SerLava

joined 5 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

Oh this is my new favorite guy

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jesus fucking christ

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh I had no idea we were talking about electrical energy efficiency, I meant complexity. I was saying they could make a computer less computationally powerful and have it simulate the input and output of neurons without having as many parts or as many signals/operations as each neuron

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She is like a DC character...

Scarecrow

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Don't you think imagining 1, imagining another 1, briefly remembering the concept of addition, thinking the word "plus", remembering that 1+1=2 is a true thing you know... that involves quite a few neurons firing right? And each neuron is unimaginably more complex than a piece of digital hardware that adds 1 and 1, which again is like 40 or 50 pieces of metal and plastic

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The human brain does that many operations to add 1 and 1

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

No I mean the human brain does that, and adding 1 and 1 can be done with like a few wires, or technically two rocks if you wanna be silly about it

This thing adds 1 to any number from 0 to 15 and it's tremendously less complex than a neuron, it's like 50 pieces of metal or whatever

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I mean for the most extreme example, it takes approximately 1 bazillion operations to solve 1+1

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Mapping out the neurons in a single cubic millimeter of a human brain takes literal petabytes of storage, and that's just a static snapshot

I've read long ago that replicating all the functions of a human brain is probably possible with computers around one order of magnitude less powerful than the brain because it's kind of inefficient

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

That sounds not great

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

That really helped! I still got a few crashes, but it was like a weird bug after walking some distance and then using the pipboy. Luckily I could just alt-tab, save, and then the next pip boy open would actually crash the game. I never got an instant CTD which the 2GB limit definitely used to cause. So I lost zero progress in the whole night of playing

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Found a very interesting YouTube comment that makes a ton of sense - why I used to be able to play New Vegas but can't anymore.

A 32-bit app on Windows is almost always limited to 2 GB (2,048 MB) of memory for both itself and any libraries (aka ".DLL files") it needs to run, and the memory taken up by those libraries is not shown in process manager. This was adequate at the time FNV was released, but in the intervening dozen plus years, the memory required by these libraries has grown quite a lot. On Windows 10, they take up nearly half of the memory available, which is why FNV crashes when it has reached about 1,000 MB, and needs to allocate more.

So even though you have plenty of ram, the 2GB cap has to be shared by the game along with the much larger processes that windows 10/11 use compared to Windows XP/7, which are needed to run the game.

view more: ‹ prev next ›