Europa Universalis IV. There are tons of countries to play, lots of variation each time, and so many options for self challenges (e.g. accomplish goal by year).

The only thing that would get me to stop playing is if EUV is good, and then only a few years and DLC in. Even then, I could see myself coming back to it.

Do comments first. There’s so much spam that almost looks legit because of how many upvotes they have.

Man, I hate looking at myself in mirrors or even hearing myself in recordings. I just don’t understand people who actually like it.

The US does, and that explains their behavior toward China.

Edit: Let’s make it personal.

How would you feel if a bully took credit for all of your ideas? You make up a game, and the bully takes credit for it and gets everyone to play with them instead of you because they’re more popular. Or let’s say you write an essay for school, and the bully steals it and puts their name on it. How would you feel? Nobody likes having their ideas taken, which is why things like copyright and patents exist.

China is that bully. They’ll take peoples’ ideas, produce things cheaper, and not give credit/royalties.That’s a dick move.

I’m not happy with current IP law, but that doesn’t mean IP law is invalid, it just needs to change.

What are they R&Ding that would drive them to bankruptcy?

It’s what they’re not R&Ding that would cause them to not be competitive and thus go bankrupt:

• Restaurants - new recipes to keep customers coming
• insurance - mostly innovation in marketing and self-service
• real estate - lower cost materials (for new construction), faster pairing of buyers to sellers, etc
• farming - better yields (esp GMOs), efficient land and water use, storage, etc
• radio stations - access to customers outside of radio frequencies (e.g. apps), constantly changing radio programs to differentiate from competitors, etc
• schools - new teaching methods, adapt to new tech, etc
• book publishing - marketing(also applies to video game publishing)
• auto parts dealer - inventory and supply chain optimization, adjusting to changing markets (e.g. EVs), etc
• grocery stores - supply chain, marketing, faster checkout, more customers per square foot
• nursing and medical home care - nursing is always evolving, esp geriatric care

Pretty much every company needs to innovate or they’ll get outcompeted, that’s the way market economies work. The only companies that don’t need to innovate are monopolies, and we generally oppose those because stagnation isn’t good.

I wasn’t playing Soul Caliber on the Dreamcast against AI openents…

Maybe terminology differs by region, but I absolutely played against AI as a kid. When I set up a game of Command and Conquer or something, I’d pick the number of AI opponents. Sometimes we’d call them bots (more common in FPS) or “the computer” or “CPU” (esp in Civ and other TBS), but I distinctly remember calling RTS SP opponents “AI” and I think many games used that terminology during the 90s.

What frustrates me is the opposite of what you’re saying, people have changed the meaning of “AI” from a human programmed opponent to a statistical model. When I played against “AI” 20-30 years ago, I was playing against something a human crafted and tuned. These days, I don’t play against “AI” because “AI” generates text, images, and video from a statistical model and can’t really play games. AI is something that runs in the cloud, with maybe a small portion on phones and Windows computers to do simple tasks where the network would add too much latency.

It’s easy to switch.

That said, I think the comment is constructive. It used to be that websites, textbooks, etc would pay artists or pay for stock photos (which indirectly pays artists), but now they can gen a dozen or so images and pick their favorite.

I’m not saying this is good or bad, but I do agree that art will never be the same.

And if something doesn’t get clean, leave it for the next run. If it’s still dirty after two cycles, maybe you need to hand wash (or just soak for 30 min and put it back in).

That’s quite the extreme interpretation.

I’m a lead software dev, and when deadlines are close, I absolutely divvy up tasks based on ability. We’re a webapp shop with 2D and 3D components, and I have the following on my team:

• 2 BE devs with solid math experience
• 1 senior BE without formal education, but lots of knowledge on frameworks
• 1 junior fullstack that we hired as primarily backend (about 75/25 split)
• 2 senior FE devs, one with a QA background
• 2 mid level FEs who crank out code (but miss some edge cases)
• 1 junior FE

That’s across two teams, and one of the senior FEs is starting to take over the other team.

If we’re at the start of development, I’ll pair tasks between juniors and seniors so the juniors get more experience. When deadlines are close, I’ll pair tasks with the most competent dev in that area and have the juniors provide support (write tests, fix tech debt, etc).

The same goes for AI. It’s useful at the start of a project to understand the code and gen some boilerplate, but I’m going to leave it to the side when tricky bugs need to get fixed or we can’t tolerate as many new bugs. AI is like a really motivated junior, it’s quick to give answers but slow to check their accuracy.

You do you, but I think there’s a good chance we see a pullback, followed by a pivot, followed by a more sustained rise. Basically, once investors realize AI can’t deliver on the promises of the various marketing depts, they’ll pull investment, and then some new tech or application will demonstrate sustained demand.

I think we’re at that first crest, so I expect a pullback in the next few years. In short, I expect AI to experience something like what the Internet experienced at the turn of the millennium.

From the other perspective, which side is stealing the others’ IP? If China gets modern fabs, they’ll produce knockoffs of modern tech products and produce better weapons. If China was a better actor, the US wouldn’t be as aggressive in stopping their progress.

I thought it as a decent read, OP.

Saying Biden wasn’t fit to be President doesn’t imply Trump was the better option, it just means Biden was a poor choice. There were others running that year, so why did Democrats pick the geriatric? Why did they allow him to run again? What can be done differently next time to reduce the chances of our President becoming incapable of properly doing their job?

My company sold a major asset and the proceeds were enough to buy every employee a Lamborghini. But instead of rewarding employees or investing in growth, we issued a massive dividend and stock buyback (we don’t have an employee stock program). Feels bad man.

The most annoying one for me was management asking us turn our monitors off every day before going home. I hooked up a Kill-a-watt to my monitor and measured the actual electricity it uses and posted a super satirical comment about how much we’d save on electricity (esp given our low electricity prices) and that’s the last I heard them mention it.

Isn’t it the lack of R&D that kills companies? It’s possible to have too much R&D, but that pretty much only applies to startups.

You’re not alone.

How so? Renault had a massive stake and likely made bank while Nissan did well in the US, and they’ll probably get a good deal on their shares with this merger. They’re probably making out like bandits.

We already have multiple trained models, here are a bunch. The model isn’t nearly as interesting as what you do with it.

Why fight globalization? It’s inefficient to make everything domestically, and as long as your supply chain is sufficiently diversified (including some domestic production), it’s not an issue.

Keep the good jobs domestic, outsource the bad ones.

Nah, these ones are sprinkled with fairy dust. You don’t want to know how much the organic fairy dust version costs.