legend

I haven't verified this, but I heard the reason the non-pro is USB2 is because they're using their previous chip for (A16) and the chip doesn't have support for USB3. That makes it a bit more understandable because it's probably a non-trivial cost on their part to upgrade all the chips. Since the pro is using the new A17, it gets the support.

USB 2 on the non-pros does indeed suck, but I think I actually don't care even though it's frustrating. I primarily want USB-C for cable consistency and charging. I can't remember the last time I transferred data from my phone using a cable.

Then again, this might be an issue with Rokid Max... so that's probably one potential use I'd miss  

12 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

This feels like Unity writing themselves into an OGL 1.1 corner. Like they saw how well pulling the rug out from under D&D devs went, so they figured someone should hold their beer.

 

Same question I asked last time. Even if Unity backtracks on this new licensing, why should anyone plan around a Unity that feels they have the right to change up the terms for projects new and old at a whim?

I've seen a lot of new interest from devs in Godot which is an up and coming open source game engine, released under perhaps the most permissive license out there (MIT Free). It's still fairly new, but is probably at the useable point.

It'd be awesome if this pushed more game devs to start writing in games in Rust, but sadly that's probably not going to happen because it's too much of a switch and the game engines are not quite mature enough. Bevy (also open source) is actually really good from a design standpoint, but is still too volatile and missing a fully featured editor.

I'm still on my XR, which is actually working just fine. But the cable switch is honestly enough to push me over the edge to upgrade as silly as that sounds  Bout time! It was such a weird move given they moved every other Apple device to USB-C.

It really does seem that most successful companies succeed in spite of their executives.

<---- has owned Apple products since childhood, owns multiple current Apple products, and will continue purchasing the Apple products that I like

Still not finished but I’ve decided I want this to win GOTY over TOTK. Not because I think it’s per se better, but because of the message it sends to the industry. This is such a rare kind of game that has been neglected from AAA for too long. 

Damn, then I see this thread right after the other  

That's a pretty crazy number  I don't really know what the range of deaths is these days for natural disasters, but that has to be up there, right?

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I feel the same way about the Will Smith movie I, Robot. Fun and entertaining sci-fi movie but a bad Asimov adaptation. 

Oh yeah. In a vacuum I found that movie dumbly entertaining enough, but making the "hero robot" be one with incomplete laws (or something of that sort) that would free the others would have Asimov rolling in his grave. The robot-foundation novels are my favorite book series and yet its message and themes have never been replicated in movies and maybe not even many books (though I'm less of a book reader so maybe I'm just ignorant of them). It's both baffling and frustrating. And in this era where everyone is freaking out about AI coming to kill us, we could really use more of those messages.

The most charitable interpretation for Musk's actions is he's captain hindsight.

"Oh well I didn't realize this had brittle hard coded stuff, it shouldn't have that." Of course it does, moron, because it's a large complex system that's been evolving for years. Every "bad" and "brittle" piece of code  like this is that way because at some point in the past in those circumstances it probably made sense from a developmental and simplicity standpoint.

Even the worst engineers can look at an old system and judge it based on its current needs, but these systems were almost never developed for the current needs and trying to anticipate what you will need in the future is almost always futile and causes more problems than it solves. Very few things in software and hardware centers have a very stable set of requirements that you can expect to be rock solid for many years to come.

So yes, find ways to refactor and make it better, but don't just start ripping shit out because you think it will all work and then throw a hissy fit when it doesn't.

And that was my charitable opinion!  

Haven't really been able to play most of last week, but got back into it over the weekend.

Cleared the House of Hope. Holy shit at that end fight. That's the first fight I save scummed because I did not bring the right party for it and I was not going to redo it all   

Saving grace for why I was able to do it at all is because I had scrolls of

Yeah no illithid powers on my run either.

9 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

It makes me glad that other people have come around to "if you are against abortion in any case, you should be against it in every case." I've been saying that for damn near a decade and I used to get flamed for it.

 

If abortion is murder, then the child being a product of rape doesn't make it any less murder. You can't just say "murder is okay if the mother was raped." That fucking fetus didn't rape anyone.

 

"Abortion is wrong because fetuses are people... unless their mother was raped, then let me introduce our little friend to Mount Taygetus." *yeet*

 

Get the fuck out of here with that shit. People get uncomfortable when confronted with the logical conclusion of being "pro-life." That should tell you all you need to know. One side says "abortion is something that should be decided by every woman on a case by case basis," the other says "ALL ABORTION IS WRONG... except when it isn't..."

That doesn't follow unless you think you must govern decisions by absolute rules devoid of context and arbitrarily dictated. Which yes, many "moral" systems aim for, in which case see my previous comment on the cancer of a term that is "morality" and how it makes everyone stop thinking  

"Murder" as a term is useful as a legal construct for dictating large-scale social policy, but that's it. The underlying issue here is you're killing something, and yes, killing something, even fully developed people (of which fetuses most certainly are not), is sometimes appropriate depending on the context. To not consider context and all the impacts of a decision is madness.

54 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Yeah, there was never much hope  

Well, they've thoroughly shit on the laws. Spoilers for the last episode.

Also that ending certainly swerves FAR away from the narrative of the books. The story has become a completely different story that feels like writers only glanced at the book summaries before writing it. I'm still mostly enjoying it, and in principle diverging wildly can be good, but many of the changes they've made are not for the better. Except for Empire's genetic dynasty thread, which I do think is an interesting deviation that feels like it could fit into the books' world just fine and even complement it.

4 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

It’s a simple premise, and a good one to generally operate from.  But it’s clearly not an absolute.  Where we cross the boundary to saying killing other humans is okay in select contexts should take solid arguments.  It’s either that, or we just shouldn’t treat any human life as important.

