It should be opt-in per website, per feature, because IMO it can be quite useful in some cases. Like clicking back on a slide-show bringing you to the overview page, instead of only going back one slide
> clicking back on a slide-show bringing you to the overview page
That behavior is expected in exactly one case (assuming slides, not the whole presentation, are modeled as a page each): If I navigated to that specific slide from the overview.
In any other scenario, this behavior amounts to breaking my back button, and I'll probably never visit the site again if I have that choice.
Opt in features are a great way to increase user frustration and confusion. See the whole new geolocation API they had to make for browsers since people would perma-deny it reflexively and then complain that geolocation features weren't working.
That's a good point, though I'm not familiar with the (changes to the) geolocation API you mention. Do you have any recommendations for reading up on that development?
I dunno. I have yet to change any tmux settings, but I find it perfectly usable.
I guess it depends on what you want out of it. I’ve memorized about nine shortcuts, and that’ll all I’ve ever needed: ctrl+b and c, n, p, s, d, $, ‘,’, or PageUp/PageDown
But Dark Souls also shows just how limited the vocabulary and grammar has to be to prevent abuse. And even then you’ll still see people think up workarounds. Or, in the words of many a Dark Souls player, “try finger but hole”
Look at the example in the article, which is a fairly typical citation: While you can replicate the title, how do you propose to retroactively publish a paper in a specific journal, in a specific volume, on a specific set of pages, potentially years in the past?
Moreover, citations are most commonly for other people's work. And since you would be more likely to catch fake citations for your own work, the proportion of those is probably greater for fake citations.
So the people who would have to accomplish this, would be an entirely different set of people than the authors who published the fake citation. These people may not even be working together regularly, but you would need to involve every named author, as journals do check this.
And what would their motivation be, to publish based on a title that is potentially nonsense? A single citation that may not even be picked up due to the inescapable differences between the fake and post-hoc real citation?
I can't imagine that anyone would find that worthwhile
Looking at the log, it seems like the author gives each release a name. “Epstein files” is just the latest out of a number of questionable names, the previous one being “Maduro”:
Going by the Steam hardware survey, 3/4 of Linux users were not using Steam Decks when they got polled. So I’m not sure if a console-esque device is actually required. A large part of the reason why Linux usage is growing, is probably that it mostly just works these days
This is a huge loss for the visual novel community.
Not just the loss of the person, but also the loss of the developer who was developing and maintaining what is probably the single most important resource for the community.
uv replaces pip (and venv, and pipx, and more), not conda. If you want a uv-equivalent that replaces conda, then look at pixi: https://pixi.prefix.dev/
If all you are installing using conda is pypi packages and different versions of Python, then sure, uv is a fine replacement. I use it for that as well. But if you are using other conda/conda-forge/bioconda packages, then uv isn't a replacement since it cannot install those. However, Pixi can replace conda for that use-case and it's about as fast as uv since it uses uv's dependency resolution code
> And it's used to power effect where you might not expect it (Stardew Valley mines).
Apparently Stardew Valley's mines are not procedurally generated, but rather hand-crafted. Per their recent 10 year anniversary video, the developer did try to implement procedural generation for the mines, but ended up scrapping it:
That’s not the same procedural generation as GPT or diffusion and you know it.
It’s not even in the same ballpark as Elite, NMS, terraria, or Minecraft.
The levels are all hand drawn, not generated by an algorithm, even if they’re shuffled. Eric Barone, the developer, has publicly said as much. Are you calling him a liar?
It’s like the difference between sudoku/crossword and conways game of life
Honestly, just white knighting for one of my favorite developers and biggest inspirations.
Someone lying about the pseudo randomization of the hand drawn efforts to make it seem entirely algorithmically generated rubs me really wrong, especially when that dev has publicly broadcast the reasoning of the decision to eschew procedurally generated mines.
I think that's what I was confused about: I don't see the lie in the comments above. optionalsquid said "[...]did try to implement procedural generation for the mines, but ended up scrapping it"
bombcar said "They're quasi-generated with random elements and fixed elements - similarly to early Diablo procedural generation." (which is true - you confirmed as much in the very next comment - "The levels are all hand drawn, not generated by an algorithm, even if they’re shuffled.". That's all early Diablo was doing.)
"Quasi-generated" seems like an appropriate descriptor here - stringing together level building blocks algorithmically is still "generating" a level in a sense. You're right - it's not correct to say that they were generated in the same way that an LLM generates things, but a) nobody claimed that and b) there is an undeniable element of procedural generation here.
reply