You see, back in the day, lifespans were so short that most builders died before the building got finished. Only recently, when lifespans have became longer, people have started to live long enough to finish building their buildings before dying.
When my console throws a NaN I kinda think of it as an Halloween kid receiving a fruit instead of a candy. They won’t say “That’s a fruit”. They’ll say “That’s not a treat”.
I’m personally pissed more often by a falsy 0.
Did you know that early analog computers would literally explode when asked to divide by 0?
Now computers just say “Hey stupid, that shit is not even a Number in a mathematical sense, but sure I’ll add one to it.” instead of “Why would you kill me like this?”
You can’t really define Infinity as a number, yet it is part of their world.
So typeof NaN === ‘number’ totally makes sense in that regard.
If you ever worked with arrays of dates, don’t judge NaN too harshly.
It works with everything except of course for falsy values
<span style="color:#323232;">myThing.number = someNumberThatShouldNotBeEqualToZero
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">if (myThing.number) {
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> // do something very important with that number that should not be equal to zero
</span><span style="color:#323232;">}
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">// This can fail at anytime without warning
</span>
So you’ve got to be extra careful with that logic when you’re dealing with numbers.
I am not saying it’s wrong though. I’m saying it’s often annoying.
Besides, null is a perfectly valid value for a property, just as 0. Working with API Platform, I couldn’t tell the number of times I used this kind of statement:
<span style="color:#323232;">if (property || property === null) {
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> // do some stuff
</span><span style="color:#323232;">}
</span>
Probably just as much as
<span style="color:#323232;">if (property || property === 0) {
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> // do some stuff
</span><span style="color:#323232;">}
</span>
I assumed this was leftover April fool stuff. Does he really look that good all the sudden? I swear he was just photographed for another story within the last couple months that he looked the same in.
I’ve seen numerous games in my library that were formerly native switch over to supporting Proton and abandoning the native port. I get that it cuts down on needed time and effort to maintain and we can still play on Proton, but I would really prefer native if there is the opportunity.
The way I like to think about it is that Proton essentially provides a standard, stable API across both Windows and Linux for gaming (Win32). We typically talk about it as a translation layer, and it is, but also to some degree it’s also “here’s an implementation of Win32 for Linux.”
If game devs can, say, buy a steam deck and know their game works on it, that means it’s gonna work on other steam decks and probably most Linux machines. It’s making it easy for devs to test and develop for Linux, even if it’s not really “on Linux.” Copy the Windows files to the steam deck, run your release checklist, and you’re good to go.
I would really prefer native if there is the opportunity
I prefer native apps too, but I’ll still use websites and some electron apps, and I’ll still use applications built in C#, Java, Python, etc. None of those are really native either. Proton is analogous to a virtual environment for running an interpreter. Potentially, it’s slower and has issues a la Python, but if the program can work, then I don’t care about the theoretical problems; it works despite them. So I think it’s fine.
If it means more games for Linux and a standard that developers can target, encouraging them to “support Linux,” then that’s a win I think. Like I said in another comment, a studio can buy a steam deck, throw the same Windows export on it, and then have someone run through the same set of tests they’d normally go through. If it works there, it’ll work on most Linux machines. Having a standard API is not a bad thing imo
Apparently there are a number of instances where it outperforms the native Windows version.
I’m inclined to agree – it seems Proton has reached the point where your Windows game will now play essentially the same on Linux as it does on Windows, with a few edge-cases. Why make extra work to maintain a native Linux version?
Some crappy DX9 titles run better with DXVK across the board, Windows included. It never occured to me that you can use DXVK on Windows too, but games like GTA 4 run so much better with it.
That has absolutely 0 relevance to this post lol. Smite has literally always been Windows only.
Smite devs are very mediocre bordering on inept. It took themike a year and a half of multiple attempts to get EAC working for Linux. Crashing is prevalent on both windows and proton in smite 1.
If smite devs took on a native Linux port, it would be an absolute garbage dumpster fire filled with never fixed bugs, incompatibility, probably an unusable amount of crashes. I’d rather play decently through proton than experience that BS.
but I would really prefer native if there is the opportunity.
This only makes sense if the native port is better. In the witcher 2, I get better graphics and performance when playing through proton instead of using native. And there are certain games with ‘native’ ports which don’t even run and just crash.
This is terrible design. You’d want it oriented vertically (gravity is basically free energy!) And some unacceptable loss-of-camel may occur due to circular saw use instead of a complementary-conical camel-squisher.
Whilst I enjoy the design with saw blades for added gratuitous violent exterior, being technically correct on the internet just trumps that. It’s simple aesthetics mate.
Given the amount of force and level of violence it would take to make that happen, I’d think the needle would get destroyed or pushed out of place pretty quickly.
