I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I'd encourage you to watch to the end, there are definitely counterpoints.:

• The hoverpack is a late-game thing, and as I clarify in the follow up to this video, this is really to help people overcome the complexity hurdle of the early game, which is a big problem. The devs said only 0.2% of people beat the last phase of the game prior to 1.0. A lot of people are attacking this technique from the point of view of being very experienced players that have all the tools, but if you're that far in the game, this may not be for you.
• I like my spaghetti factory, it emphasizes the complex industrial look of this game, which I don't like to hide. This technique allowed me to make it far more complex than I ever would've managed without this technique. You can always encapsulate after you adopt this technique, and I absolutely have in certain places. Again, in the follow up to this video I cover encapsulation right at the start, although I don't use that word for it.
• You can wave a deconstructor at the belt and see what's on it.

This is not intended to be an all-encompassing method, just a rule of thumb that makes the task of hand-building the early factory much easier, which you can then scale and extend into the late game if you wish. Plenty of people are talking about logistics floors, but I don't use them because they obfuscate even more than a ceiling belt. If your problem is that you can't see what's on the belt well... you can't see through floors either. You can through glass floors, but then you're bringing back the visual noise anyway, and I've always found tracking belts through even glass floors to be much more work than following a belt to the ceiling.

Again, I'd encourage you to finish the video and also check the follow-up, where I roll this method into stackable blueprints, and I explain that these blueprints can easily be incorporated into logistics floors if that's your thing.

I also have a note in that video apologising for calling people babies :)

Also, you'll talk to me after it's a solved problem? Why would I be interested in that? You have no interest in helping solve it now and I see no reason why you'd magically become useful after the fact.

If you can demonstrate that you even understood the concept of decentralised torrent-like hosting then I'll pay attention to whatever else you had to say.

What are you talking about? I don't think you understood the concept of decentralised torrent-like hosting.

I'm currently talking to a peertube hoster about server costs, which I may be able to justify to host my own videos plus a little extra to pitch in for others who can't justify the expense. Plenty of professional creators could easily justify it as an exit strategy or backup for youtube.

These conversations are happening, just not with you, presumably because you're just being negative about it and not actually doing something, so why would anyone bother to bring it up with you?

Take out the phone part and allow users to host videos in a decentralised way on their home computers and it's a genuinely good idea though. I have a server running with plenty of storage and reasonable upload speed. I could easily dedicate a terabyte or so, as long as I'm not the sole hoster.

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than dedicated hosting. The only issue is legal problems when someone is unknowingly hosting abuse material, which is something that happens from time to time on all services like this, and an individual could be done for distribution without the protection big centralised services have. You'd just have to hope mods are on top of it.

Actually something like a debrid service but for peertube might work. You can get huge amounts of storage for cheap because a lot of it is shared, you might ask them to host a huge torrent file, but most torrent files serve multiple users, so the cost is distributed. Peertube could work a similar way if it were more mainstream.

If the judge said it then it would have been established fact in the case. This can be established by evidence and found as fact in the case, or it can be part of the agreed facts of the case, in which case the court doesn't waste time hearing evidence. All it takes to become agreed fact is for the defence to present it as part of their case and for the prosecution to not dispute it.

In that context the finding of fact by the court is more than enough for the paper to report on it, and the two versions presented by you of it being said by the defence and by the judge, are entirely compatible with one another. Nobody is going to demand to see the boy's medical history to verify an uncontroversial point like this. That would just be a waste of time.

The papers presented it as stated by the defence and the judge, they said nothing false or misleading, and I don't see any problem with that part of their reporting.

Now, if you have an issue that it was reported because it casts autistic people in a bad light, the issue becomes whether you think it's something the papers should leave out. Well, the defence considered it important, and it became news. Not much we can do about that after the fact.

People have been trying to boycott time since we had a word for it. If you figure out how you let me know please.

I have a kinect, I have to try this.

Almost like it does work on Firefox but for some reason they don't want you using it. Honestly it's so damn weird, why do that? Is there some incentive for them?

She has shown small improvements, but it's excruciatingly slow.

