When I was a kid in the 80's, my sister and I found an old World Book Encyclopedia from the 50's that someone in our neighborhood was throwing out, so we brought it home. It had some interesting "facts" in it. E.g., did you know that guinea pigs are perfect as subjects for scientific research because they're unable to feel pain? 1950's worldbook did!
Earlier tonight it also wasn't showing up for me in search results on Duck Duck Go. All the reddit links were just labeled "reddit," and the text was "We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us." Weirdly it doesn't seem to do it if "reddit" is one is the search terms.
If this is part of their strategy going forward, though, that's gonna hurt their clickthrough too.
Then you lose the format of the steps on the right. Try to picture what it would look like if it had you add half the vanilla where it currently is and another half at the "fold in" stage. There's not a good way to do it.
This design is built around a very simple kind of utilitarian cooking that's common for institutional kitchens. It's great for that! But there are a ton of recipes that would be complete trainwrecks if you tried to fit them to this kind of diagram.
Also an issue if you need to add an ingredient at more than one step. Suddenly you've got no good way of indicating the total amount you need for the recipe as well as the amounts for the individual steps. This is great for a specific kind of extremely simple recipe only.
They absolutely do want to get rid of state and national parks, though. There's valuable minerals on some of that land, and other land that can be repurposed for grazing cattle. They're whittling it away as fast as they can already.
Most of the games I liked back in the day don't really hold up, though. Like, I loved the NES version of Strider back then; it had a strange and intriguing plot, I loved the trappings of the dragon-shaped space station and the plasma sword and the magnetic boots that let you walk on the ceiling, and I was a total sucker for any hint of metroidvania-type progression. But when I try to play it now, I notice the controls are awful, the collision detection is janky, the level designs are dull, and the "triangle jump" is nearly unusable.
Whereas I tried Clash at Demonhead, and that's surprisingly decent. A little simplistic, sure, and it bogs down as you get further into it, but it's pretty amusing. Same with Guardian Legend: I can't get through it, but I can definitely see the appeal. Edit: it may have been clear from context, but these are ones I didn't play back in my youth.
I do love indie stuff, though. I just played through Alwa's Legacy, and that one is quite good. (Some people might find it too easy, but I tend to appreciate that at this point. I don't have the reflexes I once did.)
So I tend to agree that there's still great stuff around. I just don't think nostalgia is the whole story with retro games. I think a lot of it has to do with the retro games being the work of a big studio, even though the mechanics today would be relegated to an indie studio. There are subtle ways that affects the experience, that I think people are unconsciously aware of.
But yeah, there are great games out there today, especially on PC.
Definitely related, yeah. Lakoff was primarily making a linguistic observation, but he did think it was reflective of the way humans really think about these kinds of categories, and that seems right.
My favorite is Lakoff's category theory. He notes that philosophy largely pretends that categories are defined based on rules of inclusion and exclusion, but in fact human thinking is mostly based around categories defined by a prototypical example and various relations to that example. So, e.g., a penguin and a sparrow are both birds, but a sparrow is more like the prototypical bird, since it's smaller and it flies.
Many of the great philosophical questions over the years have been about trying to decide on precise rules of inclusion and exclusion for categories, even though the closer people look, the less it seems like there's a meaningful boundary (e.g. "life" vs "non-living," where you start to see things like viruses, prions, etc. that don't fit cleanly into either category).
Probably a Funkey? There have been various others (PocketSprite?). Anything smaller than a Miyoo Mini is really too small to practically play on, though. And even that is pushing it for my aging eyes.
Fundamentally he doesn't mean that he doesn't know what happened. He means that he hasn't received his talking points about this yet.
He knows that there will be some way that the right-wing media ecosystem is going to frame this, and it's very important that his framing match theirs exactly. Somewhere a think-tank is working on the perfect wording that will turn an innocent victim into, somehow, an evil communist traitor who was a threat to an ICE officer and also somehow to the very concept of America. And if he tried to give his own spin on it before that, it would only make their job more complicated.
So yeah, he may know that an innocent man was shot, again. But he doesn't yet know the important stuff: how to make him the villain. He just hasn't had the time to get caught up on that! Give him a break.
Yeah, I was thinking kind of the opposite, "at least one of these is finally a flop." I don't know why audiences keep going to these things.
