> I don’t think the gates should animate up into the air. It breaks the visual logic of 2D for no benefit.
I also feel it would make more sense either for everything to be 2.5D or pure top down. Having appear / disappear animation is nice feedback to user though.
Other thing is that maybe the hitbox should change when the wall comes up. Now to remove it you need to press the grid, essentially the root of the wall. Unintuitive to me.
Thanks for the game, looking forward to when there is multiple horses or sheep to enclose.
> The reason nukes have been good is because it makes it clear that war is unwinnable which effectively ended direct conflict between world powers. Yet of course proxy wars are alive and well with Ukraine being the king of them all.
Not looking forward to being your proxywar or small regional conflict. It’s amazingly frustrating to be dragged into this without any provocation or possibility to actually affect the situation. Just unfortunate geography I guess.
I don’t think nukes stopped the direct conflict between world powers. They made it possible for the first time. There is no reach to US without them.
War in Europe or parts of Asia is easy the old fashioned way and seems to happen on a regular basis.
”What a way to show them. You rock! Unfortunately I can’t create the musical art you requested as you reference multiple existing musical acts by name. How about rephrasing your request in a way that is truly original and unique to you”
Again I’m referring to the future. When ChatGPT came out nobody thought it was good enough to be an assistant coding agent. That future came to pass.
Nobody gives a fuck about what ChatGPT can currently do. It’s not interesting to talk about because it’s obvious. I don’t even understand why you’re just rehashing the obvious response. I’m talking about the future. The progression of LLMs is leading to a future where my prompt leads to a response that is superior to the same prompt given to a human.
Could China attack US? Why would US try to attack China in asia? Not an expert but that feels like losing proposition. I think people confuse proxy wars with wars. US is under no threat of being actually attacked.
It counts as an attack, but how close was US to actually being taken over? Usually when you fight a war the real risk is that you cease to exist as a country. I know nothing about war strategy, but seems to me US is in a great position as long as you get along with Canada and Mexico.
> Keep in mind that the cleaning lady is as much a human being as the Chairman.
Considering the Warren Buffett wisdom-industrial complex this might be the best place to share these nuggets. And I know his heart is in the right place, but the fact that you need to spell this kind of thing out is somehow extremely depressing.
The fact that he spelled it out does not imply that it needed to be said. There is no idea in that letter, that is not personal history, that hasn't been said before.
> Even in the dot-com era, the early internet was already changing media and commerce in fundamental ways.
I agree that AI is overhyped but so was the early web. It was projected to do a lot of things ”soon”, but was not really doing that much 4 years in. I don’t think the newspapers or commerce were really worried about it. The transformation of the business landscape took hold after the crash.
> This is the one thing that puzzles me most about dating apps: where do all these pictures come from?
People actually curate the profile and copywrite the text. It’s not real authentic life documented by accident. Once you put your profile there for others to judge you soon figure out that it needs to be manufactured. That’s when you start asking for others to snap a photo while your out doing the thing you maybe wouldn’t even do if it was not for the show.
There is a new book by Owen Flanagan ”What is it like to be an addict”[0] where he goes through the phenomenon of addiction from many different angles and argues that rat park type findings are true but only give partial view to the problem. His view is that it is very multifaceted subject and can’t be understood or tackled with any one easy fix.
Idk what part of "make society affordable for everyone and ensure that everyone has access to adequate care and social support" sounds like an easy fix.
That’s a good goal and I think we should aim for that regardless if it fixes addiction. I would not call it easy though. And would it be world without addicts? There are plenty of well connected rich social happy folks who can’t handle simple molecules. Environment is part of the usage pattern but it’s not the only thing. That’s the books point I gather.
You have taken the point someone else made and run somewhere else with it, so I will reiterate it.
> People (and rats) with adequate social lives and decent living conditions are able to consistently overcome addiction
I don't think it's about riches, or power, or having friends. It is purely about how many stressors you have to deal with, how often and with how much reprieve you have available. More money can give more reprieve, it usually means more stressors too.
The more subtle point I guess is that it is not how much you have, it is the shape of your life and how each day feels.
Use the example of far northern countries. People who live in dark countries drink more, and they drink even more the darker it gets. The modern era says that the answer should be more mindfulness, more cognitive behavioural therapy, I think GP is saying we should be giving them sunlight which is clearly what they actually need. Substitute sunlight for whatever thing your locale is currently not managing well.
I recommend the book and the new research. It reflects on the rat park study and makes what I think are good arguments that addiction is not a simple thing we can fix only by fixing the enviroment even though it is part of it. OP was asking for evidence so I thought I’d chip in with a modern source. There are no socities that have solved addiction. Obviously it is a gnarly problem.
> ”Full self driving" is another example; your car won't be doing this, but companies will brag about limited roll-outs of niche cases in dry, flat, places that are easy to navigate.
Not expecting my car to be self-driving anytime soon, but I have understood there is actual working robotaxi service in San Francisco which is not easy or flat? I think we can’t keep saying self driving cars will never happen when this kind of thing already exists.
It's true that SF isn't flat, but it's incredibly well mapped, it never snows and you don't have to worry about roads ravaged by frost-heaves. There's a reason that the new Doordash automated delivery service is starting off in Phoenix and not Boston for example.
> I don’t think the gates should animate up into the air. It breaks the visual logic of 2D for no benefit.
I also feel it would make more sense either for everything to be 2.5D or pure top down. Having appear / disappear animation is nice feedback to user though.
Other thing is that maybe the hitbox should change when the wall comes up. Now to remove it you need to press the grid, essentially the root of the wall. Unintuitive to me.
Thanks for the game, looking forward to when there is multiple horses or sheep to enclose.
reply