It is from 2018, but how do you imagine that this was written by AI given that LLMs barely existed at the time and weren’t accessible by the general public?

Yeah, I’m not an expert in construction but I don’t really know what this buys you vs using, for example, insulating concrete forms.

It might be less the quality of the research and more this:

(This comic is a bit outdated nowadays, but you get the idea).

Except the headlines say “scientists report discovery of miraculous new battery technology using A!”.

Also i think people don’t realize how long it takes to commercialize battery technology. I think they put them in the same mental category as computers and other electronics, where a company announces something and then its out that same year. The first lithium ion batteries were made in a lab in the 1970s. A person in 2000 could have said “I’ve been hearing about lithium ion batteries for decades now and they’ve never amounted to anything”, and they would be right, but its not because its a bunk technology or the researchers were quacks.

With electric cars you might not even need a special charger so much as a special charging cycle. Its already the norm for cars to tell the charger what voltage and current they want, and its already the norm for cars to carefully control their battery’s temperature during charging.

That’s not to say you’d necessarily be able to do this with just a software update, but its not too far off from the current paradigm.

Skyrim is older now than Half Life 1 was when Skyrim first released.

IDK, it wouldn’t be the first time a news org published some random shit as fact because they’re too eager to be the first to report on something.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/KTVU-producers-fired-over-Asiana-pilots-fake-4685627.php

I actively get annoyed when games don’t give me some quiet time to not play the game, and I really appreciate the beauty of games beyind the gameplay.

This gave me conniptions when playing Control. I couldn’t just stop and look at the environments, which clearly had a lot of work put into them, for more than a minute without the getting a loud “BRRRR” alarm in my ear and having a full screen text popup that says “BOARD ALERT: HISS COMMANDOS IN WASTE PROCESSING”.

This was compounded by the whole ‘randomly spawn in some random group of enemies at a random point every time you enter a room’ design of the game. That’s bad enough for other reasons, but those two things together gave the impression that the game designers were terrified of the player having 10 seconds to sit there and have a thought enter their brain.

If anything gaming culture has regressed, at least in this aspect.

Remember when the $2.50 Oblivion horse armor DLC was considered to be ridiculous?

In addition to the rating it should have an ugly warning on all its promotional material, like cigarettes.

“Warning: this game requires additional in-game purchases and gambling to access all of its content”. On the screen for the entire duration of any trailer.

I think they’re both better and worse.

In the latter half of the 2000s and early 2010s AAA games were becoming increasingly hollowed out husks, with dumbed down paint-by-numbers gameplay and tons of QTEs. And its not like their narratives or art direction were any good either (it being the blurry brown piss filter era). In the same time period we saw the rise of predatory practices like day one DLCs and preorder bonuses.

In more recent times I think we’ve actually seen a reversal of the gameplay hollowing out trend, and an improvement in art direction. However with the rise of lootboxes, trading, and gatcha, monetization schemes are more predatory than they’ve ever been (though these are mostly concentrated in multiplayer games). Its also really common now for games to release in an completely broken and unplayable state.

Honestly “it’s this game but with that.” could be a pretty good way to innovate unless you’re totally phoning it in IMO.

Metroid was created when people at Nintendo wanted to combine the skill-based platforming of Super Mario Bros with the exploration of a Zelda game. That ended up being one of the two founding games in the Metroidvania genre.

System Shock was created by people who wanted to make a game with the same “emergent gameplay systems as a puzzle/playground” aspect of dungeon crawling RPGs like Ultima, but in a SciFi rather than fantasy setting. What we ended up with was something that combined fast paced shooter gameplay and a tight narrative presentation on the one hand, with letting the player make their own solutions to levels by manipulating open-ended gameplay systems on the other. This is very similar to the situation with metroid IMO, in how it tried to combine two very differnt styles of gameplay. Today we have an entire genre of games inspired by System Shock called immersive sims (though its more of a design ethos than a genre IMO).

The famous level design and exploration of Dark Souls was inspired by the 3D Zelda games, and while I don’t have a source for this its hard for me to believe that the lock-on mechanics and basic idea for the movement weren’t at least a little inspired by Zelda too. Or, in other words, Dark Souls is basically a 3D Zelda game but with the tone and difficulty of their earlier King’s Field series.

