mehwoot

Love this game, fast paced multiplayer that's super strategic.

He claims it was poking fun. The court found differently.

Bendels claimed the meme, posted by his newspaper's X account, was satirical.

But the judge in the case said during the verdict that Bendels published a 'deliberately untrue and contemptuous statement about Interior Minister Ms. Faeser (...) that would not be recognizable to the unbiased reader and is likely to significantly impair her public work'.

It's about 1 olympic sized swimming pool long, although I guess we're only allowed to use that for volume

Supermarkets sell promotional space and in some cases access to have products even appear in store, either through discounts on the wholesale price or straight up charging for it. They absolutely tilt things in favour of their own brands, and in some supermarkets in some categories don't stock any non house brands.

Spotify has discovered there is a big market for music where the quality isn't that important and they can serve it themselves. Same as supermarkets do with many products.

The difference is that gambling increases the overall variance of outcomes to an individual whereas insurance decreases it. I wouldn't say insurance is a form of gambling but that they are two ends of the same spectrum. The difference in intention is a clear distinction to me.

I would expect minute-by-minute coverage with a lot of pictures, maps, estimates of how much time they need to reach Moscow etc.

This existed, it just didn't exist in the traditional media. Look in the right discord servers and there were new videos being posted every 5 minutes as the convoy was moving around.

No, it did not “double-check”—that’s not something it can do! And stating that the cases “can be found on legal research databases” is a flat out lie.

What’s harder is explaining why ChatGPT would lie in this way. What possible reason could LLM companies have for shipping a model that does this?

It did this because it's copying how humans talk, not what humans do. Humans say "I double checked" when asked to verify something, that's all GPT knows or cares about.

It's not focused on a point, it's focused on an area, and while it will be hot it won't be unbelievably hot. See this explanation which is far better than I can explain- https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/

Why do you say that

why is it so common for people to think psychedelics are opening us up to what is ""real"" or some deeper truth

Because the very changes in brain chemistry you're talking about affect your ability to determine whether something is real or not.

Many psychedelics cause Apophenia, Pareidolia and other disorders. In loose terms, the ability of your brain to determine what information is meaningful or not is affected and you begin to over interpret the meaningfulness of things that happen and your own thoughts. So your idle thought becomes some earth-shattering revelation.

Something similar can happen to people with Schizophrenia. They'll be walking down a street and see a license plate XUE-383 and the function of the brain that tells whether something is meaningful or not misfires, telling them that this is very important. The brain then tries to explain why this is incredibly important, hence hidden messages, spies, all sorts of things.

You can of course be on drugs or schizophrenic and understand this is what is happening but it's hard to override an emotion with logic.

What they're talking about is a very active debate in Australia.

The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived

Is absolutely what a lot of, if not the majority of people, believe.

Anki. You'll learn so much quicker

How does one definite hate speech? Who gets to decide? That's my entire problem with this philosophy. Some one or some group feel holy enough to be the arbiters.

Yes, real life is hard and complicated and there's no easy way to decide it. We collectively do the best we can and keep trying to improve. That's just reality. That's why free speech absolutism is naïve- it appeals to our desire for one, simple, always enforceable rule but it's not the way the world works that one simple rule is always the best outcome.

Thanks for this info.

The basic technique is from a research paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4295561_Fast_Hydrau...

My first attempt at creating a simulation of water and erosion before I saw this paper was pretty bad as well.

Yes, it's a grid based system. When you choose map size (e.g. 1024x1024) that's the resolution of the underlying simulation. My refinement of this approach is there is an extra step that "smooths" everything out. The vertex points for rendering are offset depending on how the water flows, which allows rivers to appear to flow at angles other than 90 degrees. Without this, it would either be very blocky or cover a much smaller area- there are other implementations of that paper floating around and the scale is an order of magnitude less, as a river needs to be many grid points across. In my implementation, you can get a nice looking river from a sequence of single points.

The drawback is this complicates a lot of other things. E.g. you can no longer easily tell what the height is at a point on the map is- there is no easy way to know what vertices to interpolate between since they can be offset in different directions. So when rendering trees, there's a whole GPU calculation to produce a separate data layer just to know what height the ground they're sitting on is at. But it's worth it to get a map that covers a big area with a full water flow simulation.

In general terms, the simulation is done as a series of grids of values (called layers, in reality just textures on the GPU) and operations that take some of them as input to generate another. Some layers persist always (e.g. the water flow) and update themselves iteratively. Other layers are produced on the fly when needed, and can be at different resolutions. E.g. you zoom into an area of the map- the water layer is read to determine the biome layer for just that part of the map. The water layer is read to determine the heights layer I talked about previously. Then the biome layer, water layer and heights layer are combined into a trees layer where one grid vertex is one possible instance of a tree. The values represent whether a tree is there, the position of its base, the type of tree, etc.

