masterspace
@masterspace@lemmy.ca
- Comment on Calculatable 2 weeks ago:
So you’re saying mash both a bunch of times to be super sure?
- Comment on Alan Wake 2 still hasn't quite made its money back, according to Remedy's latest financials 3 weeks ago:
I know I tuned out of Alan Wake 1 really early thinking it was going to be a boring ‘look around with a flashlight game’. I was very surprised by how fun and intricate the combat eventually got when I went back and actually played it through.
And just how funny and tongue in cheek all the writing is. I think it’s a bit of a hard sell because they want to gradually build and surprise you with new things, and all their humour is super deadpan and satirical of this hard boiled story, which can make it seem kind of boring at a surface / marketing level until you get into it and realize what’s happening and how much fun it is.
- Comment on Alan Wake 2 still hasn't quite made its money back, according to Remedy's latest financials 3 weeks ago:
I will be buying this as a Christmas present for several friends.
Really, really fantastic game, and Remedy is one of the best studios in existence right now. I can’t think of many other games / studios that take swings as big as them.
- Comment on Remedy Has Recouped 'Most' of the Development and Marketing Expenses for Alan Wake 2 3 weeks ago:
Another great game ruined by gamers’ insistence on dick riding Gabe Newell and always giving Valve a 30% cut, no matter what.
Will anyone self reflect on whether they’re being a dumbass and hurting the entire gaming industry by insisting on only using Steam cause that’s all they’ve ever used? No. They’ll yell at Epic for not wanting to pay the Steam tax.
- Comment on Remedy Has Recouped 'Most' of the Development and Marketing Expenses for Alan Wake 2 3 weeks ago:
The Alan Wake 1 remaster is also published by Epic
- Comment on hard to argue with 3 weeks ago:
Russia gives Ukrainians Russian citizenship and resettles them away from warzone with all the social security preserved: food, medical, shelter etc.Russia murders some Ukrainians and kidnaps others and forces them to toil under their dictatorship to enrich Putin.Ftfy.
Jesus fucking Christ do fucking better. What is wrong with you?
- Comment on hard to argue with 3 weeks ago:
Oh so you’re the type that sees Hitler invading Poland and thinks “doesn’t effect me”.
Go volunteer for Putin’s army if you love his propaganda so much.
Jesus fucking Christ, the fucking idiocy of thinking that Russia unilaterally invading a country is that country’s fault. Thankfully Biden is finally getting lead out of the water a might solve some of this dumbassery in the long term.
- Comment on hard to argue with 3 weeks ago:
Bruh, you’re an American repeating Putin’s bullshit about Ukrainian Nazis. You have no excuse for being so ill informed.
- Comment on hard to argue with 3 weeks ago:
Russian thinks he has a wife and kids, when in reality Putin has a baby maker and more cannon fodder.
You happy that your kids will die in Ukraine for no reason?
- Comment on PS5's 'Resume Activity' Feature Apparently Gone for Good - PlayStation LifeStyle 4 weeks ago:
Yes I do, both are designed to get the user to where they want to be in the game faster than loading the game from scratch and navigating through menus to get there.
They do different approaches in design, but both are attempting to tackle the same UX issue.
- Comment on PS5's 'Resume Activity' Feature Apparently Gone for Good - PlayStation LifeStyle 4 weeks ago:
That’s what I mean though, both are trying to accomplish basically the same thing, but Sony’s implementation is kind of half baked in that it requires developer support and doesn’t actually resume the game, just gets you close to where you were.
- Comment on PS5's 'Resume Activity' Feature Apparently Gone for Good - PlayStation LifeStyle 4 weeks ago:
Despite other problems, it really feels like Microsoft runs around Sony in circles when it comes to their software prowess. Quick Resume doesn’t work flawlessly with every game, but when it does work it’s pretty incredible to jump straight back to the exact same state in another game as if you’d never closed it.
- Comment on Those are so ugly. Who would even buy these... oh, right. 5 weeks ago:
I hated those water shoes too, but I do actually really like my Crocs…
- Comment on Those are so ugly. Who would even buy these... oh, right. 5 weeks ago:
They’re comfy, they’re easy to clean, they’re water proof, they can be worn like slippers with the straps up or can be more comfortable for walking around with the straps down, you can regularly find them for $30.
What are the negatives again?
