Not really a good comparison, sometimes I still quickly use the washboard than load up the washing machine when all is needed is a quick rinse, or when the washing machine is running and I don't want to leave a mess.
I get what you're going for, but it's not a good comparison.
Eh, I eat meat almost daily (chicken breast) and I'm fully aware of what entails the butchering of animals. Even had a pet rabbit at my grandfather's when I was a kid, that one day disappeared and the next day we ate rabbit meat. Just like when I cleaned up the squirrel that was torn in half by my cats, I see it all as a part of life.
Doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer if it all came from grown meat, rather than the entire industry that we have now. If the taste, texture and looks are the same, why shouldn't we switch (if those 3 factors are the only important ones)?
Because every second super processed food is reveled to be carcinogenic or harmful in the long term, why would you take the risk if there is a good alternative? Btw I am also against industrial scale animal farms, those are problematic too, not from a morale but health perspective.
This was also exactly what I was taught in school when I was 10 years old. We also saw examples of other maps from other parts in the world that put their location front and center.
That this map is a derivative of "a decolonization map", should be clear to anyone that this is just political posturing and not anything of actual use.
No, the Mercator map has been the world map you'd see everywhere by default, and it is not that useful except for sailing, which most of us are not doing
Mercator used to be quite rare before Google Maps, at least in Finland. But it's an appropriate choice for online maps that can be zoomed in and out. Local and regional maps look as you would expect, and shapes don't change when you zoom out.
What are the practical uses of a world scale map beyond sailing? I mean they could be neat for visualizing some useful route calculated as vectors and further used as vectors, but it would still be of mostly an aesthetic value, appealing to the viewers emotions, which could be achieved just as well with some palm oil and sugar.
> What are the practical uses of a world scale map beyond sailing?
Wow, is this even a genuine question?
I can use a world scale map to illustrate or explain some geographic point I make in a presentation. I can use it as a quick reminder of the geography related to some current news, etc.
If the mariners want to continue using Mercator, who's stopping them?
I remain unconvinced. Even with regional maps people struggle with conceptualising that similar distances at places even relatively close can vary dramatically in time needed to traverse, or with regard to energy/fuel cost to cover, or population density, or a number of things that are important in the moment. It would be extremely hard to use a world scale map to convey actionable information that couldn't be delivered better in another way, the more likely outcome is that it would just be misleading the audience by making them rely on their (almost certainly wrong) intuition rather than the information actually needed in the situation.
As far as the news usecase goes I also don't really see how checking world maps would be applicable outside the news in question being consumed as entertainment, where my previous point on entertainment boiling down to personal pleasure and being fungible still stands.
> So because some people can't use some information well, we should deny that information to all?
The argument isn't that using information is bad, it's that world scale maps are so shit at conveying usable information that there is no point in picking one projection over another (or any really) outside niche settings like sailing. Better to just use other non-map representations of the relevant information at that point.
> I do not consume news purely for entertainment, neither do those in my circle
Here my point was not that all news is entertainment, but rather that news one needs to reference a world scale map to make sense of in all likelihood isn't impacting anywhere near where one is living, nor near anyone amongst family or friends living abroad (hopefully one would remember the closest relevant neighbours), so those pieces are basically entertainment for the masses. (The assumption being that local impact to where the media is would be what's highlighted if there is some, hence the non-need for checking world scale maps in the event that the piece of news is impactful to the individual. So the pieces one feels like checking where on the globe are actually happening, one is in all likelihood checking because one is personally amused by finding out, not because it is useful beyond emotional gratification. And again no projections one could choose from would change the non-impact on the actions/decisions of the consumer of that piece of news.)
I mean it also accurately depicts relative land mass sizes? For the purposes of the UN that seems fairly relevant compared to Mercator which is a good map if you're actually navigating a coast line but atrocious if you're trying to gauge how big the territory you're talking about actually is.
> I mean it also accurately depicts relative land mass sizes?
At the cost of distorting shapes and distances.
> compared to Mercator
The UN resolution compared Equal Earth to Mercator, a comparison Equal Earth easily wins in many circumstances. But the comparison should not be to Mercator, but to other widely used projections that do a better job of minimizing distortions generally, such as Winkel Tripel.
