royaltheartist's comments

That's why I think really good art direction beats raw graphical power any day. Source was pretty impressive back in the day, but the bit that's stood the test of time is just how carefully considered the environments and models are. Valve really put their resources into detailing and maximizing the mileage they got out of their technical constraints, and it still looks cohesive and well-designed 20 years later

The government is the one contracting them out, seems fair for them to set a minimum standard of operation to prevent exploitation of a vulnerable population

don't we already have farming?

well that's odd

Real Principal Skinner saying he only went to the bordello to get directions away from the bordello energy

Oh yeah, what about this old Kodak I found in my grandpa's attic that prints pictures showing how people are going to die?

I've personally been hesitant about VR for a few reasons. As someone with glasses, I'm not comfortable with purchasing something that won't easily accommodate without requiring that I continue to pay a premium for prescription insets. It's a deal breaker, honestly.

But then there's the price to value ratio. There doesn't seem to be anything that is a must-play killer app, and while the catalog seems to have some gems it still leaves me with the impression I might drop a few hundred dollars for a couple hours of entertainment. VR seems like a radical change in design philosophy from the last 30-40 years of game development, and devs are still working out the specific language and techniques that are pertinent to it as a medium

While the Quest 2 is the cheapest on on the market, I'll be damned if I'm giving money to Meta and from there headsets start to ramp up drastically in price, and still have inconveniences like needing to be tethered to a PC

Really it isn't any one thing that's an issue so much as a bunch of smaller issues that make it seem like it's just not worth at the moment unless you got to drop on an item that's still at the niche phase. This will all probably improve over time though, and more people might start adopting

Really hope no one uses this to mess up the behavior of anchor tags

Personally it feels like modern management and organizational practices have prioritized feature velocity over a lot of other concerns. Business likes this because they can come in, request X number of features and then everyone works like hell to get those features in

Then, seeing the speed with which those first X features got implemented, they now request Y features and the cycle repeats.

But constantly measuring feature/release velocity means that things that do not directly benefit new features/releases get de-emphasized, such as encouraging developers to not just implement a feature, but go back to their code and try to disentangle the code they just wrote from any other code they may have stepped on. And it's even harder to get the business to agree to not push out features but instead give time to just go back, look and what's there, and figure out how to make it possible to add the next Y amount of features

There's something intoxicating about being able to have a bunch of teams pushing out new updates, but these high velocities can make it near impossible to revisit something. Hell, I've gone back to code bases on projects I haven't touched in only a few months to suddenly find everything has become riddled with spaghetti code and weird hacks to bypass systems. It works, but each release starts developing longer and longer bug fixing time

It's all just marketing. The companies running these advanced chatbots want to tap into tech mystique to give the impression that LLMs are on the cusp of being the intelligent agents we see in movies and books, because just admitting they're just implementing statistical patterns isn't sexy. They need investors, and investors are throwing money at anything called AI

I think it's difficult to make cities more dense if viewed as just strictly taking the current cities and trying to condense them, but that also seems like the less productive way to do it

First and foremost is that the US government itself needs to change how it gives out funds. Instead of emphasizing car and highway development over all, it should give money for cities which plan out multiple modes of transit and also develop 20-30 year maintenance plans (infrastructure maintenance is not currently factored into development). This would result in cities being financially incentivized to build for things other than car traffic throughput

The next place to start is with the new developments, giving them new regulations for how streets should be placed, reducing regulations involving setbacks, lot size, parking and allocating more land to mixed used or denser building, rather than single-family detached housing

As time goes on and roads need repairs, cities can use those as opportunities to connect cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, fix intersections (remove traffic lights, add roundabouts) and properly segregate public transit routes from private vehicle routes

It's a long process but cities only need to change the rules now and start building better developments. People will move to them over time, and they'll be able to convert older developments as people move out of them over time.

The thing that needs to change first, though, is the attitude and belief that car travel above all else needs to be heavily subsidized at the expense of everything else, only then will federal, state and local governments be able to begin making space for people

This strikes me as Google Glass in the form factor of SCUBA goggles

Seems like a lot of people who want to be heard but don't like it when people actually listen

This feels less like it tells us anything about the world but more about how small the author's conception of it is. Reminds me of people who complain about how music is "bad these days" but they're only talking about what they hear on the radio and aren't really exploring what the landscape has to offer

A lot of what gets created is for functional purposes, and it has always been that way. As time goes on, the functional stuff gets torn down and replaced and anything that's appealing or well-built gets to stay. This gives the impression that the past was full of ornate, well-constructed wonders. But is and always has been an illusion

There were probably people 200, 300, 1000 years ago who thought "Everything is so ugly these days" or didn't care. It's not about what buildings look like, it's about how we live our lives

Oh great, now they've got Doom running at the Quantum level

Every job I've worked at, when a co-worker goes on vacation, it's up to the other engineers and laborers to compensate. When the manager goes on vacation there's no extra work leftover

Because my managers tell me about fires I have to put out when I get back

I guess the managers have found this comment. Once anyone notices when a manager takes vacation, then I'll consider it a vital part of any job

The answer is yes all management is bullshit

Yeah, sure, it's definitely some type of dystopia where we're all forced to treat criticism against a $100 million podcaster as some fundamental human rights issue