Quest guides like what Belgdore is talking about just tell you who to fight/talk to if you want to finish certain quests or get certain endings. It doesn't tell you how to fight your battles and usually doesn't even cover how to get there (unless its especially arcane -- looking at you Millicent).

Further, the best part of these kinds of games (at least IMO) is the adventure itself. Working through a zone to a boss and then learning how to overcome the boss is the fun part. It's the part of the game that makes you hone your skill as a player and "git gud". Quest guides... stat build guides... pretty much anything short of a zone walkthrough or boss mechanic overview won't help you with that.

Some of that is content categorization in the eyes of the all-seeing algorithm. Let's say you upload a type of content "A" that gets big views but you've been uploading a type of content "B" that gets small views for a while. The youtube algorithm will aggressively try to grow content A and massively deprioritize content B, even among other channels that produce content B.

A guy I know who does youtube/twitch had to create a second channel for his content B because it would get sub-1k views when he would get tens of thousands of views on his content A. Just by uploading somewhere else he started to get higher view counts.

Exactly why that happens isn't known, but a common theory is that youtube wants to push what it knows works. They have no real reason to give your content B a chance because they know content A will sell. And they do this even though this outcome was the result of a feedback loop.

I'm almost starting to wonder if that's the plan. Just keep saying "IPO IPO IPO" to get funding from over-eager VCs who want a piece of the IPO before it becomes widely available.

But then you just never IPO. Keep making minor to moderate mistakes along the way so you can be all "weeeeell we would have IPO'd but insert thing here so we want to wait another 6 months to let it die down". Repeat until you're ready to quit, then actually IPO and ride the initial IPO high all the way down via golden parachute.

Don't worry, the devs have already won if the sales numbers are any indication.

As far as winning the larger gaming community's opinion, I think that will depend on how they handle updates and bug fixes for the game going forwards. As an example, the dedicated servers have a massive glitch that causes you to lose all your progress and it's hard to tell what causes it. Personally, how they respond to that bug (or bugs of similar magnitude) is my litmus test for whether this game will stand the test of time or not.

Often this is part of the scam. Once the scammers have you convinced that they're official, they tell you to say it's for holidays or a birthday or something like that so you don't get stopped when buying gift cards.

Of course, this makes it really annoying to actually try to buy gift cards for gifts, because now when you defend yourself it sounds like you're getting scammed...

Instance friendly link: !programming_horror@programming.dev

Oops. Good to know... I guess the main thing was simply that there was a BK in the right place relative to the 9792 km arc then.

Huh, go figure. Thanks for the info! I honestly never would have found that myself.

I still think it should be possible to use in:channel on the channel-specific search though. One less button press and it can't be that confusing UX-wise since you have clear intent when doing it (if anything, the fact that the two searches work differently has to be more confusing UX-wise).

Copilot, yes. You can find some reasonable alternatives out there but I don't know if I would use the word "great".

GPT-4... not really. Unless you've got serious technical knowledge, serious hardware, and lots of time to experiment you're not going to find anything even remotely close to GPT-4. Probably the best the "average" person can do is run quantized Llama-2 on an M1 (or better) Macbook making use of the unified memory. Lack of GPU VRAM makes running even the "basic" models a challenge. And, for the record, this will still perform substantially worse than GPT-4.

If you're willing to pony up, you can get some hardware on the usual cloud providers but it will not be cheap and it will still require some serious effort since you're basically going to have to fine-tune your own LLM to get anywhere in the same ballpark as GPT-4.

They wouldn’t make these games if they didn’t work.

Part of their shtick is to get you to make any purchase at all. Then you might go on to spend hundreds! Or you might quit. But in some sense that’s also good because the plan was never for you to play for free.

There's nothing special about a generic for loop (at least in C-like languages). There's no reason you couldn't do something like for (i = 0; true; i++) to make it infinite. Some languages even support an infinite list generator syntax like for i in [0..] (e.g. it lazily generates 0, then 1, then 2, etc. on each iteration) so you can use a for-each style loop to iterate infinitely.

Now, whether or not you should do such things is another question entirely. I won't pretend there aren't any instances where it's useful, but most of the time you're better off with a different structure.

Better to have more servers as opposed to one ultra powerful server because the ultra powerful server tends to be more expensive than an equivalent strength collection of weaker servers. Also, you pay for all the power even during times you don't need it whereas you can take down or add more weak servers as necessary.