Yes, it requires it runs well with default settings, everything is accessible with the standard deck controls, that all the control displays use the steam deck icons, and it doesn’t reference controls the deck doesn’t have. It’s a very high bar.
You’re entirely missing the point.
The requirements and basis of IQ tests are they are problems you haven’t seen before. An LLM works by recognizing existing data and returning what came next in the training set.
LLMs work directly in opposition of how an IQ text works.
Things like past experience are all the shit IQ tests need to avoid in order to be accurate. And they’re exactly what LLMs work off of.
By definition, LLMs have no IQ.
That’s because LLMs aren’t intelligent. They’re just parrots that repeat what they’ve heard before. This stuff being sold as an “AI” with any “intelligence” is extremely misleading and causing people to think it’s going to be able to do things it can’t.
Case in point, you were using it and trusting it until it became very obvious it was wrong. How many people never get to that point? How much has it done wrong before then? Etc.
I’m a software dev and have worked with some of these companies. It’s kind of sad because I liked the idea of mobile games and working with them was a bit like seeing the devil behind the curtains. I dreamt of making cool little games based on fun and unique ideas and quickly learned it’s all a huge well oiled machine chugging through market data to find the most effective money extracting methods they can come up with.
For every bit you think these companies are grimey money chasers, I promise you it’s at least 5 times worse.
Some of the responses here dance around the truth, but none of them hit the nail on the head. This is a bit of an artifact of how the mobile industry works and the success rate vs profitability vs the way ads work on mobile.
Yes, hands down, this is not an effective advertising strategy. Many of these game companies are very successful so it’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because these ads aren’t advertising campaigns.
These ads are market research. The point isn’t to get you to download their game. At all. The point is to figure out what people will engage with.
These ads are all game ideas. Mobile game ideas are a dime a dozen million. They’re easy to come up with, cost a lot to build, and many don’t monetize well and therefore aren’t profitable. Because of that, it’s very expensive and unsustainable to build games and test them and see what succeeds.
Instead, companies come up with ideas, build a simple video demonstrating the idea, and put up ads with those videos. They then see how many people engage with the ads to determine how many people would even visit the download page for that game. Building a quick video is much much much cheaper than building a game. This is the first step in fast failing their ideas and weeding out bad ones.
Essentially the companies have lots of ideas, build lots of simple videos, advertise them all, and see which ones get enough engagement to be worth pursuing further, while the rest get dropped entirely.
But those ads need to link somewhere. So they link to the companies existing games. Because they’re already paying for it. So why not.
But building a whole new game is also expensive. Dynamics in mobile gaming are very odd because of the way “the algorithm” works. It is actually extremely expensive to get advertising in front of enough people that enough download it that you have any meaningfully large player base to analyze at all.
So the next trick is these companies will take the successful videos, build “mini games” of those ads as a prototype, and then put that in their existing game. This means they can leverage their existing user base to test how much people will engage with the game, and more importantly, eventually test how well it monetizes. Their existing users have already accepted permissions, likely already get push notifications, and often already have their payment info linked to the app. It also means they don’t have to pay for and build up a new store presence to get eyeballs on it. Many of the hurdles of the mobile space have already been crossed by their existing players, and the new ones who clicked the ads have demonstrated interest in the test subject. This is why many of the ads link to seemingly different games that have a small snippet of what you actually clicked on.
If these mini games then become successful enough, they will be made into their own standalone game. But this is extremely rare in mobile. The way the store algorithms and ads work make it pretty fucking expensive to get new games moving, so they really have to prove it to be worthwhile in the long run.
So yeah, most people look at this the wrong way - it does actually go against common sense advertising, but that’s because it’s not actually advertising. It’s essentially the cheapest way for companies to get feedback from people that actually play mobile games about what kinds of games they would play.
It’s not advertising. It’s market analysis.
That’s great and I’m glad that works for you.
But most people buying portable gaming handhelds are not doing that. And the people looking for things like that are likely landing closer to a surface or standard laptop, which Windows already supports well.
I don’t know that Microsoft has any business trying to make Windows support these devices better…
Windows is entirely built around two pillars:
Portable game machines are not an enterprise product. Nor do you care about broad hardware support or upgradability. Nor do you care about plugging in your parallel port printer from 1985. Nor do you care about running your ancient vb6 code to run your production machines over some random firewire card.
Windows’ goal is entirely oppositional to portable gaming devices. It makes almost no sense for them to try to support it, as it’d go against their entire model. For things like these, you want a thin, optimized-over-flexible, purpose built OS that does one thing: play games. Linux is already built to solve this problem way better than Windows.
But, Microsoft will probably be stupid enough to try anyway.
Now we just need that GFX software from intel / amd / nvidia that is available on windows, taking advantage of that newly supported hardware
Stop, you’re making me too hard. I might be able to like, ditch Windows if that happens.
They have stability issues that manifest themselves as bad connections, poor rendering, slow responses, and dropped connections.
Yeah, you know what’s funny? The built in systems have these problems even worse, which is exactly what drives people to use the phone based alternative instead.
And when CarPlay and Android Auto have issues, drivers pick up their phones again, taking their eyes off the road and totally defeating the purpose of these phone-mirroring programs.
