Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.
Nowhere do I suggest any of those things. In fact, opting out of anthropocentricism is breaking with views held throughout much of human history and used as an excuse to do nothing.
“actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”
If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.
Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.
Nah mate. It would absolutely catastrophic. But the scope of who it would be catastrophic for is limited to the minority of known life. Humanity is insignificant to the universe but significant to us.
IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile. The universe is not anthropocentric. It doesn’t give two shits about humanity (it’s not, to our knowledge even sentient). Humanity is completely insignificant to nearly anything but humans. To me, it puts into perspective that noone and nothing in this indifferent universe is coming to save us from ourselves. It’s up to us.
Life will continue without us, just like it did before us. If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive to evolve into new forms of complex life. The human species is far more fragile than the planet.
Good call. You might try games like Tomb Raider or the first Prince of Persia reboot for movement accuracy.
ETA: Just to be absolutely clear, the “/J” was “jerk” like the old “circlejerk” subs, not serious. You probably know that but I’d rather be sure and not assume as I don’t think being dicks to eachother makes the world a better place.
L2P n00b! /J
In seriousness though, I find the trackpads to be very useful for precision. Unfortunately, you have to build up the skill, like anything else. Work at it over time and you should get there. For practice, really depends on what you want to play. I’d suggest something that has a good system for criticals/headshots. Looks like Aim Lab might work on the deck, so maybe try that?
I both love and hate this so much. The performance and recording is incredible but any super tech nerdy parody just causes me immense internal cringe. I couldn’t make it more than a third of the way through that and I love working with K8S.
Absolutely the best kind of space crashloopbackoff.
So what it’s really like is only having to do half the work?
If it’s automating the interesting problem solving side of things and leaving just debugging code that one isn’t familiar with, I really don’t see value to humanity in such use cases. That’s really just making debugging more time consuming and removing the majority of fulfilling work in development (in ways that are likely harder to maintain and may be subject to future legal action for license violations). Better to let it do things that it actually does well and keep engaged programmers.
I’m excited to see more once it becomes available. Have already added to wishlist. A couple of thoughts, similar to what some others have voiced:
Animations are not everything or enough to make a good game. However, attention to detail in animations is a big plus in my book, regardless of graphical quality. It is something that I tend to notice and appreciate.
Mechanics are fundamental to any game, physical or digital. There’s two diametrically opposed directions that I’ve seen that result in enjoyable games:
Mechanics that are optimized for enjoyment rather than strict realism. People play games for entertainment. If a mechanic is extremely frustrating, it will likely cause people to lose interest even if it is extremely realistic. In this approach, such mechanics are tuned or dropped to ensure that the player experience is as good as it can be.
Mechanics that are optimized for realism to an excessive degree, with enjoyable gameplay taking a backseat. This is likely to result in a smaller, cult following as many will get frustrated and move on. A good example of this is Dwarf Fortress with its unofficial slogan of “Losing is Fun”.
I would strongly suggest leaning towards the former as the latter is a really hard target to hit and the cult following for a game that does hit #2 perfectly may also be delayed until long after release.
Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing your future progress.
Yeah that will work on Linux too.
THANK YOU!!! I was just going to ask about this.
I cannot agree enough with this statement and especially love your closing. We definitely don’t tend to be able to take enough time to really care for ourselves and try and fail at new things.
It’s even better at seeming knowledgeable about things that it may or may not be knowledgeable about.
They are absolutely eating the real costs in order to gain market share. I suspect that there’s going to be a mad dash to rehire humans when the bill comes due and the VCs want profits.
I don’t have any experience with resin printers yet but have been poking around at FDM for the better part of a decade. In that price range (for FDM), I’d likely suggest a Creality K1C. It is not going to likely match the BambuLab printers but it’s a great departure from previous by Creality, requiring little to no tinkering to make it work. If you can spare around $1k, and don’t care about proprietary stuff, BambuLab X1 series is about the most turnkey that I know of. But, again, the Creality is (surprisingly) right there too with the K1C.
Note: It is probably possible to get similar results with mods to a K1 or K1Max - the nozzle brush seems to be critical to the K1C’s reliability.
First, you’d need to figure out the best “energy shield(s)” for deflecting the problematic radiation. A quick glance shows that there’s been some promising research using charged plasma bubbles contained by superconductors. That does not sound likely to be low energy. Then there’s other problems like getting telemetry data, etc. Would be awesome if such an approach were proven to work.
Despite the downvotes, you do make an important point. In order for space travel to be feasible, efforts are needed to mitigate and reduce the environmental impacts of chemical rockets. For cargo, it could be possible to use electromechanical means of propulsion that may involve acceleration before what a human body is capable of.
Best would likely be a space elevator powered by nuclear and/or renewables. This could greatly reduce the amount of pollution involved in transiting between the Earth and orbital positions.
Definitely oversimplification and I don’t mean to understate the efforts, technology, engineering, and materials that went into the ISS. It’s incredible. My main point being just how simple the current state-of-the-art is compared to what would be needed for a sustainable orbital shipyard.
We know how to assemble stuff in space, it’s just expensive.
Indeed (ISS being a good example of this fact). The scope here though is beyond just assembly. Also, at minimum, manufacturing of shielding components would likely be necessary in order for such an undertaking to be feasible.
I’d still be looking it up as the husband. I wouldn’t want to risk giving my kid a name that sounds good but has a terrible etymology.