The UN resolution is explicit that Equal Earth was chosen specifically for “social justice”–type reasons.
For the purposes of an organization concerned with the demography of actual people, what is the value Winkel Tripel is bringing at the scales it would be used in general application?
Because if you have a specific application then you choose the correct projection for the application.
But if you're just showing a world map, then what's important?
For the UN I'd say relative land mass size is a pretty relevant measure since that's where people live, and where environmental policy takes effect at the level of nation states it deals with.
And it's also the change you can actually pass in a highly subjective area: a slightly different projection no one wants to vote for isn't a viable option in the first place.
Carry term life insurance and long term disability so you can support your dependents if killed or injured, which you should be doing regardless of the motorcycle if you have dependents.
A former neighbor died from slipping on his icy front steps. Again, carry proper insurance if you have dependents. You can die unexpectedly from things far less dangerous than motorcycles.
> You can die unexpectedly from things far less dangerous than motorcycles.
Existantials are always trivially true. But statistically:
> The lifetime odds of dying as a motorcyclist are roughly 1 in 726. While data specifically tracking "slipping on ice while walking" is rarely isolated on its own, it falls under the broader National Safety Council category for deaths by falls, which has a lifetime odds of 1 in 89.
However, if we compare reduced life expectancy:
> General lifetime falls reduce life expectancy significantly more across the whole population than motorcycle riding, but a motorcycle crash reduces a single rider's life expectancy far more severely.
> Riding a motorcycle poses a vastly higher immediate threat to your lifespan than the everyday risk of falling. On a per-hour basis, riding a motorcycle costs roughly 5 microlives per hour of operation (shaving 2.5 hours off your life expectancy for every hour you ride) because of high speeds and a lack of external frame protection. In contrast, the risk of general falling—despite including hazards like ladders, stairs, and slippery surfaces—costs the average person less than a small fraction of a single microlife per hour of daily movement. While falls ultimately claim more total lives because everyone is exposed to gravity daily, an individual actively trading riding time for walking time dramatically improves their statistical life expectancy by drastically lowering their microlife expenditure.
> The lifetime odds of dying as a motorcyclist are roughly 1 in 726.
The relative danger of motorcycling was not my point.
My point was: Everyone's lifetime odds of dying are 1 in 1. You don't know what will get you but rest assured something certainly will. So, carry insurance if you have dependents.
This isn't morbid, BTW. It's incredibly freeing to know that your family will be financially okay in the unexpected event you are incapacitated or killed.
Dying as a motorcyclist is different from dying. Life insurance either pays off or it doesn’t, if you hold it from 20 to 90, it usually doesn’t pay off.
The point of buying term life insurance isn't because you want it to pay out.
If you buy term life insurance that lasts while your dependents are minors, either you live the term and provide for them or you die early and provide for them.
I think we're talking past each other. I am going to call it here.
What's even more worrying is that I've heared plenty of people defend it as, "Younger generations are just intelligent in different ways compared to older generations."
I'm halfway through my 30's and this downturn started with my generation, halfway through the 80's. I hope I'm missing something, because I still need to see a benefit for lower attention spans, lower comprehensive reading skills and lower critical thinking capabilities.
Halfway through 30's means you were born in the 90's though, but other than that you're right, the advent of the internet, google, and rapid fire short form content has messed with our attention spans; the following generation grew up on the internet and saw the advent of high intensity videos and then short-form mobile-only infinite-stream short-form dashed-words videos.
The anti-intellectualism is so weird to me, it feels like people get overly defensive and angry (a secondary emotional response to shame) when confronted with their own lack of knowledge / intelligence or when asked or challenged to use their own brain.
They're not banning code written and maintained with the use of LLM's. They're banning projects entirely created by LLM's and heavily (or solely) maintained by LLM's.
It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.
As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how is anyone still willing to associate themselves with that pile of garbage?
1. Is not a gamer's dream. It's terrible and you'll find out quite fast you're not interested in everyone's background and scream to most NPC's to shut the fuck up and get to the point.
