Spzi

joined 1 year ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
The Nadu Situation – Mark Rosewater on Tumblr in c/mtg@mtgzone.com
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the design crime with Nadu was the fear of shipping a bad card after nerfing the card.

That's an excellent point. Because, put that way, what's so bad about shipping a bad card? People will read it once and never look at it again. Like most cards in a set. So what? On the other hand, making it too strong has grave consequences.

I think the feature creep is caused mostly by greed on both sides; company and players. Company wants to make more money, so needs incentive for players to keep buying. Players want ever stronger cards, and company delivers. Like you can't make the new set weaker than the previous, because of sales.

The Nadu Situation – Mark Rosewater on Tumblr in c/mtg@mtgzone.com
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“stop printing undercosted legends with as many abilities as you can jam into a text box”

So much this. So often I come across a card. Start to read. Nice! Continue reading. Whoa, nice! And then I'm only half through.

I then like to ask myself if this card would still be nice if it had less/weaker features. And then I'm shaking my head again, going AngryVideoGameNerd "What were they thinking!?".

Examples:

  • [The End]. Exiling any number of copies is strong on it's own, doesn't have to become cheaper at low life.
  • [Ocelot Pride]. Not sure if it needs first strike. It definitely does not need the extra with the City's Blessing.

I feel there are much better examples, but I wanted to stop thinking about it.

The Nadu Situation – Mark Rosewater on Tumblr in c/mtg@mtgzone.com
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

this just misses every one of the complaints for me. He’s basically saying “this is hard, I’ve been doing this for 30 years, trust us”

I don't know what exactly these complaints are, but I also stumbled over this passage. Sure, making magic is hard and you cannot test everything in such a complex system.

It's also clear that there has to be a last day for the changes, and thus some changes will be late. Although, I argue, if you keep making changes in the last 5 minutes, that probably hints at your testing period being too short.

It's not a given that "we only have so much time". It's an economic decision made by management; how much they value testing. They surely try to strike a balance between testing enough and making the most profit. Which is the whole point of this comment.

Despite him claiming otherwise, of course a different, more qualtiy-focussed approach is possible. For example, one rather extreme version would be "we only release a set after we found nothing worth changing for 3 consecutive months in testing", just to illustrate the range of possibilities. One can move fast and break things, or be very cautios but move slower.

Though I'd rather have a profit-oriented MTG with too little testing than a bankrupt; or no MTG at all, although that's probably a false dichotomy.

MBFC Credibility - High in c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Quality comment, well said.

I'm not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That's what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.

On Banning Nadu, Winged Wisdom in Modern in c/mtg@mtgzone.com
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago

Reading the article, it somehow baffled me how much work and thought they actually put into this. Like it mentions meetings, wow.

For many new cards, I get the feeling they really don't mind making them too strong. Similar thoughts when I look at the fanbase.

I (also) enjoyed the game when playing a 3/3 bear on turn 3 was nice. Now you sort of have to expect an indestructible hexproof creature with maybe even more abilities, for 2 mana, to be deemed playable.

Rambling off, sorry thanks.

By which criterias/standards do they make these cards, and evaluate later wether they need to be banned or not?

Compassionate Discourse in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Haha, true! I had a similar thought:

"together strong" can be said by any group. Especially fascists, who very much value a sense of community and strength internally.

But really, it can apply to all kinds of governments ("Together for the king!") and economies (like corporation, which is pretty much 'together strong' in capitalist speak).

So I think if one wants to make a point why their system is favorable over other systems, they should not emphasize the one point they all have in common, but highlight where and how it makes a difference.

I'll just assume OP did that IRL. Memes are undercomplex.

This might be the worst bus stop I've encountered in c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

Hey, I know a pretty similar bus stop in Hamburg, Germany: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMa5unXew4uAfVtPA

Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.

This might be the worst bus stop I've encountered in c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.

If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.

So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn't really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it's just that; an explanation, not a justification.

MBFC Credibility - High in c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.

Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.

Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.

I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.

In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.

If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?

MBFC Credibility - High in c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?

Because, the enemy "is defending itself"?

I'd love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.

MBFC Credibility - High in c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first.

I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that's right.

To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected "pre-emptive" to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked "first" (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true 'first' origin).

Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.

In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it's adversary from doing so by striking first.

Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn't say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who's right.

You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.

I think the universe is trying to speak to them through dreams in c/thomastheplankengine@lemmy.blahaj.zone
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Is that the statue of Liberty in a toilet, or what is this supposed to be?

0
Unity tutorial creator Brackeys highlights systemic issues with public company, promotes Godot (FOSS) (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago by Spzi@lemm.ee to c/foss@beehaw.org
4 comments fedilink
 

https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about

Text version, thanks to @CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world:

Image Text

BRACKEYS

Hello everyone!

It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.

Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.

I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.

Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.

Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.

The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.

I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.

Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.

I can only say that I have started learning Godot.

Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!

Sincerely,

Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys

1
Unity tutorial creator Brackeys highlights systemic issues with public company, promotes Godot (FOSS) (programming.dev)
 

https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about

Text version, thanks to @CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world:

Image Text

BRACKEYS

Hello everyone!

It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.

Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.

I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.

Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.

Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.

The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.

I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.

Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.

I can only say that I have started learning Godot.

Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!

