[0] <https://nmsspot.com/2023/01/20/upgrading-the-gaming-pc/>

This applies to adjacent industries as well. I semi-regularly get email from firms (in the same time zone as mine) in the 11PM–2AM range.

Again, I'm not purporting to have any more experience than you do, but you can't assert that this is a tech-industry-only phenomenon when I am sure applicable examples other than my own could be found. I wish I could go without, but spending the first billable hour catching up on email is not really acceptable.

A lot of how a game encourages play is based upon the small details that designers choose to include. In 1974, looking at OD&D for the first time, players probably wouldn't think to tap the floor for traps, but a 10' pole is curiously listed on the equipment table. Same with listening at doors, or things like that.

So instead of coming up with something entirely bespoke, companies seem to use D&D as a base not because it serves the game, but because it has lower "buy-in" for customers. Which I think is a shame.

My point isn't necessarily that there shouldn't be modern versions of these games—obviously, D&D is the most popular TTRPG (at least in the US), and itself barely resembles the three brown booklets of '74. It's that by going back and discovering what made the originals so great, we can carry these lessons forward and make loving modern interpretations like Old School Essentials/Dolmenwood.

I could rant for hours about the sacred cows of D&D deserving slaughter, but I'll refrain.

All this is to say, the Dolmenwood campaign book is great and I own it. It was originally a setting for Old-School Essentials published through a zine[1], and I think they could have stopped at just a campaign book, the one that the OP links to. I just don't think we need any more flavors of B/X!

[0] https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=14165

[1] https://necroticgnome.com/blogs/news/the-end-of-wormskin

With this setting disabled, aside from the slight tedium of inputting the necessary context each time for task continuations, I have noticed a drastic improvement in response quality and accuracy—I'm one of those shmucks who whined a bit after Opus 4.7 came out, and my theory is some change was made to increase memory context that resulted in a decrease in actual response quality. In general, I wonder if the high-context abilities of SOTA thinking models are overstated.

As a brief anecdote, I was working through a research task with upwards of 30 prompts. Switching to a new chat and condensing the gist of the discussion into a single new prompt yielded superior results than continuing to prompt the prior chat, despite (or due to, I would argue) the prior conversation's wealth of context on the subject.

Aside: I wish that "project" and "chat" memory were separate settings. Disabling memory boosts the capabilities of chat, but severely nerfs projects by disabling their internal memory, leading the model to grope around for files each time you ask it to reference one. I suppose a hacky solution could just be to create a project for everything, but this seems tedious.

Is this a known phenomenon? Have recent changes exacerbated things? Any thoughts and tips are appreciated. Thanks!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49027099

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

So it seems as though the rule is, you must mix up the letters for the following answer, but further answers are fair game to reuse letter combinations (or, it is applied arbitrarily.) Neither are very intuitive IMO.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48751978

Points: 117

# Comments: 97

* THIS IS NOT A PAID ADVERTISEMENT *

https://practicaltypography.com/ - tons of practical advice on typefaces and text-based UX

https://harmful.cat-v.org/ - more of a "website-style" layout than the above two

Again, there is NO ARROW or any UI to indicate this is possible. You used to be able to set it as the default view, but that has been eradicated it seems.

I was playing Stardew Valley the other day and it hit me. For me, that type of close-knit community and simple living is merely fantasy, absolutely unattainable in real life.

Edit: it would also be useful to be able to see the whole dungeon at once, legibly. Maybe a larger font size or something more readable? I find myself having to write down longer words to try and fill in the gaps.

Anecdotally, one of my buddies uses it to host his homebrew TTRPG ruleset, which the wiki structure actually works very well for. I just download the HTML file and then I can reference it without internet, which is quite nice.

[0] https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/maverick-top-gun-stat-turns...

That said, I think that LLMs are not conscious and are more like p-zombies. It can be argued that an LLM has no qualia and is thus not conscious, due to having no interaction with an outside world or anything "real" other than user input (mainly text). Another reason driving my opinion is because it is impossible to explain "what it is like" to be an LLM. See Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"

I do agree with the parent comment's pushback on any sort of certainty in this regard—with existing frameworks, it is not possible to prove anything is conscious other than oneself. The p-zombie will, obviously, always argue that it is a truly conscious being.