I absolutely loved JC2 and JC3 with more than 500 hours in each! Despite the author's thoughts that the games were a buggy mess, I feel like I never noticed the bugs in JC2 and the very literal road bumps in JC3 were only problem when I was doing laps around the first island out of boredom.
I could never quite put my finger on why the large island felt so... empty? in the north, but it being canceled for most of the development cycle is an insight I never thought I'd have, so thank you very much for the insight.
The volumetric terrain of JC3 was an awesome improvement on JC2, with the second island being very for the terrain and vertical bases.
I tried JC4 and it was disappointing... It never clicked with me and (just like the author) I felt it was worse than JC3 in almost every way.
Major thanks to the author for the blog post, growing up and working in software I really appreciate the perspective and both Avalanche studio and the author for their work on these two awesome and timeless games. Despite the apparent hell of development, playing it always felt magical to me (maybe not the car handling in JC2 but I digress) <3
Yeah, I feel the same way. JC2 and JC3 are great. Never clicked with JC4.
I had always thought the north island was empty because it was used for the train mission. Like, the island existed as a backdrop for a few missions near the end of the game.
Also nice to hear that the devs also thought the wingsuit was overpowered. That’s part of what I like about JC2: no wingsuit.
> when I was doing laps around the first island out of boredom.
I spent hundreds of hours driving around the Just Causes with a podcast on. In versions 1,2 and 3, I circumnavigated every single island along the coast.
Yes these games are buggy (but got better each release), but they are so much fun.
The app was built to suit my needs with my Sony a6700 but it uses the official SDK. So it should theoretically support all the cameras the SDK supports.
Exactly- linking to I'm feeling lucky is the 80/20 of it. We use DuckDuckGo's "I'm feeling Ducky" in most cases since Google usually adds a redirect interstitial page (with the exception of links to youtube).
This is just plain wrong or a terrible misinterpretation...
> central banks
What are you trying to say here? Each member state has a central bank. They are independent from, coordinated by, the ECB. Each central bank assumes the responsibility of regulating the member state's banks, with the ECB paying close attention to system-critical banks.
The US also has a central bank, singular, the Fed.
What's your point?
> no local culture, blur national and ethnic identities
Have you been to Europe? Each country has it's own, completely distinct culture based on the nation's historic identity. Hint: you know when you're crossing borders (the language usually changes).
Central bank: just see what they did with Greece, Italy, etc. Perennial debt in exchange of control. The central banks of the countries are completely at the mercy of Frankfurt.
Yes, the US central bank is quite controversial itself, but the states don't depend on loans from the Fed. Or at least not directly, AFAIK.
Of course Europe has culture and my point is they want to neuter it by moving a lot of people across countries, in particular the top of the graduate crop (as the original post pointed out). They blur the identities on purpose. Go to any major city in the bigger countries and you'll see they are losing the national identity very fast. Some are just unrecognizable.
Technology should not be fixing such a societal or legislative issue. In the example you're providing, why should the user trust the LLM, but not the credit agreement? Why shouldn't the LLM point the user to a different credit agreement, just as exploitative? The company operating the LLM may have such an incentive, and it could be very lucrative.
Illiteracy in the case you are proposing can only increase, for the benefit of some.
(The argument that people can use open source models can't possibly be applied, considering you're speaking about, as you called them, the other 90%, or even the functionally illiterate.)
The last paragraph is concerning to say the least.
As far as I understand, Grove was at the helm when Intel started the Itanium project. Granted, he didn't see it to "completion", but poor choices were made even in his time.
He even stated the following in "Only the Paranoid Survive":
One, don’t differentiate without a difference. Don’t introduce improvements whose only purpose is to give you an advantage over your competitor without giving your customer a substantial advantage. The personal computer industry is characterized by well-chronicled failures when manufacturers, ostensibly motivated by a desire to make “a better PC,” departed from the mainstream standard. But goodness in a PC was inseparable from compatibility, so “a better PC” that was different turned out to be a technological oxymoron.
Just because Itanium last as a bet, doesn't mean it was wrong to try it. They gambled that compilers would keep up - they didn't. Today it might work! Compiler technology is very much improved. (Dotnet/Java payloads? Dynamic recompiling...) It's a software problem and as such inherently easy to underestimate the complexity of it. Itanium also had its roots in a time when Big Iron was more relevant than it is today.
It really wasn't. Itanium was a gamble that hard-coding static parallelism into the ISA would beat dynamic OoO. And just like architectural delay slots, it inevitably failed - using a few more transistors isn't that expensive since the alternative is "waste your time doing nothing at all".
"Compilers just need to keep up" was Intel's marketing apologia, not reality.
Compilers simply could not keep up - that was reality, not just marketing. Ideally, Intel should have coded the compilers too and removed the rough edges. But they were a bit too slow and AMD ate Itanium's target market.
You have to admit though that the EPIC (Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing) model was quite innovative. The philosophy influenced the LLVM project and some of the principles are used in GPU's and AI accelerator chips, even if hardware-based dynamic scheduling won the game.
Does anyone know of a good dashboard to check for such BGP routing anomalies as (apparently) this one? I am currently digging around https://radar.cloudflare.com/routing but it doesn't show which routes were actually leaked.
I would love if anyone has any good tool recommendations!
Cloudflare runs all their own bare metal servers. Seems odd that they would be impacted by Google cloud. Same can be said for all the other issues on downdetector. This points to a broad issue at the core internet which could certainly be related to BGP.
I could never quite put my finger on why the large island felt so... empty? in the north, but it being canceled for most of the development cycle is an insight I never thought I'd have, so thank you very much for the insight.
The volumetric terrain of JC3 was an awesome improvement on JC2, with the second island being very for the terrain and vertical bases.
I tried JC4 and it was disappointing... It never clicked with me and (just like the author) I felt it was worse than JC3 in almost every way.
Major thanks to the author for the blog post, growing up and working in software I really appreciate the perspective and both Avalanche studio and the author for their work on these two awesome and timeless games. Despite the apparent hell of development, playing it always felt magical to me (maybe not the car handling in JC2 but I digress) <3