2. The statements made by somewhat representative groups like the ESA showed any compromise was impossible since their whole premise is "if you don't let us kill games (which we aren't doing) then it's going to kill the industry"; the typical propaganda of "our enemies are insignificant and stupid yet the greatest threat to humanity"

3. The ESA statements were disavowed by some developers, and SKG made a point to have longer videos with developers agreeing and debunking the lies in the ESA statements already. If that's not enough, refer to point 1.

>rights of its citizen workers/producers

The whole point is that the basis of commerce is that you can't sell something and destroy it just afterwards. Sure you can have limited time subscriptions but that's not how video-games are sold. They are changing the definition based on context so they can do the most unethical things as they see fit, and as a result they are entirely destroying the industry by breaking consumer trust.

Nerds were often seen as poorly social since "logic and reasoning" would go against socially accepted norms. This where the fedora tipping meme comes from: "everybody understands that religion is not literal, but we have to all accept the lie for social cohesion". But "nerds" would be the ones willing to take the ridicule and ostracism because truth would be more important than conformity.

Reddit was the place to be for nerds and spread like a pandemic. However, karma points turned this on its head since you have a mechanism to enforce conformity in non-conformity that was the basis for "nerd communities". Nerds hobbies that would be the gateway are gated behind such platforms that enforce a social credit system in a totalitarian way. The would have been nerds are thus mostly integrated into the redittor archetype that is so fundamentally opposed to the nerd archetype; a contorted version of itself trying to fit through distorting mirrors.

I'm not disagreeing with you; but why did the nerds not destroy the ideologues with logic and reasoning if not for the horizontal pressure of other "nerds" subverting the concept?

However, "a Mega Drive game!" is a great sales point to the majority of people invested in the nostalgia market, with only a surface-level interest of what these games are. It's why it made it to the font page of hn, and not it's perfect 'traditional' sprite art, or its Yuzo Koshiro soundtrack.

I like shmups because they are pretty much "pure game design"; games are such a complete package of story, interactive experience, etc that it's hard to separate what comes from where. This is what makes design experimentation so interesting and rich.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELcS_IyXygs&t=2788s

Also instead of meta-progression through stats you have increased difficulties through the puzzles, but you improve your puzzle-solving skills.

Thankfully the Avision FB5100 states native Linux support (AFAIK, this is the only flatbed A3 scanner that does), so I'm certainly going to buy this one. I know implementing device support for companies that don't make any effort is hard and thankless, but then we need to divest/invest in the right companies and solutions.

>As a creative, one needs to develop their own for what they are trying to create. So what is the value in looking at how other creative things were made?

That's not the how of the process at all, that's the end result. The "how" for traditional art is completely different; it is taking pigments as a base rather than light, and the algebra of composition is not the same either.

I've thought about making this for a long time to help me with painting, but in that case I think to be useful you need a bit more ways to see the data -- mostly, the thing that is the most important is value. So to get something useful out of it you need a distribution of the hues conditioned value.

And for design, the problem is a bit different. You may have a good looking palette, but 'inverting it' for dark mode is not trivial, and neither are gradients, getting intermediate colors, or getting a shifted hue.

It's called inspiration so it's fulfilling its promise, I'm just curious what are your thoughts on these since you obviously thought a lot about it.

I did wonder, reading such a comment, whether it would be a hyperbole, but not only is it documented, it is way worse than that. The free market is only ever enforced in the direction that suits the US, and the vassal states get screwed.

There are so many submissions where most of the discussion is about whether the content has any human effort behind, or the LLM was just a purely assistive role like translating. It's really devaluing hn, IMO. Not sure how much an AI flag would help, or introduce new issues, given how difficult the problem is, though.

I don't think you can get even a moderate version of a person's opinion from the 30's. What even is the point of this? Open any book from the time and you will get far more "current day offensive" stuff. Given how hard it is to believe that there was no temporal leaking, and how inaccurate the results are, what use is there to it?

Moderation also seems to silently hang up the chat.

From a model-checking point of view. This is about taking a proof-theoretic approach...

Your last paragraph is also quite wrong: a machine learning could very well easily learn and solve an NP-complete problem, because this property does not say anything about average case complexity (and we should consider Probabilistic complexity classes, so the picture is even more "complex").

>The problem with those methods is that they're inference time

I agree, I just thought it was missing some prior art (not affiliated with these papers :-P)

What is not clear to me at all is, is this the draft of a research idea? Or is there already some implementation coming in a later post?

It seems to me that such an idea would be workable on a given language with a given type system, but it seems to me there would be a black magic step to train a model that would work in a language-agnostic manner. Could you clarify?

Then it switches to using an encoding that would be more semantic, but I think the argument is a bit flimsy: it compares chess to the plethora of languages that LLM can spout somewhat correct code for (which is behind the success of this generally incorrect approach). What I found more dubious is that it brushed off syntactical differences to say "yeah but they're all semantically equivalent". Which, it seems to me, is kind of the main problem about this; basically any proof is an equivalence of two things, but it can be arbitrarily complicated to see it. If we consider this problem solved, then we can get better things, sure...

I think without some e.g. Haskell PoC showing great results these methods will have a hard time getting traction.

Please correct any inaccuracies or incomprehension in this comment!

Honestly I hope that the AI filter would be much better in terms of false positive than the aforementioned one, if only because it should be easier via statistical methods.