dillekant

joined 1 year ago
[–] dillekant 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sorry but this is rubbish. It's a hellscape but also very fun and easy. The government or similar entity still pays for road infrastructure. Biofuel is cheap or free (do you ever fill up in game?). Hellscape but your character isn't effectively a chattel slave and you don't have any debt. At least have the design explore the problem. Make it so if you use a car in your heist you will end up losing money. Do something with the premise. Anything. Don't be like "whee this is fun and consequence free wow this is a corporate hellscape"

[–] dillekant 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

TIL. Nevertheless, it must cost a lot more than it does in game.

[–] dillekant 3 points 1 year ago

My issue is who is driving and what the roads look like. Somehow the government still pays for roads? No road rolls? Petrol / biofuel at reasonable prices? All cars aren't for the ultra rich?

[–] dillekant 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

it’s not the game that does it, it’s literally the graphic cards that does it The game is just software. It will execute on the GPU and CPU. DLSS (proprietary) and XeSS (OSS) are both libraries to run the AI bits of the cards for upscaling, because they weren't really being used for anything. Gamedevs have the skills to use them just like regular AI devs do.

By AI here I mean what is traditionally meant by "game AI", pathfinding, decisionmaking, co-ordination, etc. There is a counterstrike bot which uses neural nets (CPU), and it's been around for decades now. It is trained like normal bots are trained. You can train an AI in a game and then have the AI as NPCs, enemies, etc.

We should use the AI cores to do AI.

[–] dillekant 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The AI cores? I'm pretty sure they're for AI right?

[–] dillekant 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] dillekant 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Any game where the AI cores of modern GPUs are used for actual AI and not graphics.

[–] dillekant 2 points 1 year ago

Fair point, but having not read the comics, I can hardly copy them unless I pirate the original comics now can I. The author would probably be on board with me doing that.

[–] dillekant 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He has denied their denial.

[–] dillekant 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying it is or isn't more efficient, but pretty sure the actual vram usage number between Linux and Windows is apples and oranges.

[–] dillekant 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To reiterate, I do have respect for the view, but you actually stated the bit I find unrealistic:

There is the possibility that voting for a voice now means a treaty would lack political capital or public approval for decades to come because we already voted for a voice

I don't think the voice is an insufficient response to delay a sufficient one, and I do know what the insufficient response looks like. The reason is:

  • This is driven from the statement from the heart. Having a voice is a driving force for the treaty, not a delay. It's also not a white person's consolation prize. The statement is softly spoken and expects slow and steady progress, which I believe is consistent with indigenous values.
  • A no vote on a referendum is far more likely to stall out any progress on a treaty because it looks like a conservative no. This discussion isn't whether to hold a referendum (which is far greyer). It's what to vote for. To be even clearer regarding the unrealistic idea here imagine 80% of people were progressive no voters. In that state a no vote looks like a call for a treaty. But there aren't that many. Very generously progressive no maybe a bit above 10%. That just gets lost in the conservative no and will absolutely be used say Australia does not want a treaty.
  • In no world is a voice worse than no voice. I agree with you that this sort of thing is often used to bait out a raw deal but that is not what's happening. You can kind of see it in the desperation from the conservative no. The total fabrications and language used. They do not want it because it's not a consolation prize.
[–] dillekant 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

More realistically, I think he's just betting that you can just reason down a no vote to a racist fact. IIUC the line of thinking from this video. I'm yet to hear a non-racist view of a (conservative) no vote.

The "progressive" no vote, I have some respect for, but I also don't think it's a mainstream view, nor is it actually reasonable. It expects some sort of magical thinking that not having a voice will somehow get us closer to a treaty.

Not every indigenous person needs to come to a consensus. The vast majority of community leaders have come up with a plan. Focusing on the minority of voices is really just rhetoric in place of an argument.

view more: ‹ prev next ›