frog

The first time I played My Time at Portia, I had the same issue, and it felt like it took ages and ages to do the bridge. It was much easier on subsequent playthroughs. Basically what I did was build about 6 furnaces to get the crafting going early on, and always had at least 2 of each subsequent crafting station (more as space and resources allowed, although there were a few that just one was sufficient for. Making sure you get a crafting commission every day really helps as well, because that's your main source of income, which makes it easier to afford more land, inventory upgrades, etc. Fishing is also ridiculously lucrative once you get good at it.

What my Portia daily routine normally looks like is something like this:

• Wake up, check mail (if any).

• Grab resources that have crafted overnight (if any).

• Go to town hall and pick a commission, looking for something that I have most or all of the materials to craft. The plan is to get it made and delivered that day if possible, so if there's a choice of something that doesn't pay well but can be done immediately or something that pays better but will take 2-3 days to make happen, I pick the low paying one.

• Check map to see if any locals have quests that day. If they do, go and get the quests.

• Go home and craft the commission item, plus any items required by other quests picked up that day. If any crafting stations have finished production, set them going again.

• Deliver crafted item to recipient(s).

• Gather resources for the rest of the day. I usually pick one activity and stick to it, say mining, fishing, hunting (the sound of dying colourful llamas makes me sad, but I want their pelts), etc.

• Check crafting stations when stamina has run out. Set more crafting going if needed.

• Go to bed.

The other thing is that the big "main" quests for building those major projects aren't necessarily meant to be done quickly, as they're the bigger story events that gate your progress through the game. Once I stopped trying to get them done as quickly as possible, and let myself get sidetracked on other stuff, I enjoyed the game a lot more. I spent quite a lot of time just spending whole days on, say, just mining, or harvesting wood, or fishing, while ignoring the bridge entirely. (I actually think I spent about two weeks fishing once. I got really, really into it. It then took me another week to sell them all.) By the time I thought "oh yeah, I should do that bridge thing", I had more than enough of all the resources needed, and then it felt really quick to do. I ignored quite a lot of main quests for a really long time, including one that narratively I should have done much quicker. Let's just say that

Speaking purely from my own experience, the mistake I made with My Time at Portia the first time I played it was I was too focused on being goal-oriented by following the main quest. But the game's not really about that. I had a much better time when I slowed down, focused less on the main quest, and more on crafting stuff for the locals (so many stone stools) and selling them preposterous amounts of fish.

Well there was an article the other day that pointed out he was once hit by a VW Beetle, only has one ball, and married a German. Maybe he should be famous for being a tribute act...

Well I'm never getting that thought out of my head.

I don't think so. My Time at Portia has a day-night cycle and I love that game.

The weird thing about Stardew Valley is I cannot understand why I don't like it. I've tried to like it. I've poured many hours into games in the same genre, but I haven't even managed to get 2 hours into Stardew Valley and I do not understand why. I can't point at anything in particular that doesn't work for me, and it's exactly the kind of game I love to play, so I'm honestly perplexed as to why I don't like it.

The following trait should be added under Sonic: "frees animals from villain who has turned them into robots".

And the following under Musk: "kills animals by implanting robot chips in their brains".

Ridiculous. Nigel Farage is part of a great entertainment machine. He is not someone who can govern this country. Reform is a giant ego trip, not a serious programme of alternative change. Nigel Farage provides amusement and diversion. What he does not provide is authority and good governance. In this country, whoever we vote for in the end, the British people choose authoritative, sensible managers, whether from the left or the right. What they don’t do, is go in for the performative politics that Nigel has made such a successful financial career out of.

~Michael Gove, Times Radio on Monday 17th June, who previously helped Boris Johnson to become prime minister and then served in his cabiet.

I agree. They're good tools as a starting point, but more research needed. The closeness of many results (like getting Labour, Lib Dems, and Greens within a few percentage of each other) mostly just shows where on the political spectrum you are.

The scales of the two are nowhere near comparable. A human can't steal and regurgitate so much content that they put millions of other humans out of work.

Yeah, I think some of the questions definitely come from the US version of the site ("should teachers be allowed to carry guns at school?" comes to mind), and aren't really applicable to the UK.

90% Lib Dems and Greens for me (89% Labour) at one end, and 22% for Reform at the other. Digging deeper into the results, the areas I agree with Reform on include things that they agree with progressives on, like reforming political donations, and things where literally all the parties agree, like whether the government has done enough to deal with inflation.

Probably I Side With is your best option.

Also check your local media websites. Mine recently published a collection of personal statements from each of the candidates in my constituency, where all but one made their case for why people should vote for them. While it doesn't dive deep into policies, it can give you an overall feel for what individual candidates are like. (Suffice to say, the independent candidate in my constituency who got kicked out of Reform for their social media posts, and sued a school for vaccinating children, is not going to get my vote.)

But this is the point: the AIs will always need input from some source or another. Consider using AI to generate search results. Those will need to be updated with new information and knowledge, because an AI that can only answer questions related to things known before 2023 will very quickly become obsolete. So it must be updated. But AIs do not know what is going on in the world. They have no sensory capacity of their own, and so their inputs require data that is ultimately, at some point in the process, created by a human who does have the sensory capacity to observe what is happening in the world and write it down. And if the AI simply takes that writing without compensating the human, then the human will stop writing, because they will have had to get a different job to buy food, rent, etc.

No amount of "we can train AIs on AI-generated content" is going to fix the fundamental problem that the world is not static and AI's don't have the capacity to observe what is changing. They will always be reliant on humans. Taking human input without paying for it disincentivises humans from producing content, and this will eventually create problems for the AI.