AeonFelis

joined 1 year ago
[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago

Only one century has passed since then, so we're still good. It's pollutin' time!

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

In other words - like 99% of the laws: good ~~publicity~~ intentions meets reality.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Alternative explanation for why your resume was not read: https://lemmy.world/post/20282317

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Thing about the electoral collage is that it doesn't matter what the large majority wants.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Why did he leave the magazine though? What if he would have encountered some pet dogs later that day?

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

You are using critical thinking. Please stop.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

This does not make an awful lot of sense. The reasons scammers have to filter for the dumbest victims don't apply to politicians:

  1. Scammers don't want to waste resources chasing bad leads. Sending the same email (or emails generated from the same template) to huge amounts of people is rather cheap, but when someone takes the bait at some point you'll need to assign an actual person to deal with it (I'm not 100% sure this reason still applies today, since you can use AI, but it may not take you all the way and it's still more expensive than generating an email from a template) and you'd rather not waste that effort if the chances to complete the grift are low.

    Politicians don't have that problem, because at not point do they need to go one-on-one with individual voters (the bottom feeder activists may do it, but that's a separate attack vector than party leadership going on media). Having the smart voters not buy into these announcements save them neither time nor money.

  2. If someone is going to figure out the scam, the scammer would prefer they do it as soon as possible. Of course, long after the scammer is gone is even better, and not at all is best, but if they can't get away with it - sooner is better than later. If you figure it out as soon as you get the email, you'll just ignore it - and maybe delete it and/or block the address. Most people won't even try to report it, and even if they do there is usually not much that can be done. But if you figure out the scam after you've started to send them money - you are going to want your money back. You'll have more information can potentially be used to track them (like the details of the account you transferred the money to). And you'll be better motivated to involve the authorities. It's safer to filter out the people who are smart enough to do that and make them leave before they have skin in the game.

    If you figure out your politician lied to you - what are you going to do? You can't rescind your vote. You can not vote for them in the next elections - but how is that worse than not voting for them to begin with? Worst you can do is vote for their opponent - but I fail to see why a disillusioned voter is more inclined toward that than a non-voter or someone who voted to a different party. "Yes, they've ruined the country, and if I was their supporter I'd punish them by voting to the other party - but since I didn't vote for them it's not really my problem so I'll just not vote".

  3. Scammers only really need a small fraction of their potential targets to take the bait, because they'll be stealing lots of money from each such target. Having too many victims can actually be risky because it raises the chance someone will do something about them. Maybe even someone competent.

    They can afford to filter.

    Politicians can't.

    Politicians compete against other politicians, and they need a plurality to win. They don't get to be picky. Even in the USA, the number of people with more than one brain cell is enough to tip an election's result. You can't just say "I don't care about the people I can't easily fool" because these people will for your opponent. The 16% who fall for scams won't get you your victory.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yes, but a much more defensible one. To refute a lie of omission you need to present the omitted information and show how it is relevant. To refute a lie of actual falsehood you just have to present the truth and point out the contradiction.

I'm not saying he's not a liar, I'm just annoyed by his stupidity.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It'd be more of a spin, or a lie of omission, at most. Either way it'd be less stupid.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Bold of you to assume I'll ever feel okay again.

[โ€“] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, obviously you have to remove the slots before eating the soup. You guys really don't know anything, do you?

 

I have this idea for a certain game development tool, but before I start another side project I want to check if something similar already exists.

An important part of game development is fine-tuning numeric values. You have some numbers that govern things like character motion, weapon impact, enemy AI, or any other game mechanic. For most of these there is no "correct" value that can be calculated (or even verified!) with some algorithm - you have to manually try different values and converge to something that "feels right".

The most naive way to fine-tune these numbers is to have them as hard-coded values, tweak them in code, and re-run the game every time you change them. This, of course, is a tedious process - especially if you have to go through long build times, game loading, and/or gameplay to reach a state where you can test these values (that last hurdle can often be skipped by programming in a special entry point, but that too can get tedious)

A better way would be to write these numbers in configuration file(s) which the game can hot-reload - at least while in development mode. That way you can just edit the file and save it, and the game will reload the new values. This is a huge improvement because it skips the building/loading/preparing which can drastically shorten the cycles - but it's still not perfect because you have to constantly switch between the game and the configuration file.

Sometimes you can use the game engine editor to tweak these while the game is running, or create your own UI. This makes the context switches hurt less, and also lets you use sliders instead of editing textual numbers, but it's still not perfect - you still have to switch back and forth between the game controls and the tweaking interface.

Which brings us to my idea.

What I envision is a local fine-tuning server. The server will either update configuration files which the game will hot-reload, or the game could connect to it via WebSocket (or some other IPC. But I like WebSocket) so that the server could push the new values to it as they get updated.

After the server deduces the structure of the configuration (or read it from a schema - but providing a schema may usually be a overkill) you could use its webapp UI to configure how the values would be tweaked. We usually want sliders, so you'll need to provide a range - even if the exact value is hard to determine, it's usually fairly easy to come up with a rough range that the value must be in (how high can a human jump? More than 5cm, less than 5m). You will also decide for each slider if it's linear or logarithmic.

The server, of course, will save all that configuration so that you won't have t reconfigure it the next time you want to tweak values (unless there are new values, in which case you'll only have to configure the sliders for them)

Since this would be a server, the tweaking of the values could be done from another device - preferably something with a touchscreen, like a smartphone or a tablet, because tweaking many sliders is easier with a touchscreen. So you have the game running on your PC/console, gamepad in hand (or keyboard+mouse, if that's your thing), and as you play you tweak the sliders on the touchscreen until you get them just right.

Does anyone know if a similar tool already exists?

 

Narrative scripting languages like Yarn Spinner or Inkle were originally meant for writing dialogue, but I think they can also be used for scripting the world progression even when no dialogue or even narration is involved.

Example for something silent that can be scripted with a narrative scripting language:

  1. When the player pulls a lever...
  2. Move the camera to show a certain gate
  3. Open the gate
  4. Move the camera to show something interesting behind the gate
  5. Return the camera to the player

Even though no text nor voice are involved here, I think a narrative language will still fit better than a traditional scripting language because:

  • Narrative languages describe everything in steps. Scripting languages will need to work a bit harder to generate steps the actual game engine can use.
  • Narrative languages have visual editor that can help showing the flow of the level as nodes.
  • The interface between a narrative language and the game engine tends to be seems to tend to be higher level (and less powerful) than the one with a traditional scripting language.

On the other hand, flow control seems a bit more crude and ugly with narrative scripting languages than with traditional scripting languages. It should probably still be fine for simple things (e.g. - player activates a keyhole. Do they have the key?), but I wonder if a game can reach a point where it becomes too complex for a narrative language (I'm still talking about simple world progression, not full blown modding)

view more: next โ€บ