- Comment on Currently downloading The Witcher 3 for the first time. Got any advice for me? 1 month ago:
The combat is way too easy on normal difficulty
I played all the side quests and by like the halfway point, I took off all my armour and just beat every single enemy to death with my bare hands. I would definitely recommend a higher difficulty if you’ve played any rpgish games before.
- Comment on Godot fork- Redot emerges after recent events within the Godot project. 1 month ago:
What the honest fuck are you talking about?
- Comment on PS5 Dashboards Flooded with Unwanted Ads—Sony Claims It Wasn't Intentional 1 month ago:
Xbox does not have full screen ads.
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
I’m not google, you can figure this out for yourself:
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
Look up Waymo, then stop going on long winded rants about things when you don’t even have a basic grasp of the current state of the technology.
Jesus Christ.
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
you are literally doing what i mean when i say you are making assumptions with no evidence. there is, again, no reason to believe that “driving more efficiently” will result from mass-adoption of automated vehicles–and even granting they do, your assumption that this wouldn’t be gobbled up by induced demand is intuitively disprovable. even the argumentation here parallels other cases where induced demand happens! “build[ing] new roads or widen[ing] existing ones” is a measure that is almost always justified by an underlying belief that we need to improve efficiency and productivity in existing traffic flows,[^1] and obviously traffic flow does not improve in such cases.
I’m doing nothing other than questioning where the induced demand is coming from. What is inducing if not increased efficiency.
The whole point of induced demand in highways is that when you add capacity in the form of lanes it induces demand. If that capacity isn’t coming from increased EV efficiency then where is it coming from? If there’s no increase in road capacity then what is inducing demand?
but granting that you’re correct on all of that somehow: more efficiency (and less congestion) would be worse than inducing demand. “efficiency” in the case of traffic means more traffic flow at faster speeds, which is less safe for everyone—not more.[^2] in general: people drive faster, more recklessly, and less attentively when you give them more space to work with (especially on open roadways with no calming measures like freeways, which are the sorts of roads autonomous vehicles seem to do best on). there is no reason to believe they would do this better in an autonomous vehicle, which if anything incentivizes many of those behaviors by giving people a false sense of security (in part because of advertising and overhyping to that end!).
You are describing how humans drive, not AVs. AVs always obey the speed limit and traffic calming signs.
you asserted these as “other secondary effects to AVs”–i’m not sure why you would do that and then be surprised when people challenge your assertion. but i’m glad we agree: these don’t exist, and they’re not benefits of mass adoption nor would they likely occur in a mass adoption scenario.
We haven’t agreed on anything,I said I was open to your reasoning as to why those effects wouldn’t happen, then you didn’t provide any.
the vast majority of road safety is a product of engineering and not a product of human driving ability, what car you drive or its capabilities, or other variables of that nature. almost all of the problems with, for example, American roadways are design problems that incentivize unsafe behaviors in the first place (and as a result inform everything from the ubiquity of speeding to downstream consumer preferences in cars). to put it bluntly: you cannot and will not fix road safety through automated vehicles, doubly so with your specific touted advantages in this conversation.
You think you can eliminate all accidents through road design?
You are literally ignoring every single accident caused by distracted driving, impatient driving, impaired driving, tired driving etc.
Yeah, road design in America should be better, AVs should still also replace crappy wreckless humans. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
this is at obvious odds with the current state of self-driving technology itself–which is (as i noted in the other comment) subject to routine overhyping and also has rather minimal oversight and regulation generally
All cool tech things are overhyped. If you judgement for whether or not a technology is going to be useful is “if it sounds at all overhyped then it will flop” then you would never predict any technology would change the world ever.
And no, quite frankly those assertions are objectively false. Waymo and Cruise’s driverless programs are both monitored by the DMV which is why they revoked Cruise’s license when they found them hiding crash data. Waymo has never been found to do so or even accused of doing so.
