SkyeStarfall

joined 2 years ago
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They all in the same death cult or something?

Yeah, capitalism it seems like.

I guess asking for sustainable business practices is too much to ask for from the system. "Sufficient" money is never good enough. Gotta try to get all the money, even if it means burning down everything one holds dear.

Hell, the system is literally willing to burn down the whole world in pursuit of more. The more you think about it, the more senseless it all becomes.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

A white dwarf is a remnant of a dead star. It cannot go supernova by itself.

Rain is a bottom confirmed

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 years ago

Then it sounds like growing as much as they did was a mistake.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 years ago

Fuck, I don't know. All the right-leaning individuals that I know, mainly my blood family, are bigoted in many ways. This shit is really obvious to be as a queer person.

People say "not all right-wingers" but like... It basically is. And even if they may not personally be bigoted, they still end up supporting parties or systems that are.

The actual open minded right-wingers end up being more left-leaning once they realize the failures of right-wing ideology.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 years ago

If that was what would be necessary, then yes, scaling down would be the correct choice, because in that case scaling up was a mistake.

Infinite growth is unsustainable, and it always falls apart in the end. Why can't we just be happy with some slow and sustainable growth, until a sustainable plateau?

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 years ago (4 children)

But they're still states. States are internal divisions and only meaningful within the US. From an outside perspective there are very few differences between states, nowhere close to the differences between different countries.

Similar to how we don't talk about states or other divisions of china, even though there are probably divisions with more people than half of Europe.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 2 years ago

It didn't use to be.

People give a negative review because they consider the game to be much worse than it was in the past.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Uh I mean, statistical machine learning models are used in tons of places and have been for a while now. There's plenty of positive effects to be had. It's just called "AI" without further clarification.

I'm sure what they are doing here is developing one such machine learning model to improve their detection.

And to me it seems like wildfire detection is a good contender to be improved by machine learning.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It seems absurd to me that we're spending effort on reversing entropic processes (effectively unburning burned carbon by filtering it through a mixed atmosphere) when there are far more straightforward solutions involving not burning that carbon in the first place. Or, hell, even just putting carbon filters on the power plants.

Because the second law of thermodynamics applies here. It will always be more efficient, simpler, and cheaper to not release the carbon in the first place. And if we are not even doing that... What solution could direct air capture ever provide?

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But you cannot escape the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics. It will always be more efficient to not release the carbon in the first place.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My point was that capitalism and its incentives do not create good games.

Capitalism rewards profit at any cost, and nothing more. In the end this allows for cash grabs and terrible working conditions, which the industry is riddled with. Good games would still have gotten made without these incentives.

There's many assumptions in this text, and it ignores great games that were financial flops (or couldn't get made in the first place), and terrible ones (like gacha games or basically the whole mobile games ecosystem) which are greatly rewarded and successful. There are so many resources wasted on objectively not good things for players such as how to exploit their psyche to spend money which compromises the game design, or resources spent on stuff like marketing just because that's what pays back, instead of spending those on making a better game.

I would argue that capitalism's incentives hampers the creation of good games if anything. Because now instead of thinking what makes a game good, devs are instead forced or incentivized to think what makes money. And they are very much not the same thing.

view more: ‹ prev next ›