Well the dark mode screenshot makes less efficient use of space so it must be the modern one.
Great movie! As long as I can remember my family's had it on VHS (then DVD), I must have seen it dozens of times over the years. Obviously I think it holds up lol but nice to hear it actually does.
Yes Man is my other favorite Jim Carrey movie, probably in part because he plays it somewhat serious too (though not as serious as Truman Show). It got middling reviews but I enjoyed it quite a bit - the comedy is a little more subtle than what you expect when you hear the premise and lead actor, but it works, and the romance elements are nice in it too. No masterpiece but worth a watch if you're in the mood for something light and fun.
Hey, thanks for all your posts! I see you around everywhere. Your efforts are much appreciated.
The biggest issues have already been mentioned by others but I'd just like to add - there's a lot more climbing in Forbidden West, but the mechanics feel a lot worse (to me anyway). I found the climbing in HZD boring but serviceable; in HFW it just feels awful, Aloy never does what I want her to do and I regularly plunge to my doom for unknown reasons. Also the pullcaster (basically a grappling hook) is super clunky to use and adds essentially nothing gameplay-wise, just some random superfluous interaction points. It feels like there might have been some cut content there.
I enjoyed Zero Dawn quite a bit - the hunting and fighting mechanics in particular - but Forbidden West is kind of a sidegrade at best. It just feels like a sequel for the sake of a sequel.
That's the impression I've been getting from what I hear of it, it's really too bad. Glad you had an alright time with it at least.
making a big budget movie out of a ride concept is so dumb
I would agree if it wasn't for Pirates of the Caribbean lol. But yeah I'm with you, definitely not a theater-worthy movie, maybe I'll give it a shot when it's on d+. Sometimes star-studded duds can be fun to analyze if nothing else.
Time zones and limited schedules are the issue there. Smartphones for texting are difficult for him. But either way, that's beside the point; what I'm trying to get at is that an inconvenience to you might be more than that to someone else. Learning a new platform might be easy for you, but it's basically impossible for someone with dementia. Leaving a job that requires you to use unethical tools might be fine if you can get another one easily, but some people can't. Not talking with friends on unethical social platforms might be fine if you have more social opportunities, but to someone with social issues, finding a group of people that you can be comfortable around isn't trivial.
The comment I originally responded to was saying it's unfair to compare oil/plastics industry with social media, because you have a choice with the latter but not the former; while that's the case more often than not, it's far from universal, and applying the same standards to someone for whom the opposite is true is unreasonable. You never know how much someone has to sacrifice to do things that might seem easy, and you never know how easy the things that seem hard might be.
It seems like we're having two different conversations; I reread your comments as you suggested and it seems as if you're responding to someone else. You're talking about things completely unrelated from what I'm saying, and then implying I'm being unreasonable for being angry over something I'm not even angry about.
communications are a fundamental public utility and should be treated as such.
I agree completely. This was never in question and it feels like you're implying I think otherwise when you keep reinforcing this point.
expecting your friends and family to use a billionaire’s private network as one of the sole ways of communicating is not really the same thing as being stuck buying your food with too much plastic on it.
one of these you really do have control over its not a forced choice its just one people think is.
at some point everyone made a choice here, they arent necessarily bad people for those choices but ignorance for whatever reason is on the menu.
This is what I take issue with. As a personal example, my grandpa knows how to make phone calls and use facebook; he doesn't use technology much more than that, and he's not in a state to learn how to use anything else right now.
So I use Facebook to talk with him. Not because I support Facebook, I just want to talk to my grandpa. I find it offensive when you imply those who use closed and/or 'unethical' platforms inherently do it out of ignorance, and that there's always a choice; my only other choice is to not talk to my dying grandfather, and I won't feel guilty for not taking that.
To be clear, in terms of big picture I'm with you on everything else you said.
communications are a fundamental public utility and should be treated as such.
That sums up my thoughts nicely.
I don't feel this discussion has been in good faith; your last comment has some gaslighting (whether intentional or not) that I don't think has a place in respectful conversation, so I won't be responding further.
Yup, top round.
My perspective is that consciousness isn't a binary thing, or even a linear scale. It's an amalgamation of a bunch of different independent processes working together; and how much each matters is entirely dependent on culture and beliefs. We're artificially creating these independent processes piece by piece in a way that doesn't line up with traditional ideas of consciousness. Conversation and being able to talk about concepts one hasn't personally experienced are facets of consciousness and intelligence, ones that the latest and greatest LLMs do have. Of course there others too that they don't: logic, physical presence, being able to imagine things in their mind's eye, memory, etc.
It's reductive to dismiss GPT4 as nothing more than mimicry; saying it's just a mathematical text prediction model is like saying your brain is just a bunch of neurons. Both statements are true, but it doesn't change what they can do. If someone could accurately predict the moves a chess master would make, we wouldn't say they're just good at statistics, we'd say they're a chess master. Similarly, regardless of how rich someone's internal world is, if they're unable to express the intelligent ideas they have in any intelligible way we wouldn't consider them intelligent.
So what we have now with AI are a few key parts of intelligence. One important thing to consider is how language can be a path to other types of intelligence; here's a blog post I stumbled across that really changed my perspective on that: http://www.asanai.net/2023/05/14/just-a-statistical-text-predictor/. Using your example of mathematics, as we know it falls apart doing anything remotely complicated. But when you help it approach the problem step-by-step in the way a human might - breaking it into small pieces and dealing with them one at a time - it actually does really well. Granted, the usefulness of this is limited when calculators exist and it requires as much guidance as a child to get correct answers, but even matching the mathematical intelligence of a ten year old is nothing to sneeze at.
To be clear I don't think pursuing LLMs endlessly will be the key to a widely accepted 'general intelligence'; it'll require a multitude of different processes and approaches working together for that to ever happen, and we're a long way from that. But it's also not just getting carried away with the hype to say the past few years have yielded massive steps towards 'true' artificial intelligence, and that current LLMs have enough use cases to change a lot of people's lives in very real ways (good or bad).
Which Professor Layton game would you recommend starting with?
CloverSi
joined 1 year ago
You make some good points - I don't think anyone can reasonably argue linux is in a state where a 'regular' user will find it more productive than windows. But, statements like these make as many assumptions about an individual's use case and workflow as saying 'everyone should use linux because xyz':
Again, it's certainly not reasonable to say linux is universally (or even generally) better for productivity. But neither is it reasonable to say it always isn't. Operating systems are tools, which one to use depends entirely on the situation.