arstechnica.com/…/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-…
Since their inception, Waymo vehicles have driven 5.3 million driverless miles in Phoenix, 1.8 million driverless miles in San Francisco, and a few thousand driverless miles in Los Angeles through the end of October 2023. And during all those miles, there were three crashes serious enough to cause injuries:
In July, a Waymo in Tempe, Arizona, braked to avoid hitting a downed branch, leading to a three-car pileup. A Waymo passenger was not wearing a seatbelt (they were sitting on the buckled seatbelt instead) and sustained injuries that Waymo described as minor. In August, a Waymo at an intersection “began to proceed forward” but then “slowed to a stop” and was hit from behind by an SUV. The SUV left the scene without exchanging information, and a Waymo passenger reported minor injuries. In October, a Waymo vehicle in Chandler, Arizona, was traveling in the left lane when it detected another vehicle approaching from behind at high speed. The Waymo tried to accelerate to avoid a collision but got hit from behind. Again, there was an injury, but Waymo described it as minor. The two Arizona injuries over 5.3 million miles works out to 0.38 injuries per million vehicle miles. One San Francisco injury over 1.75 million miles equals 0.57 injuries per million vehicle miles. An important question is whether that’s more or less than you’d expect from a human-driven vehicle.
After making certain adjustments—including the fact that driverless Waymo vehicles do not travel on freeways—Waymo calculates that comparable human drivers reported 1.29 injury crashes per million miles in Phoenix and 3.79 injury crashes per million miles in San Francisco. In other words, human drivers get into injury crashes three times as often as Waymo in the Phoenix area and six times as often in San Francisco.
Waymo argues that these figures actually understate the gap because human drivers don’t report all crashes. Independent studies have estimated that about a third of injury crashes go unreported. After adjusting for these and other reporting biases, Waymo estimates that human-driven vehicles actually get into five times as many injury crashes in Phoenix and nine times as many in San Francisco.
To help evaluate the study, I talked to David Zuby, the chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS is a well-respected nonprofit that is funded by the insurance industry, which has a strong interest in promoting automotive safety.
While Zuby had some quibbles with some details of Waymo’s methodology, he was generally positive about the study. Zuby agrees with Waymo that human drivers underreport crashes relative to Waymo. But it’s hard to estimate this underreporting rate with any precision. Ultimately, Zuby believes that the true rate of crashes for human-driven vehicles lies somewhere between Waymo’s adjusted and unadjusted figures.
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
they can. induced demand is omnipresent in basically all vehicular infrastructure and vehicular improvements and there’s no reason to think this would differ with autonomous vehicles
Yes, I have no doubt there would be induced demand, but that extra demand wouldn’t be at the cost of anything. Induced demand is a problem when we, for instance, build new roads or widen existing ones, because then more people drive and they clog up the same as they were before. That’s a bad thing because the cost of adding this capacity is that we have to tear down nature and existing city to add lanes, and then we have more capacity that sits at a standstill leading to more emissions.
But with AVs add more capacity to our roads, that will be entirely because they are driving more efficiently. We’ll have the same amount of cars on the road at any given time, meaning that there will be only minor emissions increases and we won’t be tearing anything down to build more giant highways.
okay but: literally none of this follows from mass-adoption of autonomous vehicles. this is a logical leap you are making with no supporting evidence—there is, and i cannot stress this enough, no evidence that if mass-adoption occurs any of this will follow
You’re asking for something that does not exist. How am I supposed to provide you evidence proving what the results of mass adoption of AVs will be when there has never been a mass adoption of AVs.
and in general the technology is subject to far more fabulism and exaggeration (like this!) than legitimate technological advancement or improvement of society.
Again, it’s never actually been rolled out on a mass scale. It’s a technology still being actively developed. Neither of us know what the end results will be, but I put forth plausible reasoning to my speculation, if you have plausible reasoning why those things won’t come to pass I’m all ears.
- Comment on How many squirrels do you think you could take in a fight to the death? 2 months ago:
And you said getting blisters from geometry wars was a sign I had a problem. Well who wasted their youth now mom!?
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
And here we see decades of automobile industry propaganda in action. There is only the car, or no mobility whatsoever.
Please cite where I said that.
You remember how everybody was just trapped inside their houses for centuries until the Ford factories started cranking out Model Ts?
Um, yes. Obviously not remember directly, but that is what is in history books.
Most Americans lived in small rural communities and seldom left their farm and immediate community. When they travelled at all it would be by horse and buggy, and would take forever to get to the nearest train station, and then forever from the end of the line to wherever they had to go. If people lived farther away you would see them once every couple of years and otherwise letter write them.
