• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2025

help-circle
  • paraplu@piefed.socialtoGames@lemmy.worldGaming Pet Peeves
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Difficulty is much harder to research. It’s relatively easy to find if there’s depictions of drug use in a movie.

    It’s much harder to tell how hard or easy a game is. I’m reasonably experienced with games, and every time I start one I still waffle over difficulty.

    Dark souls often has both its difficulty and the importance of its difficulty to the experience overblown. You can still have encounters like Asylum Demon and Sen’s Fortress alongside difficulty settings.


  • paraplu@piefed.socialtoGames@lemmy.worldGaming Pet Peeves
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you have a specific trigger you may want to research the movie ahead of time for content. Resources like does the dog die help. Depending on your exact needs you may be able to use other tactics like watching with a friend.

    With games this is different in a couple big ways.

    • Difficulty is tuneable after the fact. The developer had to make choices about the numbers and implementing them in a way they can be scaled isn’t necessarily more work. Lazy scale the number difficulties are still more accessible than single difficulty.
    • Games are often too long to reasonably ask a friend to help you re-edit it by dealing with a specific mechanic every time. It’s also likely that a friend may not enjoy waiting around for their time to shine.

    With movies, there are still accessibility things that people do rightly complain about, like the sound mixing. Whispery actors mixed purely for movie theaters is an accessibility problem, even if it’s not typically framed that way.


  • paraplu@piefed.socialtoGames@lemmy.worldGaming Pet Peeves
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Granular difficulty options also help. Things like being able to make the parry timings easier or harder than that rest of the difficulty.

    If your difficulty presets are turning a bunch of levers at once, letting folks make their own can be very helpful.

    There’s also things that aren’t often considered difficulty, but that can definitely make a game harder for some folks.

    With Witcher 3 the only way I was able to play it successfully was modding it to be able to ignore a bunch of mechanics I found tedious. Things like ignoring carry weight, turning off item durability, lengthening potion duration, having items scale to my level, and hoovering up loot. Inventory management is often exhausting for me.

    It’s not an easy fix this can break a game’s economy, and I think I had separate mods to reduce the impact of that.







  • Lots of great ways to serve spinach here already. A few more:

    • Veggie lasagna. Be sure to wilt and squeeze out excess moisture, otherwise you can end up with a soggy lasagna
    • Strata with bacon
    • Creamed, and cooked low and slow. Spinach slowly releasing its juices into milk/cream is incredible. Usually with a cheese similar to gruyere or comte. Be sure to grate in some nutmeg. Scratches a similar itch to saag if you want something like that but different
    • Florentine anything, but I’m partial to omelettes
    • As with most darker leafy greens, added soup or pesto (or if you have a better term for the non-basil family of uncooked smashed leaf/oil/salt/nut or seed/cheese sauces)


  • To clarify, this is about LLMs and generative image creation. Other applications and technology are probably generally outside the scope of this community.

    There are lots of other technologies that would’ve once been called AI, until we figured out how to do them. These are all fine.

    There are a handful of problems these two specific technologies share which do not look like they’re likely to be solved sufficiently anytime soon:

    • LLMs are predicting the next word that fits. If the answer to a given problem isn’t prevalent enough in the data, or some of randomness inherent in the system makes a wrong answer fit the specific phrasing better, you may get an inaccurate result. These may be difficult to detect and make these technologies difficult to use safely for practical applications where being right, being safe, or simply not wasting the time of those around you are important things.
    • Providence of the training materials. It’s matching patterns found in existing works. That’s part of how you get realistic results, but it also restricts creation of truly novel works. Even if you can get around that, there’s still:
    • A misunderstanding of what art is, and why we engage with it. Part of what makes art valuable is that it’s a window into another human’s brain. This is a conflict we’ve run into before with technologies like cameras, but there’s still intentionality in shot choice, and the camera acting in predictable ways that allow the machine to disappear from the end result. This lack of the core of what makes art valuable makes creative applications nonviable for the moment.
    • These are being pushed into varying aspects of our lives by the hype of how close they look to solving real world problems. But until these issues are fixed, none of the products that are being pushed will really address the needs that they’re supposed to or are ready for production environments. There absolutely are exciting developments, but they’re kind of happening off to the side in much more specialized areas, like the geometry solver from Google. If these things were still confined to R&D, I bet communities like this wouldn’t exist. Maybe all the hype and funding will help uncover enough similar applications quick enough to make it all worth it, but I very much doubt it.

    There are more issues like rate of improvement appearing to taper off extremely hard, power consumption of training destabilizing local electrical grids and worsening droughts, AI related companies having overinflated market caps and making up too large a chunk of the stock market which risks another financial crisis, AI psychosis, our educational system not being set up to deal with students having easy access to plausible looking work without mental exertion or learning on their part, and probably others that I’m forgetting at the moment.









  • I’m not a fan of it, but if I’m remembering correctly, only up to about 2% of views come from the subscriptions page.

    This means a channel has to attract a lot of folks from other areas, and this requires somehow grabbing people. YouTube has tools for A/B testing thumbnails and titles. Channels that have tried clickbait vs normal thumbnails have found normal just doesn’t generate clicks.

    So unless YouTube revenue makes up a small enough percent of a channel’s income, the channel is basically forced into using it. Even if they find it just as distasteful as we do.

    Source: I think this is something Tom Scott went into at some point. The information is likely a few years out of date, but I wouldn’t expect that it’s changed radically.

    I’m honestly more baffled and annoyed at how low usage of subscriptions is, than I am at clickbait. It makes it seem like this problem stems more from an audience desire to be spoonfed by an inscrutable algorithm than from anything to do with clickbait itself, or choices freely made by channels.