setr

I think it’s also because these UI changes are always designed to improve first-impression and first-usage. They are outright hostile to anyone who wants to go fast and get faster — the power user. At minimum the re-arrangement resets any gains you had, and at maximum its irrecoverable because the UI is now fundamentally designed to slow you down.

This eventually becomes awkwardly precise complaints about information density and general change; but the underlying issue is I want to go fast and the system says no

It’s the same as games; people not paying that much attention to it see the ugly side and assume it’s the whole medium. With children shows, it’s the fucking songs. They’re mindless, addictive, and usually revolting to look at; and it will hook in like nothing else.

Bheem, cory carson, rogers, Pixar, etc is like unquestionably to lead to less degenerate behavior than something like cocomelon (though I get some pushback on shutdowns for those too, I get the same pushback on any other toy).

In games, the equivalent would be social spaces (minecraft, Fortnite) and competitive multiplayer; they can be consumed for far longer than they hold any value. But I fully intend to let them play paper Mario, pikmin, puzzle games, point and clicks, etc.

It’s mentally lazy to throw out the baby with the bathwater

I mean, if the now-released open source variant performs roughly the same, and has no weird behavior in it… the matter is resolved, no?

They’ve already submitted the best possible corrective step for any sus behavior they previously did.

It doesn’t even really matter if the preview binary was in fact cheating, if the beta binary meets the benchmark results always. It’d be like cheating on a test you were gonna score 100% on anyways.

Believe it or not, some people live fulfilling lives without viewing any television.

You can live without watching whatever the latest show is.

That doesn’t say anything about anyone’s opinion on managing. The section in question switches to “I” extensively

The poster can be presumed American.. but what does that have to do with the mistake made?

Yes? What happens if you don’t ping in 20, 50, 100 years? At some point between 0 and infinity, it’s probably safe to assume you’re not coming back.

You can argue where to draw the line, but arguing that there shouldn’t be a line at all is absurd

Science moves forward one death at a time

So at least two systems run better with the implicit time limit.

Ethereum has “code is law”, but we can still have a notion of the code being exploited, because it is the intent that’s been exploited

That’s the missing bit in the original post; if exactly 7 tasks was intended to ever be possible to run (as in, it logically doesn’t make sense for an 8th to exist), and they tossed in a scheduler anyways, then that’s man-rated thinking.

I had read the setup as the 8th task being user error (you have 20 things to do, I can only run 7 at a time, and it’s an user error to submit the 8th task while the 7 are running)

I mean, the implementation can be incomprehensibly impressive, but as an example of “man-rated” — being sufficiently robust — rejecting the request would be sufficient and I suspect this was an obvious place to have some kind of handling for. If there were no handler of any kind in this position, it’d be unforgivable in modern, far less robust software.

The kind of example for man-rated I was expecting would be dealing with really nutty edge cases (perhaps like correctly operating under arbitrary bitflips) or the LISP recovery system from Deep Space 1.

Handling an expected error condition under normal operation is not, in my mind, a good example of man-rated robustness. It might be a good example of other things.

That does not seem like particularly notable example of foresight & robustness, given that it’s such a low number of maximum tasks, and such a fundamental & frequently used element of its operation.

Like it wouldn’t even be describable as a “rescue itself” if the response was simply “No. Too many jobs running. Please kill one to continue”

I’ve had 3 notices from 3 months related businesses in the last couple months that my data has been leaked.

So like, I guess I’m just a dead man walking? We might as well just post all this info publicly at this point, and skip all the circus around it.

I would like to note that suit pants are ridiculously comfortable, and generally a fitted suit is far more comfortable than nearly anything else I wear daily. I don’t understand what crimes society has committed to achieve the outcomes of modern fashion.

I very much doubt the fun was found in the physical act of placing units. Instead I’d wager it was in the immediacy of the chaos, and correction of it, as you dealt with the smaller problems — and the micro-optimizations you could apply being involved with every minor detail of the system.

When you switch to blueprints, you move up the abstraction chain; there’s still some optimization in constructing blueprints but largely you’re now just plumbing… chaining together higher level components, simply ensuring inputs == output, and all the microoptimizations are hard to justify because they disrupt your blueprints. The patterns and structures have reduced to only what you’ve specified in your library (where previously you were discovering them out of the many operators the game provides).

But the literal act of placing objects wasn’t the point, yet that’s all the game has become.

I mean, do that too, but end of the day PRs are your final chance to catch the mistakes before they start cementing, and is your best opportunity to identify misunderstandings (you can smell the confusion in their changes and address it directly).

But also, I must defend against the hordes of unwashed masses and maintain the sanctity of my domain. End of the day, a codebase I own is a codebase I own, and others cannot be allowed to poison the well, intentionally or not. That’s how you get cholera

I consider PRs to be primarily a defense of the architecture, and to a lesser degree a general sanity check. It’s also a useful opportunity to enforce automations are being run

I definitely was so... thanks!

LLMs will generate. Taste continues to dictate what to keep/discard. (Note that taste can get you to good, but good won’t get you to money on its own)

I’m pretty sure NTILE is just a generally cursed function. SQL NTILE also requires everything to be loaded in memory because of the odd rule that larger buckets precede smaller buckets, so it’s unusable on anything decently sized.

Not being able to specify how ties are handled (and choosing, as far as I can tell, a fairly useless definition) fits the bill.

