MudMan

joined 1 year ago
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 52 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Admittedly, this game doesn't look particularly good on a CRT, either.

The hype about the visuals being "3D" was so weird and misinformed, and you could absolutely tell at the time.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

It's boilerplate meant to clarify that if you refund the game you can't keep a copy (and that you need to accept the eula and if you don't you can't keep a copy either).

Notably a lot of the games in that list are strictly single player.

Also, the same line shows up in all sorts of private contracts. It's probably in your work contract if you work from home.

Online discourse is broken. It doesn't help that everything else is also dumb.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 22 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I am mad about how dumb we all are, and how easiy swayed by simple narratives that reinforce our biases.

From the Baldur's Gate 3 EULA:

This Pact shall remain in effect for as long as you use, operate or run the Game.

You may terminate the Pact at any time and for any reason by notifying Larian Studios that you intend to terminate the agreement. Upon termination all licenses granted to you in this Pact shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently remove the Game from your device and destroy all copies of the Game in your possession.

This didn't cause any stir when it came out. That makes sense, right? Nobody reads these things.

Except everybody in the press read this one, because it went viral for being written in character as a D&D document and having a bunch of jokes in it.

Admittedly this is meant to apply to refunds and things like refusing the privacy agreement, but that's the point, it's fairly standard boilerplate for that reason.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 7 points 2 days ago

Not what it says.

It's in the Baldur's Gate 3 EULA.

Read the article.

What they're saying is this is a relatively common temrination clause. It's meant to apply to, say, refunds.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am not advocating muting over blocking. I am saying blocking here sucks, so "block fast" isn't particularly useful. I'm confused about what part is confusing.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

No, it's more the other way around. You can't block. Blocked posts/people still exist attached to your post, they can keep seeing your posts and replying to them, I'm pretty sure. All blocking does here is keep you from seeing what the blocked person is doing, but it doesn't affect them in any way.

I guess it's an expedient way to make them think you're super passive aggressive. So... like a mute button.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 11 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Not sure you should block fast on Lemmy and its derivatives. Fedi in general, really. It's a mute at best.

Honestly, for such a well intentioned meme I'm surprised by the general icky feel I get from it. I think these general advisory things based on a world that is still super into social media and terminally online may feel outdated now. You may just want the being kind part somewhere not on the Internet.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wait, who wins between scissors and wax tablet? Does that count as rock?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 7 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I had to dig a bit further for this figure. They display the same data more prominently in percentage of the time devoted to each bug, which gives them smaller error bars, but also doesn't really answer the question that matters regarding where the time went.

Worth noting that this is a subset of the data, apparently. They recorded about a third of the bug fixes on video and cut out runs with cheating and other suspicious activity. Assuming each recording contains one bug they end up with a fourth of the data broken down this way.

Which is great, but... it does make you wonder why that data is good enough for the overall over/underestimate plot if it's not good enough for the task breakdown. Some of the stuff they're filtering out is outright not following the instructions or self-reporting times that are more than 20% off from what the recording shows. So we know some of those runs are so far off they didn't get counted for this, but presumably the rest of the data that just had no video would be even worse, since the timings are self-reported and they paid them to participate by the hour.

I'd definitely like to see this with more data, this is only 16 people, even if they are counting several hundred bugs. Better methodology, too. And I'd like to see other coder profiles in there. For now they are showing a very large discrepancy between estimate and results and at least this chart gives you some qualitative understanding of how that happened. I learned something from reading it. Plus, hey, it's not like AI research is a haven of clean, strict data.

Of course most people will just parrot the headline, because that's the world we live in.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 32 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Sounds about right.

I'd like to see numbers for inexperienced devs and devs working on somebody else's code, though.

EDIT: Oh, this is interesting. The full paper breaks down where the time goes. Turns out coders do in fact spend less time actually working on the code when using AI, but the time spent prompting, waiting on the output and processing the output eats up the difference. They also sit idle for longer with AI. So their forecasts aren't that crazy, they do work less/faster with AI, but the new extra tasks make them less productive overall.

That makes a lot of sense in retrospect, but it's not what I was expecting.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io -1 points 4 days ago

The Youtube version will give you a transcript.

Monkey's paw curling at its finest.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

I'm gonna say if the OS of a public administration can run while not being updated that's the OS's fault and not fit for purpose.

Nothing keeping you from changing that if you manage the distro. But still.

Now that I'm done with my popcorn, I thought the video was fairly even handed.

view more: ‹ prev next ›