My apologies, I see that I have made a mistake. There are in fact 3 w's in the sentence "Howard likes strawberries."

It's an illusion. People think that because the language model puts words into sequences like we do, there must be something there. But we know for a fact that it is just word associations. It is fundamentally just predicting the most likely next word and generating it.

If it helps, we have something akin to an LLM inside our brain, and it does the same limited task. Our brains have distinct centres that do all sorts of recognition and generative tasks, including images, sounds and languge. We've made neural networks that do these tasks too, but the difference is that we have a unifying structure that we call "consciousness" that is able to grasp context, and is able to loopback the different centres into one another to achieve all sorts of varied results.

So we get our internal LLM to sequence words, one word after another, then we loop back those words via the language recognition centre into the context engine, so it can check if the words match the message it intended to create, it checks them against its internal model of the world. If there's a mismatch, it might ask for different words till it sees the message it wanted to see. This can all be done very fast, and we're barely aware of it. Or, if it's feeling lazy today, it might just blurt out the first sentence that sprang to mind and it won't make sense, and we might call that a brain fart.

Back in the 80s "automatic writing" took off, which was essentially people tapping into this internal LLM and just letting the words flow out without editing. It was nonesense, but it had this uncanny resemblance to human language, and people thought they were contacting ghosts, because obviously there has to be something there, right? But it's not, it's just that it sounds like people.

These LLMs only produce text forwards, they have no ability to create a sentence, then examine that sentence and see if it matches some internal model of the world. They have no capacity for context. That's why any question involving A inside B trips them up, because that is fundamentally a question about context. "How many Ws in the sentence "Howard likes strawberries" is a question about context, that's why they screw it up.

I don't think you solve that without creating a real intelligence, because a context engine would necessarily be able to expand its own context arbitrarily. I think allowing an LLM to read its own words back and do some sort of check for fidelity might be one way to bootstrap a context engine into existence, because that check would require it to begin to build an internal model of the world. I suspect the processing power and insights required for that are beyond us for now.

I'd be happy to help! There are 3 "w"s in the string "Howard likes strawberries".

I don't even know if that would be legal, but that doesn't matter. The fee creates a little bit of disconnection so both parties can assume that questions of legality are the others' responsibility.

This doesn't make it legal either, it just makes it more likely to happen, and slightly harder to prosecute.

Ooohhh I started that season but didn't finish it. Thanks!

I think they've dropped the College Humor name, now they're Dropout.

Which season is that? Is it Fantasy High Senior Year?

This is an extra twist on the concept that they're not real.

There's nothing wrong with saying clip in this context. The only reason to object is if you're being annoying and pedantic and you've forgotten that there can be more than one term for the same thing.

Nobody is confused by saying "clip", nobody thinks you're charging a glock mag with a clip from the open ejection port. There's like one gun in history that uses both clips and detachable magazines, so if we're talking about that specific gun and the difference is operative to the point, then you can complain.

This is similar to people insisting on "firearm" over "gun", or "suppressor" over "silencer", or "round" over "bullet". Some of them might be more technically rigorous terms but unless you're discussing the finer points of gunsmithing or ballistics you usually don't need to care.

Also, remember the golden rule of pedantry: if you understood well enough to correct them, you don't have to correct them.

Gallant as that is, I don't think it's either/or with these people, I think it's both/and.

They have to keep exploiting and consuming everything and everyone. Whilst I understand that the rapacious drive to infinite growth is systemic, I'm convinced that one of the mechanisms that keeps it going is their own alienation, the deep emptiness and disassociation that comes from living in a world where nobody can tell them no, and they have to fill that hole with something. After your fifth mansion, third private jet and second mega yacht, just buying things doesn't do it, and why did they accumulate so much if they're just miserable anyway?

The only thing left is hurting people with impugnity, because that proves that you have power.

That thought is, and I cannot stress this enough, legitimately horrifying. Do you know how many of them went to Epstein's island?

These are people who can make nearly anything happen to you, and they don't even have to lift a finger.

I feel like you just told me that Mordor will be great because you'll just put on the One Ring, get Sauron's attention then flash him your tits and he'll be horny so you'll be golden.