Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | p0w3n3d's commentslogin

SuperTux is the first game that I played on Linux.

Having said that, I must note that I recently understood what does the game more playable to me. I ran into a gaming engine, and attached examples which had the "generic platformer" game. It didn't excite me.

The clue is the storytelling. Lemmings were great because the story about lemmings group behaviour and allegedly doing suicide, the nostalgia of Amiga and early PC. The penguins doing the same lack the storytelling. It's just not the same...

That's why I have spent many more hours on playing Winter Challenge than SuperTux, not even knowing why I always fall out of the track (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection)


I use Bluetooth every day however, playing games on Bluetooth is some mistake. Quality is noticeably worse, stuttering happen, and cable is the fallback when my BT headphones' battery die. So I really do not understand why the jack has been removed from major brands of phones

I am not blown away with 8GB of ram when only the OS occupies 6GB minimum...

I wonder about this training data. There's so much profit from open source code in training data, actually the most of the code it was taught was open source, shouldn't it be then free? Or at least open weight?

It's quite funny how native speakers can recognise the AI voice writing or speaking their tongue.

As a Polish man I am repulsed when I hear AI generated Polish voice in a commercial, but can't see problems in AI generated English speech


given the content of the text is of significant importance, it would matter very little the tone it is presented with.

As a russian I'm repulsed by both english and russian slop the same way

Wow, that's the first step!

However, the most efficient method would be actually land (I know - maybe even impossible?) on it, and use propellers to change its trajectory. We don't have too much throwaway high-tech to crash it on asteroids...


Impact is actually a more efficient method, as it avoids the fuel consumption required for deceleration and soft landings.

I'm not sure this is actually a necessary explanation...but while propellers technically COULD function in space (not a perfect vacuum, right?)...they're basically going to be useless.

He probably misuses "propeller" which is strangely restrictive to "rotative blade propulsion" in English whereas "to propel" is generic in its meaning.

Yep. Thanks. Non native speaker here. I thought more of a booster? Something that would mix hydrogen and oxygen to create thrust. Thruster maybe?

Be careful about how you store those inflammable propellers.

Inflammable made me so angry as a child/teen when I found out. I read it in our encyclopedia set but we didn't have a dictionary, and this was pre-internet.

It was in the context of hydrogen and I could have sworn it was flammable. But here is this encyclopedia telling me it's INflammable. It's... not flammable? Looked it up in the school library.

Thank you, that memory came up from the depths of time. Probably haven't thought about that in 30 years. Funny how we sometimes just didn't know stuff, and couldn't find out back then.


Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

It is logical: to inflame means to set on fire. Though, I agree, confusing.

Exactly!

The only logical way out of the flammable/inflammable mess is to use 'flammable' and 'non-inflammable', which makes me so mad.


It's just a parsing error. "in-" is also a prefix to create verbs from a name or another verb like inhume, inflame, induce, incite, inject, infiltrate. Inflammable is (inflame)-able and not in-(flammable)

I agree, but it’s ambiguous, hence the problem.

There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.

The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.

Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).


There's an inconsistency but no ambiguity, only ignorance. Inflammable only ever means one thing regardless of how ridiculous english might be.

The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.

Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.

The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.

This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(human). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.


> There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.

They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.


They already won one lawsuit in US now this. Maybe it's a coordinated attack...

Yeah, my colleague recently said "hey I've burnt through $200 in Claude in 3 days". And he was prompting. Max 8hrs/day Imagine what would happen if AI was prompting.

As I like this allegory really much, AI is (or should be) like and exoskeleton, should help people do things. If you step out of your car putting it first in drive mode, and going to sleep, next day it will be farther, but the question is, is it still on road


[dead]


This comment reads very strongly like it was written by an LLM.

Your sibling even more so.

Agreed. The spec file is context. Writing acceptance criteria before you prompt provides the context the agent needs to not go off in the wrong direction. Human leverage just moved up and the plan/spec is the most important step.

Parallelism on top of bad context just gets you more wrong answers faster


Sorry but isn't the bottleneck then simply to do even relevant things? Like how much of a qualified backlog do you have that your pipeline does not run dry?

[flagged]


https://github.com/safety-quotient-lab/psychology-agent <- I've been exploring ways to track decisions, making some interesting findings, at the homelab scale, at least.

The cognitive architecture, so to speak, for the LLM can make a huge difference - triggers and skills go a long way when combined with shell scripts that dual-write.


I didn't read it all but it seems 80% of it is a poem on how the flock helps

I'd say these times will be filled with a lot of tailored-to-you "self"-made software, but the question is, are we increasing amount of information in the world? I heard that claude and chatgpt are getting good at mathematical proofs which give really something to our knowledge, but all other things are neutral to entropy, if not decreasing. Strange time to live in, strange valuations and devaluations...

Neutral to entropy? What do you mean?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: