psycotica0

Ok, let me rephrase your rephrase to be what question I think you're trying to ask.

At some point we had decided on a seven day week with week names. That's fine. But we must also have decided at some point that today was Wednesday in this system.

So I think you're asking "what is the first day we all agree was definitely a Sunday, such that all Sundays after were based on that". Or put another way, at what point did the days of the week get locked to the days of our year.

I don't have that answer, but your question confused me, so I've reworded it.

No, you got that backwards. If it's a long distance: km. But small distances for work is feet and inches.

I don't know the answer to the title, so I'll answer the body. The answer is "it depends".

If you're talking to someone in a technical setting, then servers are the physical machines. The computers themselves, sitting in a room somewhere. Or maybe a virtual server that pretends to be a physical machine, but runs on a real server that sits in a room somewhere. Whereas a website is some location you can put into a web browser and get content that "feels" like it's all one thing.

The reason this distinction matters is because you can host multiple small websites on a single server. For example there's no reason a particular machine couldn't host 10 different lemmy instances, if it's got enough processing power.

But on the other hand a popular website may have its work spread across multiple servers. Maybe I've got a database server, which is a machine that only runs the database. And then maybe I have a few different web servers that actually serve "the webpage", but I've also got a cache server that stores part of the webpage and serves that when it can, etc. Websites like Facebook or Twitter are considered one website but have thousands and thousands of servers.

But if you're talking to someone in a non-technical setting, yeah they're basically the same.

I have two criticisms of this view.

The first is the distinction between "replacing humans" and "making humans more productive". I feel like there's a misunderstanding on why companies hire people. I don't hire 15 people to do one job because 15 is a magic number of people I have to hit. I hire 15 people because 14 people weren't keeping up and it was worth more to my business to hire another expensive human to get more work done. So if suddenly 5 people could do the work of 15, because people became 3x more efficient, I'd probably fire 10 people. I no longer need them, because these 5 get the job done. I made the humans more effective, but given that humans are a replacement for humans, I now don't need as many of those because I've replaced them with superhumans instead.

If I'm lucky as a company I could possibly keep the same number of people and do 3x as much business overall, but this assumes all parts of my business, or at least the core part, increases at the same time. If my accounting department becomes 3x as efficient but I still have the same amount of work for them to do because accounting isn't the purpose of my business, then I'm probably going to let go some accountants because they're all sitting around idle most of the time.

It used to be that a gang of 20 people would dig up a hold in the road, but now it's one dude with an excavator.

The second thing is the assumption that AI art is being evaluated as art. We have this notion in our culture that artists all produce only the best novels and screenplays, and all art hangs in a gallery and people look at it and think about what the artist could have meant by this expression, etc. But that's virtually no one in the grand scheme of things. The fact that most people know the names of a handful of "the most famous artists of all time", and it's like 30 people on the whole earth and some of them are dead should mean something.

Most writers write stuff like the text on an ad in a fishing magazine. Or fully internal corporate documents that are only seen by employees of that one company. Most visual artists draw icons for apps that never launch. Or the swoopy background for an article. Or did the book jacket for a book that sells 8 copies at a local tradeshow. If there's a commercial for chips, someone had to write it, someone had to direct it, someone had to storyboard it. And no one put it in a museum and pondered its expression of the human experience. Some people make their whole living on those terrible stock photographs of a diverse set of people all laughing and putting their hands into the middle to show they're a team.

Even if every artist with a name that anyone knows is unaffected by this, that can still represent a massive loss of work for basically all creative professionals.

You touched on some of these things but I think glossed over them too much. AI art may not replace "Art", but virtually no one makes money from "Art", and so it doesn't have to replace it for people to have no job left.

If you're talking about a community instance that strangers can join, it's mostly about volunteering and feeling like you're contributing to something.

If you're talking about running one for you alone, or you and friends or family, then it's mostly about controlling your experience. You control when there are updates, you control what version you run, you know who has your data, it's you. You know no one's doing anything bad with it, because it's you. If there's something bugging you and someone else wrote a patch to fix it, you can deploy that. Or if there's some setting to enable or disable a feature for the whole instance, you can set it to your preference.