Now, I don’t mean to imply that combing two good things is a guaranteed way to get something good. Or even that, if you do hit upon a good combination, that that’s the only thing you need to put into your work. The games I’ve just talked about are all absolute classics and obviously a lot went into that. For example, the genesis of the iconic multiplayer aspect of Fromsoft’s games came about during the development of Demon’s Souls, when Miyazaki was trying to drive up hill in a bad snow storm. There was a line of cars, and when one began to spin it’s tires then ones behind it would intentionly push on it to help it up. This all happened without the drivers being able to talk to each other, and, seeing this, Miyazaki wondered what became of the last car in the line, but knew he would never get an answer since he would never see these people again. It was this experience that inspired the creation of phantoms.

However, what I am trying to say is that taking something you like and understanding what makes it tick, then making it work in a new context, can end up creating something that then seems wildly innovative in that context.

As an aside, both Zelda and King’s Field were inspired by a dungeon crawling game called “Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord”. Both Wizardry and Ultima were derived from earlier games that were basically “Dungeons and Dragons, but on a computer”. Some of them were even named “DND” on the early computer systems they ran on.

DnD itself was created when people wanted to do wargames with a greater emphasis on unconventional warfare (such as spying, diplomacy/intrigue, propaganda, etc) that by necessity required roleplay. After one of these kinds of games was set in a half Conan the Barbarian half Gothic horror medieval fantasy setting with a spooky underground labyrinth beneath a town we got the trope of dungeon delving and returning with treasure to a (relatively) safe town just outside the dungeon entrance.

When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them?

THAT’S the example you choose?

There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.

Absolutely stunning. You actually unironically do not understand what consent is. You need to take an ethics class.

I’ll give you the really basic version:

#1: People are allowed to say no to you for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn’t matter if you think their reasons are invalid or misinformed. No means no.

#2: A lack of a “no” does not mean “yes”. If a person cannot say “no” to what you are doing because they have no idea you’re doing it in the first place then that, in some ways, is even worse than disregarding a “no”. At least in that case they know something has been done to them.

That, by the way, is what the “informed” in “informed consent” means. It doesn’t mean “a person needs to know what they’re talking about in order for their ‘no’ to be valid”, like you seem to think it means.

Doctors used to routinely retain tissue samples for experimentation without informing their patients they were doing this. The reasoning went that this didn’t harm the patient at all, the origin of the tissue was anonymized, the patient wouldn’t understand why tissue samples were needed anyway, and it might save lives. That’s a much better justification than trying to develop a web browser, and yet today that practice is widely considered to be deplorable, almost akin to rape.

The concept of informed consent continues to evade tech bros. It makes me wonder how many other areas of your life you apply this line of reasoning to.

When people say that I think they mean they want games to look like this:

Or like this.

So, still atmospheric and beautiful, but low poly enough that artists don’t have to spend so much time creating detail. Sort of like an impressionistic painting.

To be honest though for most AAA games I think its animations and highly choreographed gameplay sequences that are bottlenecking development more than the art is. Look at games like cyberpunk and fallout 76: they largely didn’t have unfinished art assets (in fact the art assets in both those games, particularly the environments, look quite good). Instead they had broken animations and gameplay systems. I guess art style does play a roll in that though, as a more realistic model kinda demands more realistic animations to avoid looking weird.

If someone were to visit Vermont is there anywhere you’d recommend they go?

Out of curiosity, how does it work and what do you like about it?

Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable)

So in other words we sell your data and get paid for it, and some countries won’t let us lie about it.

Mozilla is a nonprofit (or it at least it should be, technically it’s a for profit corporation that’s wholly owned by a nonprofit foundation, shady asf).

They shouldn’t be trying to make a profit, they should make enough money to pay their programmers to maintain the browser.

They should not be dumping money into more executive hires and AI bullshit like they are doing.

There’s never enough money to maintain the browser but there’s always enough to dump more into executives pockets.

Not lying makes zero sense to you?