I can kind of see doing a remake with Aladdin, because there's reference humor in the original (like doing a quick gag around imitating a late-night TV format) that might not mean anything to a modern audience. The remake still suffered from regression to the mean, though. Still, I can imagine some young audiences finding the original hard to relate to at times, so some kind of update might have felt worthwhile. And giving another actor a chance to try putting his spin on the genie I'm sure felt generous. That at least guaranteed it would offer some kind of difference that would distinguish it.
But The Lion King and Lilo and Stitch and Moana don't really have any of that going on. The originals are fairly charming, not particularly tied to any specific time period, and don't offer any big roles that provide room for a new interpretation. (Well, maybe Maui, but they gave that role to the same guy again.)
And the animation was such a big part of the appeal of the originals! Replacing that with bland, lifeless CGI is such a let-down. I haven't actually watched any of these new releases, but I've seen trailers, and the CGI just feels awful in them. It's hard to even describe, but it's like there's a greasiness to it. It's profoundly offputting.
And people keep turning out. I don't get it. Is it just that people want their kids to experience theaters and popcorn and it doesn't really matter what's on the screen as long as it's Disney?
So yeah. I'm glad to see one finally underperform. Maybe people are finally getting tired of slop. I hope it's not just that people can't afford the cinema anymore.
Given the way he's talked about these robots in the past, I'm fine with them not being ready yet.
“If we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over this robot army?” he told investors. “Not control, but a strong influence… I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army unless I have a strong influence.”
Yeah. It shows me Titan Isles, Into Black, Portal 2, The Lab, and Aperture Hand Lab, with the last two being free tech demos. Adding this since it seems like the list may be somewhat location dependent, so those seeing fewer titles can tell what's missing.
Sounds like it could be really useful for VR displays. The best optics for VR right now use polarizers to fold the optical path repeatedly through the same lens, but a side effect is that only a small portion of the light makes it to the users' eyes.
Could also extend the battery life of phones; the display is the main power draw for most phones, and the higher brightness make that worse.
I understand why people are reacting badly to these being described as "brighter," but it does also mean "more energy efficient for the same brightness."
When I was a kid in the 80's, my sister and I found an old World Book Encyclopedia from the 50's that someone in our neighborhood was throwing out, so we brought it home. It had some interesting "facts" in it. E.g., did you know that guinea pigs are perfect as subjects for scientific research because they're unable to feel pain? 1950's worldbook did!
Earlier tonight it also wasn't showing up for me in search results on Duck Duck Go. All the reddit links were just labeled "reddit," and the text was "We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us." Weirdly it doesn't seem to do it if "reddit" is one is the search terms.
If this is part of their strategy going forward, though, that's gonna hurt their clickthrough too.
Then you lose the format of the steps on the right. Try to picture what it would look like if it had you add half the vanilla where it currently is and another half at the "fold in" stage. There's not a good way to do it.
This design is built around a very simple kind of utilitarian cooking that's common for institutional kitchens. It's great for that! But there are a ton of recipes that would be complete trainwrecks if you tried to fit them to this kind of diagram.
Also an issue if you need to add an ingredient at more than one step. Suddenly you've got no good way of indicating the total amount you need for the recipe as well as the amounts for the individual steps. This is great for a specific kind of extremely simple recipe only.
They absolutely do want to get rid of state and national parks, though. There's valuable minerals on some of that land, and other land that can be repurposed for grazing cattle. They're whittling it away as fast as they can already.
Presumably the cyclops will just be a guy who lost an eye. ::: spoiler spoiler (That is, before
OdysseusNobody got to him.) :::Most of the games I liked back in the day don't really hold up, though. Like, I loved the NES version of Strider back then; it had a strange and intriguing plot, I loved the trappings of the dragon-shaped space station and the plasma sword and the magnetic boots that let you walk on the ceiling, and I was a total sucker for any hint of metroidvania-type progression. But when I try to play it now, I notice the controls are awful, the collision detection is janky, the level designs are dull, and the "triangle jump" is nearly unusable.
Whereas I tried Clash at Demonhead, and that's surprisingly decent. A little simplistic, sure, and it bogs down as you get further into it, but it's pretty amusing. Same with Guardian Legend: I can't get through it, but I can definitely see the appeal. Edit: it may have been clear from context, but these are ones I didn't play back in my youth.
I do love indie stuff, though. I just played through Alwa's Legacy, and that one is quite good. (Some people might find it too easy, but I tend to appreciate that at this point. I don't have the reflexes I once did.)