It's just as terrible as injecting 'realism' in games for the sake of 'realism'.
I agree and I think games are ruined by dialog and quests. I like procedurally generated worlds, not stories, but I want the worldgen algorithm to be written by a human, crudely and with idiosyncrasies. I do not want to wander around a world of blandly plausible filler material.
The real salient point, in my opinion, is whether we can get generative AI to create game content which is not this, but rather novel, engaging and interesting with a solid gameplay loop.
I'm genuinely curious and think it's a cool area to research.
On the contrary. I'd give procedurally generated worlds as an example that suffers from exactly the same problem. You realize pretty fast which parts of the game had thought put into them and which ones are just realizations of a random process.
Of course, a story has to be a story that somebody actually wanted to tell. If you just SHOVE mountains of extra characters and extra side quests into a game where they don't belong and have nothing to do with the main story line, of course it's gonna suck.
> It's terrible and you'll find out quite fast you're not interested in everyone's background and scream to most NPC's to shut the fuck up and get to the point.
Many of the interactions in RDR2 are quite mundane, and despite thousands of hours of (high quality) voice acting, it can become quite repetitive.
I could very much see those micro-interactions being LLM generated, but the TTS would need to be a step above where even the best models are now to come close to RDR2s production quality.
The repetitiveness in video game dialogues is a feature, not a bug. Amongst other things, it allows you to re-retrieve information and hone in faster on what’s story and what’s relevant progression. Having each character invent their own inconsistent sloppy backstory whenever you talk to them is not a positive, it’s not good immersion when every character is a chatbot that can inadvertently give you story beats you shouldn’t be aware of yet or you missed some crucial bit of information but no one talks about it anymore (or worse, never did). In that world, those games would be made popular by people breaking the LLMs in funny ways, not the gameplay itself.
I don't think it can give you story beats you shouldn't be aware of yet. Those beats wouldn't be fed into the prompt until the event happens. LLM can't spit out what it doesn't know.
It might indeed fail to reveal something it should but even that i think is unlikely if the harness steers it hard enough.
I think it could be fun. If you're always given 4 choices of what you can ask the NPC then your choices can be too obvious. If its open ended then you have to think a little what to say and ask.
What "context"? If it's coming from the player's input, then the LLM isn't spoiling anything.
e.g. let's say an important character dies in your game but that hasn't happened yet in this point in the story. You're talking to some NPC. That NPC can't possibly spoil that that character is going to die because the developer wouldn't feed that in as context. The NPC doesn't "know" the character is going to die. You, as the player, might be able to convince the NPC that that will happen and it might respond accordingly, but it won't just randomly divulge that by accident.
This one is a fair point... if all the characters have distinctive names then NPC can plausibly become aware that it is a character in that game and spoil things. I don't know how to stop that, short of training a clean model from scratch, but that seems a bit much for a game.
> it’s not good immersion when every character is a chatbot that can inadvertently give you story beats you shouldn’t be aware of yet or you missed some crucial bit of information but no one talks about it anymore
What you're describing isn't bad dialog, it's bad interaction design.
I think your mental model might be of a single session with zero state, and no bounds on topics of conversation outside of the character's backstory. That isn't close to how this would work. A little understanding of how the game currently operates and some imagination, and you'll see how it could be improved further without degrading gameplay.
> those games would be made popular by people breaking the LLMs in funny ways
Because making the game do funny things didn't happen with RDR2, or any other game, device, or indeed humans (there are whole genre built around making people do or say "funny" things).
Perhaps try to steel man the argument. Your entire response is just one large condescendingly wrong straw man.
> What you're describing isn't bad dialog, it's bad interaction design.
I didn’t say it was bad dialogue. It should be pretty obvious that’s not the argument since I talked in terms of feature VS bug.
> Because making the game do funny things didn't happen with RDR2, or any other game, device, or indeed humans
Again, not at all what was said. Of course those things happen, and of course I know that. The clue is in the fact that I brought it up, which can be ascertained by reading the comment and engaging with it in good faith. The point was that becoming the focus.
Keep in mind that Anthropic is first and foremost trying to sell you something.