you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.
your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.
otherwise you’ve just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic…
your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior…
it uses the term “arousal”, which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.
provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.
well, rimworld does have a focus on (micro)management and strategy!
if your pawns are constantly down due to raiders, then you need better defenses! …or tame a herd of animals and release those at your enemies! (rhinos work very well for this!)
there are tons of little optimizations you can make to efficiently run a colony. for example, social fights: you can keep those from happening by keeping the problematic pawns in different areas! or removing one or both of their tongues! or sending one on basically permanent caravan missions! etc., etc.
this kind of deep strategizing, combined with the random bullshit the game throws at you, is mostly why people love rimworld!
and mods… definitely get mods! that’s where the game reeeaaally shines!
re: rimworld
it’s really important to read the messages and the little bits (like the logs when a social fight occurs) to really get immersed in the story!
might be worth watching some YouTubers playing to see what i mean!
hazzor usually does a good job of getting into the story, so does ambiguousAmphibian
but as the others said: if it’s really not for you, then it’s just not for you!
not necessarily, but it can be a good idea to have a distributed, tamper proof ledger of transactions.
that way anyone can provide proof for basically anything to do with the service: payment, drive, location, etc.
it might also have advantages from a security perspective for riders and drivers.
there are advantages, they’re not entirely necessary, but they may well be the best option for a distributed network (i.e.: no central server infrastructure, at least not beyond some simple software repository for downloads/updates)
you are right!
i did actually forget about that when commenting, and thanks for the added info!
however, that’s not exactly what i was talking about:
assuming normal or better soil you need less work (i.e. time spent working the fields) per unit of nutrition when moving from rice->potato->corn because of yield.
so your pawns spend less time planting and harvesting, which results in higher overall colony productivity since they can do other stuff in-between, like cooking, cleaning, mining, etc.
you are correct in that you should choose which plant you use based on the soil first, and according to productivity second!
i just wasn’t really considering soil quality when writing the comment…
when starting a new game:
-set up a stockpile:
indoors, preferably shelves, but that’s a goal to work towards
-stockpile some food:
starting with a talented grower makes early game easier. rice is best in the beginning, when it’s beginning to stockpile switch to potatoes, when those stockpile to corn. each step requires less work by your pawns, leaving more time for other stuff.
-get a ranged weapon and some defenses
some bows if there’s nothing else. first raid is alwaysa single melee guy, that’s scripted, afaik. setup some sand bags or embrasures. walls/corridors to limit the range enemies can shoot at you.
-get batteries
super important! difficult to have a reliable food supply without those!
-get a freezer
also super important because of the above!
-set up a prison
last on the list, not that high of a priority…but still, get some more people!
and then do pretty much what you want…once early game is done, get some research done, plant some cotton, some herbal meds, set up a little medical area, etc.
this should get you to mid game fairly reliably!
yes, in the sense that they have negative elevation ;)
+1 for everything: literally saves my sanity
Also let me emphasize this: for every discord server shut down like this, there are 100+ servers with almost the same purpose that still exist and will continue to for at least the next 3y.
you completely missed the point here:
the issue that those aren’t around NOW, the issue is that they WILL inevitably disappear eventually and every shred of knowledge platformed there will be irretrievably lost to the void.
discord is a black hole for information:
it sucks information in and deletes it from existence.
that’s why it’s bad.
the time frame doesn’t really matter here.
Meaning what?
meaning the models training data is what lets you work around or improve on that bias. without the training data, that’s (borderline) impossible. so in order to tweak models and further development, you need to know what exactly went into the model, or you’ll spend a lot of wasted time guessing around.
I omitted requirements on freely sharing it as implied, but otherwise?
you disregarded half of what makes an AI model. the half that actually results in a working model. without the training data, you’d only have some code that does…something.
and that something is entirely dependent on the training data!
so it’s essential, not optional, for any kind of “open source” AI, because without it you’re working with a black box. which is by definition NOT open source.
all models carry bias (see recent gemini headlines for an extreme example), and what exactly those are can range from important to extremely important, depending on the use case!
it’s also important if you want to iterate on a model: if you use the same data set and train the model slightly differently, you could end up with entirely different models!
these are just 2 examples, there’s many more.
also, you are thinking of LLMs, which is just one kind of model. this legislation applies to all AI models, not just LLMs!
(and your definition of open source is…unique.)
so you’re basically saying it talked itself squarely into uncanny valley?
i honestly didn’t consider that would be an issue for LLMs, but in hindsight…yeah, that’s gonna be a problem…
Patch 6 only really broke the script extender (well hotfix #18 really)
nvm, just checked, it’s up to date! (hotfix #19 is supported!)
pretty much everything is up to date!
there’s probably already a tamperMonkey script out there, check greasyFork or something
i don’t think so, but you can either entirely disable it, or make them passive, or tune it to your liking; there’s tons of customizability in the difficulty!
it’s honestly some pretty smart design in how they handled it! you should give it a try, see if you like it!
one little beginners tip that’s kinda important: they always choose the shortest path to your base (so pretty much any structure you build) and they attack based on your power consumption! (there’s a little widget that tells you when a wave is coming)
*They’re the same picture
(the dark fog update is seriously sick tho)
that’d be great in theory!
if only the vanguard anti-cheat wasn’t ridiculously easy to bypass and effectively useless while also being a major security concern…
actually, the law leaves remarkably little room for interpretation in this case.
here’s the law in full, emphasis mine:
Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) § 202a Ausspähen von Daten (1) Wer unbefugt sich oder einem anderen Zugang zu Daten, die nicht für ihn bestimmt und die gegen unberechtigten Zugang besonders gesichert sind, unter Überwindung der Zugangssicherung verschafft, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft. (2) Daten im Sinne des Absatzes 1 sind nur solche, die elektronisch, magnetisch oder sonst nicht unmittelbar wahrnehmbar gespeichert sind oder übermittelt werden.
the text is crystal clear, that security measures need to be “overcome” in order for a crime to have been committed.
it is also obvious that cleartext passwords are NOT a “security measure” in any sense of the word, but especially in this case, where the law specifically says that the data in question has to have been “specially secured”. this was not the case, as evident by the fact that the defendant had easy access to the data in question.
this is blatant misuse of the law.
the data law makes no attempt to take into account the intent of the person, quite differently from when it comes to physical theft, which is immediately and obviously ridiculous.
you mentioned snooping around in a strangers car, and that’s a good comparison!
you know what you definitely couldn’t be charged with in the example you gave? breaking and entering!
because breaking and entering requires (in germany at least) that you gained access through illegal means (i.e.: literally broke in, as opposed to finding the key already in the lock).
but that’s essentially what is happening in this case, and that is what’s wrong with this case!
most people agree he shouldn’t have tried to enter the PW.
what has large parts of the professional IT world up in arms is the way the law was applied, not that there was a violation of the law. (though most in IT, like i am, think this sort of “hacking” shouldn’t be punishable, if it is solely for the purpose of finding and reporting vulnerabilities, which makes a lot of sense)
and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.
your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.
i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn’t seem to hold up.
so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;
or B: the theory isn’t wrong after all.
you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it’s convenient to you, that is)
so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be
wrongirrelevant.or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.
you can’t have it both ways, but you’re sure trying to.