AeonFelis

joined 2 years ago
[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Considering how so many of them are coast states, I think Global Warming got that covered.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

"North America" is the name of the continent. It can stay.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah, yes. Science. That thing where going back in time to kill the scientist who discovered something guarantees that no one else will ever think of the same concept.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ah, yes. A private method for working on a public field.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago

I asked my house cat. He said he can beat them both.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

He didn't think of them as people, so it all checks out.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Some generalization is always required when drawing equivalences, but if you generalize too much your logic becomes circular. For example - let's overgeneralize to the max:

  • We determine that what the Trump administration did was bad because it's similar to what the Nazi regime did.
  • We determine that what the Trump administration did was similar to what the Nazi regime did because both things were bad.

Of course, I'm not claiming that you took it that far. Instead of going all the way to "evil", you've only generalized up to "grabbing power":

  • We determine that the Trump administration is grabbing power because it does something similar to what the Nazi regime did.
  • We determine that the Trump administration something similar to what the Nazi regime did because they were both power-grabbing moves.

Now, this version does require some non-circular arguing - showing that DOGE's project cuts are actually power-grabbing moves in disguise. But there are two problems with it:

  1. Power-grabbing is not a Nazi-specific thing - many groups have seized political power during the course of history. And not all these groups were evil - at this level of generalization, one could argue that democratic revolutions took power from monarchs and had to convert the institutions to be democratic. And even among the evil movements that did this - the Nazi were uniquely evil, because of other things they did.

  2. You were trying to masquerade this generalized argument as a more specific argument:

    Is this how nazi Germany started? Cutting all “unnecessary” projects and personnel then introducing “necessary” projects and personnel that they control…

    This is a very specific argument - "here is a specific tactic the Nazis used to grab power, and the Trump administration uses the same tactic!". The logic here is not circular. The only problem with it is that it isn't true.

Comparison to Nazism is the nuclear weapon of debates. Trumps administration did some things that warrant an exemption from Godwin's law. Concentration camps for immigrants is one of them. Purging minorities from federal jobs is another. But this? The very fact they are trying to grab power? This does not justify a comparison to the Nazis.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What about it? I don't see anything there that's about "Cutting all “unnecessary” projects", and rather than "introducing “necessary” projects and personnel that they control" it looks like they directly took control on the existing ones.

The only thing that, if you squint hard enough, can remotely resemble cutoffs was the Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service - which would be better equated to the DEI purge than to the cutoffs that this post is all about.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Did they? Do you have any sources? Because I did a quick search and couldn't find anything about it (though I'll admit I did not invest too much time into that search)

The Nazi regime did lots of shitty things over half a century ago. The Trump administration does lots of shitty things right now. There is an overlap - but this Venn diagram is not a circle.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Is he really that flexible?

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Ushakov: "The main thing to do x.com/MarioNawfal/st...

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I'm afraid your joke attempt was too sublime...

 

Encountering one of these embedded tweets in a blog post, my hand instinctively moved to click the X and close it. That took me to the website.

Could this be a clever ruse to generate more visits? Is Elon Musk actually more cunning than we give him credit?

 

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 ›