conciselyverbose @ conciselyverbose @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

2,055

Joined

2 yr. ago

The limitation of both was still way more the awful CPU and HDDs, though, neither of which they addressed much in the updated versions.

There's plenty of room to improve graphics. It won't make the PS5 obsolete, because the core CPU/SSD is what matters, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't make a better one.

I've definitely noticed the results suck ass, but this is a nice breakdown.

You should hate it as a manager. You're filtering out every single quality candidate because only a deranged nut job would even consider such an unhinged request. Submitting a video, in and of itself, proves they are not worth hiring.

You don't need to process every candidate. Just randomly take 5%, or 1%, or .001%, and do a real hiring process. Anything at all is better than requiring a video application.

That shouldn't work. They should still be unconditionally liable for anything the rep said in all scenarios, with the sole exception being obvious sabotage like "we'll give you a billion dollars to sign up" that the customer knows can't be real.

There's also that.

But purely on the premise of "you should take the time to record a video merely for the pleasure of maybe having us look at your application", their expectations are way out of whack.

This isn't like when Google put scavenger hunts or puzzles or whatever in ads and gave job offers to people who solved them. The people who got hired by those ads were following through out of curiosity/the fun of solving the problems, and that wasn't the main/only way to get a job. It's just a new absurd demand trying to push the threshold of what's a legitimate ask.

The scary part is presenting it as a fucking privacy feature with no consequences.

Your company requiring video submissions for a fucking application is the easiest "this company is batshit insane and there's no possibility working for them could ever be worth it" red flag I've ever seen.

I think what I'm eventually going to have to do is roll my own. I don't need crazy complexity, but I do want some features nothing seems to have. I want the bulk editing that's only on goodreads, and I really want series to be first class citizens. That means series nesting in other series and being able to have a blurb/rating for a series instead of each individual entry, mostly. I just haven't got to it yet.

I don't necessarily have to have the metadata all the public social network style tools use to combine everyone's input to one book object, though I definitely understand how it's frustrating for services to lose information when you import your lists. But organization tools are critical to me.

Basically, just official servers will require anticheat, so worst case you can run your own.

Not the point of the article, but this is nice and reasonable:

This emerging "Palworld has lost X% of its player base" discourse is lazy, but it's probably also a good time to step in and reassure those of you capable of reading past a headline that it is fine to take breaks from games. You don't need to feel bad about that. Palworld, like many games before it, isn't in a position to pump out massive amounts of new content on a weekly basis. New content will come, and it's going to be awesome, but these things take a little bit of time. There are so many amazing games out there to play; you don't need to feel guilty about hopping from game to game.

I had like 1200 books when I tried it, and the number missing wasn't too bad.

But I'm not doing a list of 100 books searching one at a time. It's bad enough to have to do big chunks to add to my reading history because I don't keep that up. Re-doing organization without bulk editing just isn't going to happen.

I don't use their reviews to decide what to read, but I have checked after the fact on books I like and I think the quality of what they surface tends to be pretty bad.

A lot of mindless criticism, especially. It's perfectly OK to be critical when a book has flaws, but so many of the top reviews were people who just weren't the target audience criticizing it for being targeted at something different than they wanted. Whether that's rigorous academic nonfiction with reviews complaining that it cites its sources, kid/YA books with people complaining that there isn't enough depth, someone like Janet Evanovich or Jana Deleon writing deliberately nonsensical stuff for light humor getting complaints about not being realistic, romantic suspense getting criticism because characters are emotionally connected too fast when that's part of what the genre is, etc.

It's perfectly fine to be disinterested in a book because you're not interested in that genre, but it seems like way too many of the higher visibility reviews are people who just aren't interested in what the book is trying to do.

I have no idea.

I do know that I'm not super enthusiastic about Amazon being the one controlling my reading history, but I've tried migrating to several of the alternatives and it's just too much.

Goodreads has a nice page where you can see 50 books at a time, skim down the list, and checkbox to make bulk changes. I'm willing to painstakingly reconstruct lists like that with an alternative, even though it will still be kind of a pain. But I'm not willing to manually search every title to add it to a list, or go through my reading history and need multiple clicks and backwards navigations for every book I want to add to a list, and that's the state of anything I tried a couple months ago. Bookwyrm specifically sounds really nice, as a way to use federated tools to find people with similar interest and follow their reading and share. But the transfer is a lot.

That's not abuse.

If the developers choose to support that hardware, they have a reason. In either case, there is no way to use open source software that's abusive, with the exception of stuff like Amazon taking an open source project, modifying it without distribution so they're not obligated to share their changes, and selling the product as a service (at a scale that makes it extremely difficult for the authors to compete). That's against the spirit of open source even if it wasn't foreseen when licenses were written and is hard to legislate.

Using open source software to save money isn't.

I'm really not surprised. They wouldn't even want to limit commercial use, because I'd assume companies paying celebrities for little blurbs for company parties and stuff like that is a meaningful chunk of their business.

Hard to take a lawyer seriously when the language is so clear and the direct premise of the site, though. It's not some obscure power grab in the EULA of a site focused on something different. It's what you're getting paid for.

(Humans behavious still mostly eludes me though, totally illogical 🤨)

We're not rational, but there are patterns. If you're willing to do some reading Thinking: Fast and Slow is beefy, but helps to show some of the patterns of irrationality in a structured way, from one of the leading experts on human behavior. If that's too much, Thinking in Bets is a nice taster that still is well backed by much of the same research, but is shorter and more accessible.

This is like saying putting logs on a fire is "one or two breakthroughs away" from nuclear fusion.

LLMs do not have anything in common with intelligence. They do not resemble intelligence. There is no path from that nonsense to intelligence. It's a dead end, and a bad one.

I wish there were more cards.

I have played it a decent amount, but I probably wouldn't still play it if it wasn't also on my iPhone (there's a "plus" on Apple Arcade that looks identical, too).

I like Monster Train better mechanically for the reason that it does feel like there's a lot more variety, though I dislike how short the runs are to build a deck with. (I'd like Slay the Spire to go longer on a good run, too).

I haven't been too far on ascensions. I don't think they're really more entertaining. I mostly do the daily runs because at least there's variety there.

None.

The actual "single core", "multi-core" were basically fine last I was aware, but they went so far into apeshit meltdown about the fact that AMD was offering better value than Intel with Ryzen (which is kind of back and forth since, but AMD is the reason I could get a 16 (real, capable of demanding single core loads too) core for $500 a couple years ago, not too long after Intel was selling 6 cores for more than that.) that it undermined everything else.

Anyways, UB's owner didn't like that AMD had good shit so he kept changing the "gaming/desktop/whatever" grade formulas to tilt the comparisons to Intel using more and more hilarious mechanisms. It started with a reasonable "you don't really benefit from games past 4/6/8 cores" and de-emphasizing super high core counts that hadn't really been an issue before, but it quickly degraded into obviously cheating hard by whatever means necessary to punish AMD, with even worse diatribes in the descriptions to match.

It should be easy to provide examples of exclusivity deals they signed then.

Who did they pay to make their games exclusive to Steam?