So I tend to agree that there's still great stuff around. I just don't think nostalgia is the whole story with retro games. I think a lot of it has to do with the retro games being the work of a big studio, even though the mechanics today would be relegated to an indie studio. There are subtle ways that affects the experience, that I think people are unconsciously aware of.
But yeah, there are great games out there today, especially on PC.
The other layer here is gibberish. "L'H YBQRH DIM"?
Definitely related, yeah. Lakoff was primarily making a linguistic observation, but he did think it was reflective of the way humans really think about these kinds of categories, and that seems right.
My favorite is Lakoff's category theory. He notes that philosophy largely pretends that categories are defined based on rules of inclusion and exclusion, but in fact human thinking is mostly based around categories defined by a prototypical example and various relations to that example. So, e.g., a penguin and a sparrow are both birds, but a sparrow is more like the prototypical bird, since it's smaller and it flies.
Many of the great philosophical questions over the years have been about trying to decide on precise rules of inclusion and exclusion for categories, even though the closer people look, the less it seems like there's a meaningful boundary (e.g. "life" vs "non-living," where you start to see things like viruses, prions, etc. that don't fit cleanly into either category).
Probably a Funkey? There have been various others (PocketSprite?). Anything smaller than a Miyoo Mini is really too small to practically play on, though. And even that is pushing it for my aging eyes.
"I hate every ape I see, from Chimpan-A to chimpanzee..." 🎶
They ported Half-Life to PS2. And the sequel was on everything.
Fundamentally he doesn't mean that he doesn't know what happened. He means that he hasn't received his talking points about this yet.
He knows that there will be some way that the right-wing media ecosystem is going to frame this, and it's very important that his framing match theirs exactly. Somewhere a think-tank is working on the perfect wording that will turn an innocent victim into, somehow, an evil communist traitor who was a threat to an ICE officer and also somehow to the very concept of America. And if he tried to give his own spin on it before that, it would only make their job more complicated.
So yeah, he may know that an innocent man was shot, again. But he doesn't yet know the important stuff: how to make him the villain. He just hasn't had the time to get caught up on that! Give him a break.
[ Everyone disliked that. ]
Yeah, I was thinking kind of the opposite, "at least one of these is finally a flop." I don't know why audiences keep going to these things.
I can kind of see doing a remake with Aladdin, because there's reference humor in the original (like doing a quick gag around imitating a late-night TV format) that might not mean anything to a modern audience. The remake still suffered from regression to the mean, though. Still, I can imagine some young audiences finding the original hard to relate to at times, so some kind of update might have felt worthwhile. And giving another actor a chance to try putting his spin on the genie I'm sure felt generous. That at least guaranteed it would offer some kind of difference that would distinguish it.
But The Lion King and Lilo and Stitch and Moana don't really have any of that going on. The originals are fairly charming, not particularly tied to any specific time period, and don't offer any big roles that provide room for a new interpretation. (Well, maybe Maui, but they gave that role to the same guy again.)
And the animation was such a big part of the appeal of the originals! Replacing that with bland, lifeless CGI is such a let-down. I haven't actually watched any of these new releases, but I've seen trailers, and the CGI just feels awful in them. It's hard to even describe, but it's like there's a greasiness to it. It's profoundly offputting.
And people keep turning out. I don't get it. Is it just that people want their kids to experience theaters and popcorn and it doesn't really matter what's on the screen as long as it's Disney?
So yeah. I'm glad to see one finally underperform. Maybe people are finally getting tired of slop. I hope it's not just that people can't afford the cinema anymore.
Given the way he's talked about these robots in the past, I'm fine with them not being ready yet.
https://futurism.com/robots-and-machines/elon-musk-remarks-robot-army
Yeah. It shows me Titan Isles, Into Black, Portal 2, The Lab, and Aperture Hand Lab, with the last two being free tech demos. Adding this since it seems like the list may be somewhat location dependent, so those seeing fewer titles can tell what's missing.
Didn't they release the first new Half Life title in over a decade in coordination with that headset?
Sounds like it could be really useful for VR displays. The best optics for VR right now use polarizers to fold the optical path repeatedly through the same lens, but a side effect is that only a small portion of the light makes it to the users' eyes.
Could also extend the battery life of phones; the display is the main power draw for most phones, and the higher brightness make that worse.
I understand why people are reacting badly to these being described as "brighter," but it does also mean "more energy efficient for the same brightness."