Sincerely,

Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys

0
Global solar installations projected to jump 56% this year!! (slrpnk.net)
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/2294408

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/chart-solar-installations-set-to-break-global-us-records-in-2023

0
„Na“: Ein Wort für jede Situation | Karambolage | ARTE [3:00] (piped.video)
submitted 11 months ago by Spzi@lemm.ee to c/dach@feddit.de
8 comments fedilink
 

Die Französin Ariane Kujawski stellt ihren Landsleuten das winzige deutsche Wort „Na“ vor. Es kann so viele Bedeutungen haben:

  • Ansprache
  • Vorwurf
  • Freude
  • Ärger
  • Ungeduld
  • Resignation
  • Überraschung
  • Gleichgültigkeit
  • Unbestimmtheit
  • Na toll
  • Trost
  • Bedrohung
  • ...
1
Direct Air Capture vs Thermodynamics (Cool Worlds) [25:12] (piped.video)
 

Video Description:

Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.

Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.

Channel Description:

Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.

The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.

CHAPTERS (and key bits)

  • 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
  • 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO~2~ in 2022.
  • 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
  • 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
  • 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
  • 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO~2~/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
  • 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
  • 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO~2~
  • 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
  • 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
  • 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO~2~ in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
  • 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
  • 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
  • 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
  • 24:35 Outro and credits
1
Direct Air Capture vs Thermodynamics (Cool Worlds) [25:12] (piped.video)
 

Video Description:

Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.

Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.

Channel Description:

Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.

The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.

CHAPTERS (and key bits)

  • 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
  • 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO~2~ in 2022.
  • 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
  • 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
  • 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
  • 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO~2~/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
  • 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
  • 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO~2~
  • 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
  • 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
  • 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO~2~ in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
  • 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
  • 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
  • 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
  • 24:35 Outro and credits
0
Confusing disk with /dev/null for years [2:23] (piped.video)
 

Original title: "Misunderstanding Your Job Description - Delivery" by Viva La Dirt League

Delivery man Byron learns some really important information about his job... that he probably should have learnt 6 years ago...

For those who don't know the show: It's important to understand that Byron is a very, very dedicated employee, who accepts any challenge, and takes great pride in his work. His colleagues sometimes don't remember him after working with him for years.

1
Close-up Ignition of a Rocket Engine in Slow Mo (The Slow Mo Guys) [4:33] (piped.video)
 

WARNING - LOUD!

Gav plops down the high speed camera next to a rocket engine with 45,000lbs of thrust and the results are epic. Big thanks to Firefly for allowing us to film at their facility and BBC Click for letting us use their behind the scenes footage from the day.

Filmed at 2000fps

1
An Explanation of Boltzmann Brains (Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell) [10:15] (piped.video)
 

Absolutely everything you think about yourself and the universe could be an illusion. As far as you know, you are real and exist in a universe that was born 14 billion years ago and that gave rise to galaxies, stars, the Earth, and finally you. Except, maybe not.

Other explanations for Boltzmann Brains did not require an 'inside-out black hole', for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain, so this inclusion came as a surprise to me. Not sure if it's necessary.

What baffles me about the theory: If it's true, and reality is (mostly, statistically speaking) imagined ... the physical reality could be anything. It could be very different from the reality we live in. But we created our models of the universe in this one reality we know, and the theory of Boltzmann Brains emerged from that.

So based on these physical models we arrive at the idea of BBs. But if this idea is true, the physical reality could be completely different.

Or what do you think?

1
An Explanation of Boltzmann Brains (Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell) [10:15] (piped.video)
 

Absolutely everything you think about yourself and the universe could be an illusion. As far as you know, you are real and exist in a universe that was born 14 billion years ago and that gave rise to galaxies, stars, the Earth, and finally you. Except, maybe not.

Other explanations for Boltzmann Brains did not require an 'inside-out black hole', for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain, so this inclusion came as a surprise to me. Not sure if it's necessary.

What baffles me about the theory: If it's true, and reality is (mostly, statistically speaking) imagined ... the physical reality could be anything. It could be very different from the reality we live in. But we created our models of the universe in this one reality we know, and the theory of Boltzmann Brains emerged from that.

So based on these physical models we arrive at the idea of BBs. But if this idea is true, the physical reality could be completely different.

Or what do you think?

1
NASA's Plan to Build A Telescope on the Moon | Real Engineering [15:05] (piped.video)
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/8135104

Honorable mention: The video was posted to https://lemmy.world/c/mealtimevideos 4 days ago: https://lemmy.world/post/4942489. I did not want to use the YouTube link as the primary link, hence reposting instead of cross-posting.

Further reading about the Lunar Crater Radio Telescope (LCRT):

They want to build the telescope on the far side of the Moon, to shield it from terrestrial (man-made) radiation. Is this premise in peril by other Moon missions? For example, do NASA or other space agencies have plans to build other bases on the far side of the moon, which could emit radiowaves which affect the LCRT?

1
NASA's Plan to Build A Telescope on the Moon | Real Engineering [15:05] (piped.video)
 

Honorable mention: The video was posted to https://lemmy.world/c/mealtimevideos 4 days ago: https://lemmy.world/post/4942489. I did not want to use the YouTube link as the primary link, hence reposting instead of cross-posting.

Further reading about the Lunar Crater Radio Telescope (LCRT):

They want to build the telescope on the far side of the Moon, to shield it from terrestrial (man-made) radiation. Is this premise in peril by other Moon missions? For example, do NASA or other space agencies have plans to build other bases on the far side of the moon, which could emit radiowaves which affect the LCRT?

view more: ‹ prev next ›