It's fine to have heuristics in life. But then you need to acknowledge them as heuristics and you absolutely shouldn't base an argument for a position by abusively applying the heuristic well beyond edge cases by equivocating with terms.

You say you're open the arguments against why otherwise, which sounds great, except there are mountains of text out there on all the terrible consequences of not allowing abortion. I can't imagine you've never heard them, yet you still cling to this overly simplistic badly applied heuristic all the same.

4 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I personally don’t think the arguments used to justify abortion from a developmental, cognitive or experiential angle hold up to scrutiny when tested.  Why that particular boundary and not another? Is it because we have our own biases towards what we are at present?

Sharp decision boundaries do not imply sharp value differences. Suppose I have two investment options. Choice A will yield $100 in a year and choice B will yield $101. There is a very clear sharp decision boundary about which to prefer: choice B. That there is a sharp decision boundary doesn't mean the value differences are sharp because it's only a $1 difference. And if choice A's return rises to $101.01 the best choice will "suddenly" switch to choice A, but they are still roughly equal in value and I'm not going to lose sleep over choosing the wrong one.

W.r.t. abortion, if someone has an abortion 1 day after where I would draw the line due to cognitive development, that doesn't make the abortion somehow totally horrible in comparison to 1 day earlier, because the value difference can smoothly change even though the preference switches and I most certainly wouldn't seek punishment for anyone involved because of that.

Similarly, other contexts and costs also factor in on where someone would draw that line. Most pro-choice advocates do have a line where they don't think it's proper to always allow abortion, but then will still make exceptions quite late into pregnancy if the mother's life is at risk and doubly so when the mother's life is at risk and child is not expected to live. The fact that situations are messy like this is also a good reason for the government to minimize their involvement in disallowing it, possibly not being involved at all.

Quote

What does that say about humans not able like us?

Nothing at all. The cognitive difference between less abled fully developed people and a fetus is fucking staggering. It's weird and maybe even insulting to less abled people to even bring that up as a comparison.

"It's a human and killing humans is wrong" is a terrible argument that equivocates with the word "human" in the two premises and asserts an overly simplified rule as if it were universal. If there wasn't real life-ruining harm caused by this position, a bad argument like this could be ignored -- we all make mistakes -- but Jesus, wake up.

10 hours ago, Jason said:

lol

 

lmao

 

--

 

From the author of Steve Jobs and other bestselling biographies, this is the astonishingly intimate story of the most fascinating and controversial innovator of our era—a rule-breaking visionary who helped to lead the world into the era of electric vehicles, private space exploration, and artificial intelligence. Oh, and took over Twitter.

When pedo guy megalomaniacal manchild was a kid in South Africa, he was regularly beaten by bullies. One day a group pushed him down some concrete steps and kicked him until his face was a swollen ball of flesh. He was in the hospital for a week. But the physical scars were minor compared to the emotional ones inflicted by his father, an engineer, rogue, and charismatic fantasist.

His father’s impact on his psyche would linger. He developed into a tough yet vulnerable man-child, prone to abrupt Jekyll-and-Hyde mood swings, with an exceedingly high tolerance for risk, a craving for drama, an epic sense of mission, and a maniacal intensity that was callous and at times destructive.

At the beginning of 2022—after a year marked by SpaceX launching thirty-one rockets into orbit, Tesla selling a million cars, and him becoming the richest man on earth—Musk spoke ruefully about his compulsion to stir up dramas. “I need to shift my mindset away from being in crisis mode, which it has been for about fourteen years now, or arguably most of my life,” he said.

It was a wistful comment, not a New Year’s resolution. Even as he said it, he was secretly buying up shares of Twitter, the world’s ultimate playground. Over the years, whenever he was in a dark place, his mind went back to being bullied on the playground. Now he had the chance to own the playground.

For two years, Isaacson shadowed Musk, attended his meetings, walked his factories with him, and spent hours interviewing him, his family, friends, coworkers, and adversaries. The result is the revealing inside story, filled with amazing tales of triumphs and turmoil, that addresses the question: are the demons that drive Musk also what it takes to drive innovation and progress?

--

Posting the Amazon link just to prove that's all really on the book listing: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1982181281

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

The word ‘moral’ does indeed have some baggage. When I use it, I mean ‘ethical’. 

I think "ethics" tends to have a little less baggage but also still drives conversations into the ground. I get why someone would want to reach for the words because I've spent considerable time trying to layout useful versions of them, but I've come to the conclusion the mere mention of the word tends to kill productive conversations almost immediately. Instead it's more useful to ground things in what someone is trying to accomplish, harms and benefits of choices, etc.

Starting an argument with the goal of determining what is "moral" is a category mistake from the start. "Moral" an absolutely useless word that only serves to prompt people to regurgitate their arbitrary cultural biases. Many have strived to rescue to the word into a more useful definition, but the campaign has been a failure with may competing alternative campaigns only making the matter worse. The term is irrevocably broken and we should never begin argument with it ever again. Its failure as a meaningful term that causes everyone to talk past each other in the most unproductive of ways is perhaps only rivaled by the term "free will."

That terrible. I'm so sorry  Cancer is a massive fucker and perhaps my biggest lament of living in this era is even with all the amazing technology we have, we still haven't solved this horrifying curse on life.

2 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

Sounds like your AI has aged too much.

It may surprise you to learn that neural* plasticity loss is a very important topic in my subfield of AI (reinforcement learning) that I discuss and investigate with some regularity!

^{*Artificial neurons which are almost nothing like biological neurons except when you squint.}