We should build out robust train networks to reduce as many cars as possible, but at the same time the idea that you’ll eliminate cars completely is quite frankly, completely divorced from reality. I personally do not own a car and have spend a huge amount of money on a cargo bike to avoid having to buy a car. But guess what? There is still a very clear limit on the size of object I can transport (smaller than virtually any piece of furniture), it’s unpleasant to infeasible to use in the rain depending on the load, and it is flat out unusable in the winter with snow and ice, so I end up using a car share service semi-regularly. I’ve thought about putting on bigger wheels, extending the bed, adding better suspension, a roof, and another set of wheels for balance, but now I’ve invented a car. And that’s not to mention driving out to nature preserves for camping, hiking, rock climbing, mountain biking etc. nor visiting family and friends who live out in the country not near any bus stops or train stations.
As long as cars exist, AVs will be better than human drivers, and literally no one has ever presented a remotely feasible and practical plan for eliminating cars.
- Comment on What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future 2 months ago:
This is a fundamentally flawed argument.
First of all, if people are getting to where they want to go faster, easier, and happier, that is a good thing. If you want to argue that everyone needs to be a hermit who never leaves home and orders everything on Amazon then you will never get your way because people fundamentally want to travel to see the outdoors and nature around them, to see their family and friends, and just to adventure. Eliminating vehicle deaths by making travel impossible is not a noble goal.
Secondly, it’s based on the idea that people even can drive more than they already do. Road congestion in most major cities is already the limiting factor that pushes people to bike, walk, or take transit. Even if AVs make it easier and cheaper to take car, you’re still not going to do it during rush hour when you can bike.
Thirdly, it’s based on the idea that AVs are only going to be slightly safer than human drivers. We have no reason to think that’s the case. Humans are fucking terrible drivers, and it’s highly likely that AVs will be several orders of magnitude safer than the average human driver.
Fourthly, it ignores other secondary effects to AVs, like suddenly not needing nearly as much parking, freeing up both parking lot real estate, but more importantly, freeing up on street parking, creating more room for actual traffic to move.
- Comment on Is Elder Scrolls 6 doomed to fail? I can't see how it will work 2 months ago:
Yeah the writing in Starfield is pretty bad.
I think Skyrim’s was better because there was less central control. I know that stuff like the whole Werewolf quest was just made by a passionate designer and dev who made it after hours, but that during Starfield development a lot more got run up the chain and there was less individual freedom.
I suspect that stems from the massive procedural generativeness but am not sure.
- Comment on Is Elder Scrolls 6 doomed to fail? I can't see how it will work 2 months ago:
Starfield’s biggest flaw was in trying to make a grand space game given that Bethesda’s strength is sandboxy, exploration focused, RPGs.
I am of the mind that exploration fundamentally does not work in a space game because the scale is too big. There’s waaaay too much space on even a single planet to populate with meaningfully interesting things to find. So there’s maybe one or two interesting handcrafted things per planet and you spend all your time in system and galactic scale maps to find them, rather than stumbling across them while out on a walk.
The only space games that work imho, are either ones with tiny planets like The Outer Wilds, or ones that are more linear and driven by very good writing and space is more of a backdrop than the actual millions of km you have to travel through and explore (like The Outer Worlds, or Mass Effect).
So I think Bethesda has a higher chance of success in literally any other, more limited, setting, but all that being said, I still don’t know if they’ll course correct.
- Comment on Risk of Rain creators Hopoo Games join Valve 2 months ago:
Too bad. Valve’s not exactly known for making good games anymore, just for printing with money Steam.
- Comment on AI hallucinations are impossible to eradicate — but a recent, embarrassing malfunction from one of China’s biggest tech firms shows how they can be much more damaging there than in other countries 2 months ago:
Working link: chinamediaproject.org/…/chinas-ai-hallucination-c…
- Comment on Why I Haven't Seen Any Trump Supporters In Fediverse (Lemmy and Mastodon)? 2 months ago:
I don’t think there’s any less karma farming on here. People still look at their up and downvotes, and I don’t think there was a legitimate industry for selling high karma accounts on Reddit. Not one that would make a difference at scale anyways.
The problem with Mastodon and Twitter is structural, it’s based around following people, not topics. It is inherently problematic because a) personalities and status get elevated over the logic of the argument, b) following people instead of topics inherently feeds people’s egos in a problematic way, and c) a given person can use their followers problematically. On Reddit / Lemmy by following decentralized topics it eliminates most of these, though the mods controlling each subreddit can exercise some of the same influence.