Is that really the name for it? It sounds revolting

Can’t we just use prim and proper terms like provenance

If they were actually useful though, demand shouldn’t stay the same — more niches should be getting filled. If they’re just clones of each other, then yes

Sometimes in business you ultimately and unavoidably have to eat shit, so it is what it is. But you should strive to be someone who doesn’t have to eat shit, and until then, if you still gotta eat shit, then try not to make a habit of it.

With query hints finally being added it’d probably be doable as an extension

The problem is setups like in slay the spire, if we imagine there was no path selection, you can run into scenarios that are functionally unwinnable (I recall someone finding a seed in StS that was literally unwinnable, but ignoring that). Eg Act1 elites that counter your build, but too early for you to consistently have secondary options/workarounds.

Obviously people have high consistent wins in StS1/2 so it’s not like they’re guaranteed unwinnable, but for the average human (mostly just boils down to “path to do act1 elites until after you probably have a counter to all of them)

Your options are:

1. All scenarios are easy enough that you can get away with just about anything sensible

2. You don’t have any counter mechanics, which is basically the same as 1, and is difficult to do anything interesting with

3. You announce up-front what you’re going to deal with, so the onus is now on the player to find a solution in the meantime

4. You give the player a NOPE utility

In a roguelike, I think 4 is the better design, but 3 is also reasonable. 1 & 2 just makes things less interesting.

Roguelikes are the ultimate in procgen technology, and should be the basis of any design. (DF is the ultimate simulation but uses procgen as a tool to achieve it; a different vein than NMS trying to explore the procgen and its direct outcomes itself)

1. Any imaginary world needs to be internally consistent to be interesting. Procgen does not void this rule; randomization needs to be gated to that internal consistency.

2. A world can be composed of multiple environments, and each environment can a different definition of internal consistency. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup does this very openly and to fairly good effect, but pretty much any decent procgen game will inevitably end up with the same choice, because it's what enables you to play with various procgen systems/rules while still having a coherent overall game.

3. Generalizing 2, procgen systems generally do not start from nothing; You embed reasonably well-defined bases (races, weapon forms, etc) and then apply randomization on top of those bases to form the final element. Meaningful fundamental variation in those bases leads to guaranteed meaningful variation in the end result.

4. Games are fundamentally interactive systems. Generating a thousand variations without actually changing interaction is equivalent to generating exactly one variation. A blue orc vs a red orc is a not real variant, unless you make it so by attaching effects / statuses / capabilities. The color distinction is then a signal into the more abstracted changes that have occurred. This is where NMS falls over -- the images have changed, but the interaction has not.

5. A corollary to point 4, changing numbers without changing interaction is equivalent to doing nothing. If a meaningful damage threshold is functionally every 10 points of damage, then generating numbers 0-9, 11-19, etc is equivalent to generating just the numbers 0 and 10. This is where borderlands falls over -- a million variations in guns, but the vast majority of those variations are just numeric differences that don't change anything in practice.

6. If the procgen applies to equipment/builds, you pretty much need permadeath as a driver for exploring a procgen game and its systems, because you need players to explore for a local optima. Exploring the space for a global optima in a procgen game inevitably devolves into a gambling simulator, because players optimize out the fun, and the optimal play is to the kill unit XYZ repeatedly for the 0.5% drop. Games like Terraria fall into this trap (though Terraria resolves it mostly by making unit XYZ be trivially summon-able bosses)

7. Procgen can never guarantee interesting results; You inevitably need a system of vaults/artifacts -- hardcoded quality items -- to guarantee periodic interesting locations/items. Ideally more notable than average generation, but less than strictly optimal so as to not overpower the other systems -- an issue I've had with games like Diablo 3, where finding an item-set was vastly more powerful than anything else that I acquired for the next 5+ hours, eliminating the entire looting system (and even character skill system, since it forced my build too)

8. Decent Procgen is inevitably rule-based, with possibly multiple chained-rules each doing their own rolls, to ensure coherency. Ideally the rule-chain is roughly discoverable from the end results (by virtue of following internally consistent and apparent rules) -- an end-result that cannot be explained is indistinguishable from pure-random, and pure-random in incoherent. See any Tabletop RPG generation tables.

9. Hell, just start any procgen design from tabletop RPG tables.

10. The number of variations that can be produced is meaningless. This is only for marketing.

11. A procedural system that generates exactly once is fairly pointless. Permadeath.

12. A procedural system is inherently unfair, because you cannot guarantee difficulty, proper placement, unit composition, etc without removing the procedural systems outright. Embrace the unfairness, and design around it. Permadeath.

13. A procedural system is inherently unfair; you need to give some guaranteed items with guaranteed results to navigate an uncertain world (e.g. escape tools).

14. It's always good to enable some control by the player over the procedural generation. Choice of environments, chances at additional loot, etc. You want the player to engage with procgen rules, because they're interesting (and if they're not, what are you doing?), and the easiest way is to give them tools to manipulate it to their advantage. Also permadeath.

I’m not sure you have to squint; an mview is just a cached query. The only difference between an mview and a cache is the “incremental” part of the equation.

That is, my only disagreement is the lack of gusto

TFA links to PixelPie as a GPU implementation https://www.cs.umd.edu/gvil/projects/pixelpie.shtml

Also Casey, but his much cooler/deterministic solution to grass placement, to avoid lines

https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0011

Ignoring aesthetics, there’s simply significantly more detail produced by max