Historically, AI has found and used exploits. Before OpenAI was known for chatgpt, they did a lot of work in reinforcement learning (often deployed in game-like scenarios). One of the more mainstream training strategies (pioneered at OpenAI) played sonic and would exploit bugs in the game, for example.

The compute used for these strategies are pretty high though. Even crafting a diamond in Minecraft can require playing for hundreds of millions of steps, and even then, AI might not constantly reach their goal. Theres still interesting work in the space, but sadly LLMs have sucked up a lot of the R&D resources.

The challenge is that AI for a video game (even one fixed game) is very problem specific and there's no generalized approach/kit for developing AI for games. So while there's research showing AI can play games, it's involved lots of iteration and AI expertise. Thats obviously a large barrier for any video game and that doesn't even touch the compute requirements.

There's also the problem of making AI players fun. Too easy and they're boring, too hard and they're frustrating. Expert level AI can perform at expert level, which wouldn't be fun for the average player. Striking the right difficulty balance isn't easy or obvious.

This is the real issue. Companies/shareholders won't accept stable profits, so they will do anything possible to increase profits. AD-free subscriptions will be a thing of the past in the next 10 years and we will be right back to cable. Bundled subscriptions with cancellation terms and ads.

I also need to also underscore that the vast majority of profits are NOT going to the people who actually create the content, so these increases are just lining the pockets of shareholders and executives.

I won't aim to change your mind but I'll add that one of the reasons they're so expensive is, at least in the US, there is simply a struggle to build mega engineering projects. From project management to the blue collar skills required (nuclear isn't the only large scale engineering project with cost overruns). Things were more favorable in the 80s when plants were built somewhat regularly and the country had collective experience completing these projects.

Renewables are similar too on both the installation and design side. More experience in manufacturing, developing, and installing helps to lower costs.

This is a pretty bad take and I feel like you must have not really played tribes very much. Comparing tribes to CS? Really? You think the popularity is because of the team sizes?

The fact that they are only implementing 16v16 seems like a warning flag to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up as a mediocre experience with a few tribes mechanics just largely trying to cash in on name recognition.

If you're not paying for a service, then you're the product. I never understood the expectation that people should just provide you email and storage for free, because?

Yeah I'm sure shell and co really forced the sale of 750k F-series trucks last year, right?

I would agree with this, I use Nvidia cards for professional work on Linux and I've never had a problem. Yeah there's some upfront work configuring the drivers, but I've never had it take more than an hour to setup.

This drives me crazy every time I see it so I'm glad to see others recognizing this. Yes game production has gone up, but the market has massively increased. Your costs are fixed; doesn't matter if you sell 10,000 copies or 10,000,000. More people are gaming than ever so when I see all these attempts to squeeze more money from consumers to address rising costs I have no sympathy for the publisher.

YouTube already does that, though? In fact your premium sub helps creators much more than a non-premium viewer does. Of course the multiplier proposition would be new/different.

Not trying to shill for YouTube but that's one of the main reasons I have a subscription is to support creators I like.

Factor 1: Not quite accurate. Yes there are categories of waste; the names change depending on the regulator. The lower level wastes are already disposed of in the US (there are already four such facilities). The politically charged problem is always the spent nuclear fuel itself.

Factor 2: Senator Reed (D-NV) was a former Senate majority leader. He extracted the defending of Yucca Mountain from the Obama administration as a concession to pass Obamacare. It's still technically viable and not disposing of waste costs enormous amounts of money. The federal government is legally obligated to take spent fuel off the hands of operators. Obviously they have not, so the government is sued (and loses). This has cost the government roughly $20b for their inaction see here..

Factor 3: You can recycle spent fuel but there's no concept as spent fuel with zero radioactivity.

Two largest problems in the US: Inability to manage waste and inability to execute on large scale construction required for nuclear.

That's a limitation of the secondary power conversion side and is true for any power generation methodology that relies on steam generation. That said, there's alternatives to the traditional Rankine cycle that could be deployed without modifying the nuclear side of the plant.