I thought Frozen Synapse’s ability to let you simulate your opponent’s moves was super cool - surprised I didn’t end up seeing it in more strategy games (obviously not so much applicable to the normal real-time stuff though!).

Probably a quirk of having different software. I’m on Fedia which runs on mbin, as does kbin.run which MBM is on. You’re on lemmy, so I guess something was just handled differently for you (and most users!) vs kbin/mbin users.

FYI if you’re one of the people who just sees an image, the original includes a link to this:

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/roguelike/the-star-fox-style-roguelite-whose-dev-refused-to-use-ai-voices-to-cut-costs-is-adding-an-entire-anti-capitalist-revenge-campaign-about-a-cat-girl-destroying-ai/

Cool idea, though I was surprised by the level of fidelity loss in the fountain example. I would’ve expected that to be a good case scenario for noise cancellation so maybe it just needs some more time to iterate and improve on its level of “false positive” removal.

Rise of Nations (originally released back in 2003) had/has some interesting ideas to reduce some of the busywork:

• Worker units will automatically try to gather/build nearby after a short (configurable) delay if they’re not doing anything.
• Cities (the main worker-producing structure) has a rally point option that’s essentially “all nearby empty resource gathering”, so you can queue a dozen workers and they’ll distribute themselves as they’re created.
• Production buildings can be set to loop over their current queue, letting you build continually without intervention as long as you maintain enough resources each time the queue “restocks”.
• Units that engage in combat without being given an explicit target will try (with modest success) to aim for nearby units which they counter.

For the most part, none of the implemented options are strictly better than micromanaging them yourself:

• You will always spend less time idling workers if you micromanage them yourself.
• The auto-rally-point doesn’t always prioritize the resources that you would if you did it yourself.
• Queueing additional units is slightly less resource-efficient than only building one thing at a time.
• Total DPS is higher if you manually micro effectively.

But the options are there when you need them, which I think is a a nice design. It doesn’t completely remove best-in-class players being rewarded for their speed as a player, but does raise the “speed floor”, allowing slower players to get more bang for their buck APM-wise, and compete a bit more on the strategy/tactics side of the game instead.

There are types of time management which I think can still be interesting. For example, are you able to afford – in the resources of time and attention – optimally micro’ing this important fight? Or are you going to have to yolo it a bit so that you can do multi-task economic tasks at the same time?

Some (much?) of the problem is that (for better or worse) skilled players can and will squeeze the game to optimality in terms of win rate, and that tends to collapse viable tactical and strategic choices. Once those choices have been optimised (the game is largely “solved”), the main way to get better is by being faster, not by being smarter.

That is indeed the very first criteria listed in the sidebar, despite you being showered in downvotes for saying it.

https://frameable.com/company/tech/why-we-prefer-notification-sounds-instead-of-a-human-voice

Excluding Piledriver (?) to Zen, wouldn’t 30% be the highest inter-generational IPC increase in Intel/AMD CPUs in at least 15 years? The article’s original title also included quotes around “ABSURD”, as the term is being re-used from the source’s clickbait YouTube title lol.

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Archive Options Failing

This one worked for me, useful if wanting to share the story elsewhere:

https://archive.is/20231224184755/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-openai-protected-by-silicon-valley-friends-f3efcf68

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.

I wonder if patch support being pulled after 2 months is down to lower-than-expected sales; it’s certainly earlier than I would’ve expected on both the dev (HBS) and publisher (Paradox) side.

Edit: related news from October that I didn’t know about.

As an aside, you can edit your submission title on lemmy/kbin/mbin.

Thanks for the extra context!

I’m not sure if the image has since been updated, but the horn-y boy before/after isn’t the same image twice despite looking very similar. The left image has light-colored areas on the horns and some other similarly minor differences which are more noticeable when flicking between them but kinda hard to spot in a side-by-side.

Different sources claim different numbers, but the rate is considered by most sources to be low.

While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

https://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049

Typically no, the top two PCIE x16 slots are normally directly to the CPU, though when both are plugged in they will drop down to both being x8 connectivity.

Any PCIE x4 or X1 are off the chipset, as well as some IO, and any third or fourth x16 slots.

I think the relevant part of my original comment might’ve been misunderstood – I’ll edit to clarify that but I’m already aware that the 16 “GPU-assigned” lanes are coming directly from the CPU (including when doing 2x8, if the board is designed in this way – the GPU-assigned lanes aren’t what I’m getting at here).

So yes, motherboards typically do implement more IO connectivity than can be used simultaneously, though they will try to avoid disabling USB ports or dropping their speed since regular customers will not understand why.

This doesn’t really address what I was getting at though. The OP’s point was basically “the reason there isn’t more USB is because there’s not enough bandwidth - here are the numbers”. The missing bandwidth they’re mentioning is correct, but the reality is that we already design boards with more ports than bandwidth - hence why it doesn’t seem like a great answer despite being a helpful addition to the discussion.

Isn’t this glossing over that (when allocating 16 PCIe lanes to a GPU as per your example), most of the remaining I/O connectivity comes from the chipset, not directly from the CPU itself?

There’ll still be bandwidth limitations, of course, as you’ll only be able to max out the bandwidth of the link (which in this case is 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes), but this implies that it’s not only okay but normal to implement designs that don’t support maximum theoretical bandwidth being used by all available ports and so we don’t need to allocate PCIe lanes <-> USB ports as stringently as your example calculations require.

Note to other readers (I assume OP already knows): PCIe lane bandwidth doubles/halves when going up/down one generation respectively. So 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes are equivalent in maximum bandwidth to 2x PCIe 5.0 lanes, or 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes.

edit: clarified what I meant about the 16 “GPU-assigned” lanes.

Sure, but not much of that battery improvement is coming from migrating the APU’s process node. Moving from TSMC’s 7nm process to their 6nm process is only an incremental improvement; a “half-node” shrink rather than a full-node shrink like going from their 7nm to their 5nm.

The biggest battery improvement is (almost definitely) from having a 25% larger battery (40Whr -> 50Whr), with the APU and screen changes providing individually-smaller battery life improvements than that. Hence the APU change improving efficiency “a little”.