shmeeed

I'll go get some popcorn for this thread.

I think the extended period is a point that needs consideration. I don't know how long it takes a salamander to regrow a limb, but given the sheer size of any given limb in an adult human, it would take quite some time to regrow it to anywhere near its former state.

I mean... think of Deadpool's baby hands. Jesus.

Tipping my hat. That sounds like something I could have done.

>keming

I saw what you did there

Those guys must have a lot of fun with vapes. The liquid is 50-70% glycerine, and you get the stuff everywhere.

TIL! I appreciate the explanation, never considered them to be that sophisticated.

My favourite story is of an elderly coworker with no AI experience who innocuously asked GPT-5-mini (at the time his framework's default model) to translate a 50 page engineering spec, and it kept him at arm's length for about a week about how that task would take just another 24-36 hours more. He kept asking like, you finished yet? and it just made up excuses, "so sorry, I got distracted, give me one more day", and he went "please finish, I need this", and 5-mini came back "I totally understand -- let me get to work immediately, I'll report back ASAP", end of conversation. He got annoyed but never even suspected anything wrong, because this is the kind of conversation he's used to. I wonder how long this would have continued, if I hadn't intervened by chance.

I don't really see that as an exception or contradiction, rather a side effect of my poor way of communicating it. This "rule" isn't meant to be exhaustive, but is a mnemonic device for a more complex set of rules that spans one or more pages in a textbook. It works in my head. ;)

The way I see it, a dead person used to be alive before "changing state": in that sense it's a "condition", even if it's not exactly temporary. The difference between ser and estar stems from the inherence of a quality.

I've seen it put in English as: ser is about what something or someone is, estar is used for the how. (You can say: Es un muerto. Because that's what he is. But: Está muerto. He was alive.)

Dato curioso: supuestamente en España se dice "estar casado", en Latinoamerica es "ser casado". Make of that what you will...

Recently posted in a similar thread about AI breaking a cypher: https://allthatsinteresting.com/zodiac-killer-cipher-solved

>why do we say "la película es buena" but "el día está bueno"?

I don't know if I'm quite qualified to lecture you on your mother tongue, but AFAIR that's because one is an unchangeable inherent quality (of the movie), and the other one is a temporary condition (of the weather).

As a learner, I find Spanish/Castellano to be quite consistent, actually.

It's normal that one's native language's quirks tend to be very difficult to explain, because you learned them intuitively. E.g. I was surprised to learn from conversations that a lot of Spanish speakers seem to have never heard what the subjuntivo is, and being told, couldn't explain for the life of them why they use it all the time.

Obligatory link to The Digital Antiquarian's treatment of the game:

https://www.filfre.net/2024/11/grim-fandango/

Yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't think it through, because my play style didn't involve much PvP or PvE.

I don't know about the PTW aspect. What's there to win in a broken sandbox? In my view, they mostly just keep ripping off delusional "collectors" to keep the gravy train going. It's not like these solo players then take off in their huge multi-crew ships and are able to "win" in any meaningful sense.

A few years ago, I had a couple dozen hours of good fun with my starter pack just zooming around all those moons and planets, stepping out of my tiny ship and holding my breath, not knowing much about what awaits me outside - scorching heat, a blizzard, hostile or friendly players... it felt like I got my money's worth if space immersion.

If you don't expect much in the way of an actual game, but are content with a few game loops held together by string and duct tape, you can find a vast and pretty universe to explore.

Reeaallyyy gotta manage your expectations, though. It's very much an alpha, and you better not think it's gonna release, like, ever. Disclaimer: I have no idea how it's evolved in the past years.

One billion by May...

This is the way.

That's like saying if you truly know how a hammer works, carpentry can hold no surprise for you.

I'm so sorry OP, but every time I see your name/domain pop up, I can't help but think of qntm's Lena. :( It's a deep-rooted trigger for me.

It is whataboutism, and it's also wrong because GP seems to think the cases covered in big media are all that's being enforced. It's much more, as pointed out in a comment below: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

This does refute the bitwise aspect, but not the possibility of steganography via other methods.

You got my standing ovation.

Somebody had to say it.

*Nucular wessels.

That headline is pretty generous... 62% is quite a bit more than half. It's actually more than 3/5. I'd even go so far to say it's nearly two thirds.

Quite recently, actually.

The washing machine broke after 18 years. It was a cheap model at the time, but it held up well until the end. I'm under no illusion that the 50% more expensive replacement will last anywhere as long. You know, the old "they just don't build 'em like that anymore" that even the sellers tell you freely.

I'd like to buy quality products. For example, I own a coffee machine for which the manufacturer provides spare parts for decades. But I'm not willing to spend 3x for an appliance when there's no realistic expectation to get 2-3x the use of it since it's not economically repairable. So the rational choice is to buy semi-cheap and throw it on the heap when it inevitably breaks sooner than the last one. I hate that game, but I'm not made of money either.

Then the TV died. I did some research online and then spend a very disappointing hour browsing a local electronics shop to get a hands-on feel. It's all "smart" shit the software of which will go out of support within 5 years, with dedicated remote buttons advertising streaming services I don't use, too large screens and/or bad build quality, abysmal sound all around, and, not to forget, stuffed full of surveillance and ads. Out of sheer desperation, I got alarmingly close to spending $1.900 for a premium brand 43" that did tick all the boxes - namely, just being a TV that's as good and inobtrusive as the $700 one from 12 years ago. I finally resorted to buying an 7 year old unit from the same premium brand third hand for 1/7 the price. Which in the event turned out to be a really good deal, I admit, but I don't quite think the used market is what we're talking about here.

It did not feel at all like the market for new products catered to my preferences. These may be a bit peculiar, but FWIW, I take that's a sentiment quite a few people on HN share: questions about "good dumb TVs" come up every so often, so I'm not alone in this.

And don't get me started on printers...

>You can only make money by pleasing your customers.

If only it were so.

Alas, in the real world enshittification, shrinkflation, skimpflation, dark patterns, planned obsolescence, vendor/platform lock-in, rent-seeking, regulatory capture and the like absolutely rule the day, due to a host of free market failures.

I don't claim to have a better alternative. But I find your take a bit strange. Are you as a customer satisfied with how all of this is working out?

For everybody who's as lost as I was, the above is a quote from a 1970 polish movie:

https://youtu.be/AfKZclMWS1U

Did you consider changing your name?

My eyes are also always focused at the center of what I'm seeing, as opposed to a picture that you can pan.

Did it ever occur to you there's shades between black and white?

OMG, this brings out memories about that oh so tempting red stop lever I was absolutely NOT allowed to touch as a kid. I haven't remebered that for decades..