You’d need to embed the needle halfway through the tube, and it would have to be flush with the rest of the tube. And it’d need to be a thick ass tube.
You’re also going to need to strain the bones and cartilage out, and pulp them.
They probably figure if they treat a camel like they’ve been treating the rest of the world and the people in it, it might prove they’ve got a chance! Lol
IIRC the director or someone was depressed and the ending was him getting out of depression. I haven’t watched the show in a long long time but I do remember the ending making more sense with that explanation.
To be fair, 40% of Lemmy is cross posts from Reddit, 20% is spam posts by one user across multiple communities, and the remaining 40% is divided evenly between actual content and posts complaining about Reddit
All social media is trash, just different in what aspects they are trash in
I’m always sad when I see this stuff. I know it’s all jokes and whatnot, but the entire meme has been born out of a fundamental misunderstanding of the dilemma that the trolley problem is supposed to represent.
The question isn’t, and has never been whether you throw the switch or not. The question is that if you throw the switch, are you responsible for killing the one, or conversely, if you do nothing, are you responsible for killing the others?
Whether you throw the switch or not is immaterial to the point. Kill one or kill four (or whatever) it doesn’t matter. You didn’t create that scenario, so by your inaction several people died, are you responsible for their deaths, considering you never put them in that position? Or are you exempt of blame since you basically chose to be an onlooker?
I don’t really blame anyone for not getting it, I sure didn’t for a really long time until my friend rephrased the same dilemma in a different way (and omitted the trolley): you go to lunch and have a delicious subway sandwich, but you were not very hungry so you only are half. On your travels from Subway to wherever, you pass by a homeless person begging for food. If you decide to ignore them and keep your food for yourself for later, and that person dies of starvation later that same day because of it, are you responsible for their death?
In addition to philosophical questions, the Trolley Problem is also a good tool in psychology to study human ethical reasoning. It turns out that people’s intuitive responses vary quite a lot based on details that seem like they shouldn’t make a difference. If I’m remembering correctly, I believe that a lot more people say that they would divert the trolley if they imagine that they were observing the situation from a gantry high above the tracks, rather than in close proximity to the person who would be killed thereby.
For anyone interested, there is a nice video series on these comics by “CosmicSkeptic” on Youtube. He discusses some of the memes, but brings them nicely into a philosophical context at the same time.
When the Joker presents Batman with a trolley problem [Save Robin or Save Catwoman], Batman always finds a way to circumvent it and save both. Because he is Batman.
People will always try to get the best out of the situation, even though that isn’t what the exercise is about.
It’s the first question in a battery of questions designed to force you to be aware of inconsistencies in your ethical framework. The first answer is supposed to be obvious: Yes, you throw the switch, but most people’s reason for that creates a very messy precedent that the distinction between action and inaction doesn’t matter, only the outcome, which later questions can exploit.
The idea itself can be a rather interesting thing to explore as a thought experiment. Obviously the premise of the trolley problem is ridiculous, especially today since trains and especially trolleys are becoming much more rare for most people (with the exceptions for railroad tracks across roads, and passenger rail lines like subways and surface passenger services like we see in bullet trains). There are still railcars, like light rail transit in cities sometimes, but again, it’s fairly rare overall for the general public as a whole.
The idea of trolleys is a fairly outdated one and most of the safety systems in modern allegories are so robust that dangers are generally minimized.
Nevertheless, the moral quandary of whether you are responsible for injury or death as a result of your action (or inaction) is a fascinating mental exercise and has resulted in more than one discussion of adjacent morality concerns with the friend I mentioned. It’s fascinating to study overall, even in a casual context like we do.
I understand there’s a lot more to the picture when dealing with it in a more formal study, and that this question is only one piece of the puzzle when performing such studies.
The part that frustrates me more than anything is that people stop at whether or not to pull the lever, and run with it in memes and alternative solutions, rather than grappling with the moralities that are the root of the original question as part of the study. This is supposed to invoke a deep consideration about your actions and the responsibilities you may or may not be accepting when getting involved in a situation, and how your specific world view and moral “code” (so to speak) factors in. All of the memes and reposts of it, to me, always feel like it cheapens the meaning behind the initial problem as stated. However I understand that highly involved analytical thinking that forces you to consider all of those deep underlying concepts, requires significant mental work; system 2 work, of you will. Where you have to engage with your analytical “slow” thinking mind to really grasp, and our default reaction, as a species is that such thinking is usually something that will put us in danger, since our fast thinking system 1, can easily just blurt out an answer without considering it any further, saving significant mental effort.
I understand why people reduce this dilemma to the mechanical components of throwing a switch, but I always feel like they’re missing the entire point of the exercise.
lemmy.ml
Top