Okay, and somehow using the built in ones, which always get cheaper hardware and less development resources, which always perform much much worse, doesn’t cause people to pick up their phones?
or other expensive setups
As much as I lost trust in his bullshittery a long time ago, his need to mention the cost of critical safety systems is what stuck out to me the most here. That’s how you know the priorities are backwards.
I feel like I have two engines to worry about now.
You like… Quite literally do. Hybrids with electric drive are basically electric cars with a small ICE strapped to it. There are literally two systems and either failing is a problem. I really don’t like the hybrid model for this reason, but making affordable, reliable, and long lasting EVs is still basically in its “proof of concept” phase. None of these have really existed long enough to see if they withstand the test of time.
I feel like an EV has an 8-10 year lifespan because after that, you better have the cash on hand to replace the battery.
Entirely true. But we can hope battery tech gets cheaper. But I’m not convinced that’s going to happen. Especially with how fast battery tech is moving, it’s not entirely unreasonable to worry about whether the battery will even be available anywhere when it does die.
I’d prefer a super efficient ICE car that can run for 500k+ miles with proper maintenance. Then again, I’m a cheap old bastard who misses those reliable beater Hondas and Toyotas.
I think this is actually a really difficult question right now, and I don’t think there’s a “right” answer. I also have hung onto Hondas/Toyotas for 20 years at a time and I’m not convinced to do anything else. No one has proven a long term EV yet, so I’m not ready to bite.
On the other hand, charging should be cheaper than gas. And it likely will continue getting better, faster, and cheaper. Doing it at home, you should definitely make the gas money back, but the parts/battery stuff is still too unclear.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer right now, but it does feel to me like buying an EV is signing up to be a guinea pig.
If you’re an engine developer, it’s a reasonably common problem.
If you’re a game developer using a cross platform engine, it’s pretty uncommon, as the engine developer has already accounted for most of it.
If you’re somewhere in the middle, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
It surprises me how many indie devs avoid some of the higher level / more popular engines for this reason alone. But I assume they just must enjoy that sort of stuff much more than I.
This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.
As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he’s making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they’re doing it and redeploys the same thing.
This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he’s repeatedly flaunting credentials that don’t change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.
Don’t waste your time with the haters: Israel has never lacked haters who doubt her, who do not accept her legitimacy, who do not believe our ancient people deserve a home of their own. Time spent arguing with these people only furthers the fog of war. Ignore them. Or shame them. But do not argue with them.
Just… Lol. I think this tells you everything you need to know.
I mean, yeah, sure, but that doesn’t change anything I said - even if he’s using it to cater to Russia, he’s still catering to Russia, playing god, pretending he’s a general, and it’s worse than the original quote of him criticizing the Ukrainian offensive.
Musk said he made the decision fearing that Moscow would retaliate with nuclear weapons.
I feel like this part is even worse. His opinion sucks and is fucking stupid, but he’s literally saying he’s making decisions (which have an impact on thousands of lives) because of his speculation on the Russian response.
He’s not a fucking general, this shit shouldn’t be his decision. He is not informed or educated on these decisions and he’s playing with people’s literal lives. He’s literally trying to play god with his space toys.
they have made a pretty good effort to patch Pegasus vulnerabilities whenever they come about,
I mean, they kind of have to? What’s the alternative, they leave it? Why are we applauding them for basically the bare minimum here?
Apple’s investment in discovering these problems seems pretty poor. There are multiple instances of Google finding exploits for them and then Apple downplays and complains about Google being too alarmist.
Sure, they fix things. But they fucking better, or there’s a very different problem. But their proactive investments in trying to discover them ahead of time seems pathetic.
Yeah, the argument that there’s money in this business only furthers the point here - there’s money in it because it’s valuable to abuse systems. Therefore the people running those systems should be the ones fucking funding it. And then using that agreement to keep the exploit details behind closed doors until they are able to fix it.
It’s almost like this should be an entire internal department. Maybe it could be named after the idea of keeping things secure?
If the company making massive profits off the sales of these devices isn’t going to fund it, who is? It’s fucking insane to me that Google basically funds the security of iOS for Apple, who’s their direct competition in that market. We probably wouldn’t even know this exists if it wasn’t for stuff like that.
because In real life, when users see a huge performance drop, they complain
Yeah, true, and the dead people don’t get to complain, so just prioritize performance because the dead aren’t complaining.
/s obviously. I don’t give a fuck how much performance you gain/lose by running an exposed system. Increasing road speed limits would help people get to work faster. But more of them would be dead. Road safety comes first, convenience and speed comes second.
I could understand people having a slightly different priority list 30 years ago when performance was shit and computers were obscure. But in this day and age, we’re making increases in performance 99.9% of the populace won’t notice and computers literally run our lives. The priority is security.
then you have situations like Intel’s Downfall, which has sizable AVX2/AVX512 performance penalties.
Yeah, exactly. Most people don’t utilize AVX all that much. And those that do likely have newer machines that are unnaffected. And Intel is patching it.
Every zojirushi I’ve ever seen has more buttons and settings than most microwaves. Did you buy the cheapest one they sold?