The cons are that it's you. If it goes down because something broke or got corrupted, it doesn't come back later on its own. You do it. If your database poops the bed and eats all your data, then did you have backups? Were they kept on a different disk than the corrupted one? Because if not then your data is now gone. A new version came out! When does the upgrade happen? When you make time to do it. Maybe there's manual migration steps you need to do, maybe you need to change some new settings, you should probably make a backup in case you have to roll back... How did you know there was a new version out? How do you know if there's some critical bug or security flaw you need to fix? You have to subscribe to the community, essentially.

Maybe you subscribe to a lot of busy photo communities and then one day lemmy is down for you. Weird... the box won't turn on. Oh, the disk is at 100%. Shit, did you not have a monitor that checks disk usage and emails you when it's getting full? Oops...

Also, while we're at it, there are some individuals who are friendly and flexible and could probably make a relationship work with many people. And some people are stubborn grouches that couldn't even mesh with themselves if there was an exact copy.

Depends on what you want. I've been liking Godot, but I'm an "Open Source" person. There's definitely more of a community around Unity or Unreal.

But Godot is free in both ways and relatively user friendly, and since you're uninterested in hiring a hundred people, using a tool that you like is fine, even if it's not the most popular.

There's a course I've never used called Learn GDscript which teaches the inbuilt language for Godot (GDScript) in the browser with fun interactive tasks. It looks neat, but I've never tried it myself. You can use other languages with Godot, but I recommend the GDScript. It's very similar to Python and is well integrated into the engine.

So from there it's about screwing around! Like other people have said, you're not going to whip up the game that's in your head in anything like the time frame you probably think. Even if you think you're being realistic, it's probably even worse than that. But I don't say this to discourage you, I say this to prevent you from discouraging yourself!

If you can get a game where a green circle goes through a maze and then text shows up on the screen that says "you did it", that should be viewed as an accomplishment! It's simple, sure, but it's something you did. Try to break your game's features up into micro chunks that are playable. It's easy to spend 6 months working on something and making progress, but not in any way you can show friends or whoever, and can't even really "play" yourself. That can be demotivating. Try as much as you can to have something playable as often as possible. It will feel much more like real progress if you constantly have something you can demo.

And also don't underestimate how much a bit of art and sound effects can change an experience. Silent 2D boxes is fine to test things out, but even a free art and sound effects pack makes a huge difference in how fun a game can feel. It can make even a simple premise suddenly feel like a game.

Good luck, have fun! Oh, also once you're done tripping over your feet, maybe try a game jam! They're good exercise.

I think the gender neutral that gets used the most is "crown", but maybe that has a different connotation.

More importantly, though, Queens are rare, we just happened to had one during a huge period of technological advances, etc.

But we already have a king, his heir the kind lined up, and that king already has a male heir. Obviously shit can happen, but we're pretty far from another queen in any of our lifetimes...

Agreed.

But, to be clear without giving spoilers, by "simulation game in space" it means getting in a ship and flying from planet to planet, while dealing with things like gravity and momentum. In my opinion just the right amount of challenge that it starts hard but doable, but is possible to get good at in the late game. So that was lots of fun.

Also, while I will not reveal plot here, I feel given feedback from some of my friends that didn't like it the way I did, that maybe setting some tone expectations may help. The gameplay experience is mostly about exploring the planets, learning stuff, observing things, and making connections in you, the player. There's archeological evidence out there in space, and it's your job to figure out the history. It's not boring, though! It feels more like a giant puzzle. But you should go in with an exploration mindset and if a particular path doesn't work out, maybe it's not time yet. Just try exploring something else!

One of my friends was too "goal oriented" and just kept hammering a given path over and over and it made them frustrated, which is a shame.

Also, while the DLC is also good, I waited until after the main game to play it, and I'm glad I did. I don't know how it works to have the DLC running at the same time as the main game, but they're two pretty independent stories / investigations and I wouldn't want to get accidentally caught up in one while trying to piece together the other. I feel like that would be pretty confusing.

To any followup posters, remember no spoilers!