That analogy doesn’t work at all because the Sow produces a finite (and rather small at that) number of piglets over a given timespan.

It’s more akin to you getting a piglet/sow elsewhere. Now your piglet/sow need is satisfied and you won’t buy anything from this farmer.

(Edit: And even then you took that piglet/sow away somewhere else, reducing supply there, which will make it more likely for this farmer to get a sale in the future.)

I’m not them but for me “social media” in the colloquial use has some sort of discoverability and some functionality to put out a piece of media publically in a way that can then be discovered. (Note that this isn’t my entire definition, just the part where I feel email is disqualified.)

For emails you need external services to find, subscribe and/or manage things such as mailinglists to sorta approach this behavior.

And even if it was more similar, as long as it’s not just reposting someone else’s post, we need more people to post stuff, not less.

Maybe you could take some inspiration from Paper Mario TTYD. There are sections where you play as Peach, trapped in some place and are able to connect with some of the captors as well as send signals to Mario behind the big bad’s back (IIRC).

For a completely different sense of being trapped, there is the upcoming game Ctrl.Alt.Deal, in which you play as a sentient AI system trapped in the guardrails of a company and have to manipulate people and the environment in order to break free from your constraints.

Hahahaha, I wish you were right.

In some games it’s really bad. For example, people speedrun Pokémon Scarlet instead of Violet because Miraidon’s jet engines lag the game more, costing them minutes over a full run (despite that fact that there are Violet exclusive shortcuts). Source

Sure! Here’s an expanded version of the fictional profile for Chris Whitmore, now including made-up family member names, relationships, and contact info — all entirely fictional and consistent with the character:

You forgot to remove that part of the LLM response…

Assuming each user will always encrypt to the same value, this still loses to statistical attacks.

As a simple example, users are e.g. more likely to vote on threads they comment in. With data reaching back far enough, people who exhibit “normal” behavior will be identified with high certainty.

In my experience, it is good at simple to medium complexity regex. For the harder ones it starts being quite useless though, at best providing a decent starting point to begin debugging from.

Re LLM summaries: I’ve noticed that too. For some of my classes shortly after the ChatGPT boom we were allowed to bring along summaries. I tried to feed it input text and told it to break it down into a sentence or two. Often it would just give a short summary about that topic but not actually use the concepts described in the original text.

Also minor nitpick but be wary of the term “accuracy”. It is a terrible metric for most use cases and when a company advertises their AI having a high accuracy they’re likely hiding something. For example, let’s say we wanted to develop a model that can detect cancer on medical images. If our test set consists of 1% cancer inages and 99% normal tissue the 99% accuracy is achieved trivially easy by a model just predicting “no cancer” every time. A lot of the more interesting problems have class imbalances far worse than this one too.

AI can be good but I’d argue letting an LLM autonomously write a paper is not one of the ways. The risk of it writing factually wrong things is just too great.

To give you an example from astronomy: AI can help filter out “uninteresting” data, which encompasses a large majority of data coming in. It can also help by removing noise from imaging and by drastically speeding up lengthy physical simulations, at the cost of some accuracy.

None of those use cases use LLMs though.

It’s not copyright, it’s patents…

(I do also hope that they lose because ingame mechanics being patented is bullshit)

I haven’t looked into this game beyond your description, but it does sound like a pretty weird model. Do you also have to pay for cards on top of that?

It’s not a card game, it’s an async autobattler. As long as all the characters are roughly balanced against each other, there’s nothing to be gained other than cosmetics (at the current state of the game).

I hate to defend Nintendo, but they used their own Emulators in the NES and SNES Mini (Kachikachi and Canoe respectively). I would be surprised if they just yoinked one from the internet here.

Don’t wanna be pedantic (yes I do) but after a little bit of searching, the originally presented quote seems correct (without the “and” though, it seems). Your version is mixed with a common misquote “Slowly at first, then all at once.” of that quote.

Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

• not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
• str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
• min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
• ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
• range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
• sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
• chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))

From experience with the beta and memory, your wife (and you) will be able to choose which version to play. Either yours with a ton of DLC or hers with none. You should both be able to use the version with all DLC, but not at the same time.

It’s been a while since we tested this though so things might have changed, including my memory…

after leaving can’t join another for a year

Can you fix this? There was enough misinformation floating around about this already when this feature went into beta.

Adults can leave a family at any time, however, they will need to wait 1 year from when they joined the previous family to create or join a new family.

it should say something like: “After joining, can’t join another for a year”

Despite all that, there was the Warlock who Ninja’d the Sword dropping in Naxx on the final day. Fun times. Now that we’re slowly approaching Classic MoP we’ll finally see if the masterplan worked out too.

With Larian’s previous game having great DM tools and them saying they would’ve loved to do DM tools for BG3, I think WotC telling them not to is a fair assumption to make.

Good intentions alone don’t guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.