historical data collected over a year.
What... you know you could've looked this up pretty easily before posting?
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/styles/...
If I threw you into a lion cage, you would be a lot safer with a gun.
If I threw 10 people in a lion cage, some of which cannot be trusted, they would probably be most safe if only the most moral and trustworthy person had a gun, rather than everyone. But how do you know who is trustworthy and moral? What if two untrustworthy people obtained a gun some other way? Maybe it's better if everyone had a gun? Which side of the fence one falls on hinges on how far ones' trust of others, authority, and the system goes.
There's no obvious right or wrong answer here.
Personally I wouldn't want an exclusive club of private individuals with access to "dangerous" LLMs consisting mainly of the likes of Elon, Dario and Sam fucking Altman, but that's just me.
Weren't these more about "human population planning"?
> the idea of planning your family is relatively modern
The term "family planning" is. The general concept is not, which is why we have two thousand year old papyrus talking about birth control.
Note that at no point I used the word "family" - because just our modern understanding of a family will muddy any attempt to compare to historical fact.
Where did I ever claim this? I said they don't even have the Zig build script in their repo anymore - they're clearly not intending to make any more changes to it, even if the code is still lying there next to the Rust code.
> If the userbase is as miniscule as you imagine then your criticisms are essentially meaningless.
They're not criticisms, they're observations. The point is that the challenge is not comparable - because TypeScript's existing ecosystem is part of their challenge.
What's taken 1:1, deliberately, was the compiler core. That was almost perfectly 50% of the non-test code. A close translation of that was a starting point, but open CHANGES.md or it's history and you'll see it's quickly diverging even on its surface.
The closest matching, interesting large area of it is probably the checker. Easily recognizable on a function level, even if not being a single file anymore:
https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/tree/main/interna...
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/TypeScript/refs/... (The TS file is 3MB and github won't display it inline)
You'll find a lot of the same data structures (as far as that's possible in a TS-to-Go translation + ripples from areas that were more heavily changed) and functions lying around, just in slightly different places. Because of the AST changes and TS/Go differences on a line-level each function might look different, but where there is a loop in the TS one, there's probably one in Go.
The other half of the project is heavily changed or completely new/different (like concurrency, less weird language service).
It's not.
Passing an existing test suite just moves the optimistic lower bound to incidental compatibility, it doesn't move it to intentional - "regard" implies you gave it thought.
Plus, it's not just about code: it's also about giving the ecosystem a migration path. Dumping 500k LOC on people and discontinuing development of the zig version effective immediately (there hasn't been a release since and the zig tree is only a reference - the build script is removed afaik) is the opposite of what TypeScript did. If you broke someone's N-API module because of a regression not caught by your suite they're now between a rock and a hard place.
The good news is that there's nobody there to notice. The bun userbase is miniscule* compared to TypeScript's.
* negligible? irrelevant? laughably small? I'm struggling to find an adjective that does the difference justice.