That's used as input for the rendering system, there's a mesh that uses that trees layer to render all the trees. It's also used as input for the animals system, so the animals walk around the trees, etc. It's basically a big dependency graph of data layers and the operations needed to generate them. Most of the work so far has been building all that tooling and getting it running asynchronously so the game doesn't lag if it takes multiple frames to generate what is needed.

Yes. Plus different rocks types, since how different rocks respond to erosion is an important factor in why the world looks the way it does.

this

I might gamify it a little bit more, but personally I love the fun that comes from exploring a set of mechanics by yourself without anyone telling you what you're trying to achieve.

My aim is to build a set of simulation mechanics that are accurate enough to teach you a little bit about how the processes work in real life but also responsive enough to let you play around with them and create what you'd like.

Do you have any idea of what you'd want to import it into?

I get this feedback a lot, but I'm unsure what formats would be most useful- there are a lot of different heightmap / GIS formats to choose from.

Just sandbox mode for now.

The rivers don't meander in the way that real rivers do- real rivers meander because of differences in flow velocity across the width of the river, but the simulation doesn't run at that sort of resolution. If it did, the area covered would be far smaller.

I don't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers themselves to be a player

I don't consider Tesla a player in self-driving, but I don't think Tesla does either

shameless plug: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1482770/Terra_Firma/

Although I think the whole token-backed thing is completely unnecessary, it's not hard to imagine what value people walking, hiking, jogging and being physical has these days.

I work for a company of ~200 total employees with ~30 in engineering and the org chart for an engineer goes Individual Contributor -> Manager -> VP Engineering -> CEO. 4 total layers, 2 of managers.

Shameless plug: I wrote a game that lets you play around with this sort of thing, it's on steam and it's free: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1482770/Terra_Firma/

No offense but it would need to be much more refined than what you suggest. Stalemate is pretty rare, but the 50 move / 3 move repetition is 99% of draws in chess- or at least would be the outcome if players were not allowed to agree to a draw. Nearly every single game at the top level would be a white win if all white has to do is effectively draw.

Maybe instead of stalemate you meant a draw where neither side has enough material to checkmate? If you make that a black win, white would always have to push for a win.

Assuming your life is spent in a virtual world consuming media, that is. For people who want to live in the physical world with maybe a few augmentations here and there, AR could be around forever.

Why would you give up actually doing real work?

Building something past a certain scale requires people to work together and building a system of people working together is just as much an interesting challenge as building a computer system of components working together.

Fair enough. I don't live in the U.S, where I live the limits are far, far higher- at least $500,000, probably more adding up all the different types of entitlements.

https://www.greenslips.com.au/claims-guide/entitlements.html

In contrast, the insured often relies on a recollection of their history and a ton of emotional reasoning to decide if they will be the statistical oddity to make "a profit" of having bought insurance.

This isn't generally the point of insurance. The point of insurance is to amortise risk. Yes, the insurance company expects to, on average, get more money from insuring my house than the cost of any damage to it. But if something really bad happened to my house, it would cost far more than the sum of my insurance payments to fix it, and I don't have that sort of money. I am losing money on average, but I guarantee I will always have a house, so overall I am better off by reducing the extremeness of the worst case situations.

This is why I don't buy insurance or extended warranty for anything I can pay to replace. A company wouldn't offer it if they didn't expect to make money, and I can afford to replace a phone or my luggage, so I'm happy to just take the risk. I buy home insurance because I can't afford to replace my house and travel insurance because there are countries where emergency medical bills can bankrupt you. The government also forces me to buy third party insurance to drive my car, which seems fair enough since I can't afford to pay damages for someone permanently crippled from negligent driving.

In the case here for apple care, I'm not sure. What apple charges for repairs almost definitely has markup, so it's possible that they can provide insurance that averages out below the expected "cost" of repairs but still makes apple money. So maybe it is actually a win-win. Definitely makes sense to add it all up and see if you're getting value for money.

short of violent revolution

But that's exactly what happens when you start murdering people and a significant minority knows it can happen to them.

How do you know that? I think collectively agreeing to suspend basic human rights for reason A would make it very easy to agree to suspend basic human rights for reasons B

I don't think the default position is just a slippery slope. I think someone making this argument should have to show some evidence why you think Australians would agree to impose a curfew for some more sinister reason now other than just "we're used to it". Because we aren't. Despite agreeing to it for public health reasons, in absolute terms people are NOT happy with it. I'd argue the opposite: like a vaccine prepping your immune system, being forced to live with curfews may very well strengthen our resolve to not go through this again if it can absolutely be avoided. Lockdown fatigue is a very real thing here and anyone suggesting lockdown for political or other nefarious reasons (as the author tries to imply) very well could find it now harder than previously.