Go does not give you control. Much of the speed comes from choosing the right algorithms - including memory management. In Go you have GC, you don't have that in Zig.
Linked lists are a lot less slow if you use Arena allocation around your hotspots and make sure to allocate space for as many as you thing you need, since they will be carved out of a contigious block of memory and will stay in CPU cache.
Golang also requires you to write more code, as it lags Zigs try operator.
That is interesting. And it's an AI critique I haven't heard before.
Would you consider it possible that the way non-intentionally placed items break the game immersion for you is because they appear in such a way that you think you can interact with them in a certain way, but you can't?
Like if there's an extra door in the house you're trying to get into, but that door doesn't really open, then in your mind that breaks the integrity of the game's systems. If so, I think the LLM response is that there are no more doors that don't open and that the world can be generated as needed.
No computer can handle the complexity of even a small town. But it would be possible, at least in the future, to generate the part of the world you interact with, which would heighten the emersion.
its reasonably the same "reversion to the mean" or "not x, but y"
the intentionally placed tree serves no particular in-game job mechanically. it instead points your eyes to the right place when you walk up the path, and then again when you look back down from above.
when they're saying everything is intentionally placed, they mean everything, whether it looks important or not. It's all directed to a cohesive core
So you want a human going 'oh stick a tree anywhere, it doesn't matter' rather than having that done procedurally whether by a simple algorithm or an ML model?
It sounds like you might be assuming intent where there is little. I suspect if you didn't know a poem was written by an LLM you might ascribe purpose and intent to many aspects - rather like a high-school English language teacher.
Its meaningless to decriminalize using it, since it does not give big benefit of replacing narco terrorists producers with pure, controlled stuff from legal pharma companies.
The world is obviously better of without drugs, but given that is not going to happen, the question to decide is: is the world better of with drugs from legal pharmacutical companies, or (somewhat) restricted access to drugs through an illegal system?
Decrimininalizing drug use is the worst of both worlds: you get more drug access, but it still happens through the illegal system and benefits narco terrorists.
If you don't want to put drug users in jail (you cannot reasonably fine homeless people), you can offer drug courts and diversionary programs.
You need the federal government to do what it did with Marijuana (which is still federally illegal), to be able to try the other choice.
You slip such a confident assertion in there seemingly without justification. Do you think (for example) that the world would be better off without alcohol? I certainly don't. Everything has downsides; that doesn't on its own justify eliminating it. It's analogous to the adage that the most secure computer is the one encased in a block of cement so as to render it entirely unusable.
I believe the world would be better of without alcohol for consumption, yes.
The only real benefits are not being the one outside the group, and the downsides include liver damage, social damage, massively higher risk for falling, drunk driving,...
More to the point, alcohol would never be permitted if it was invented today. Marijuana might.
You left out the most important benefit IMO. People enjoy the effects it has. Instead you're making out like it serves no purpose.
> More to the point, alcohol would never be permitted if it was invented today. Marijuana might.
Isn't that circular reasoning? We know the world is better off without it because it would run afoul of the current regulatory regime. It would run afoul of the current regulatory regime because we know the world is better off without things like that.
Nope, parents didn’t drink either; but you do you.
Perhaps you’d be able to cope with life better if you weren’t so dependant on self medicating with harmful intoxicants and threatened by any statements against them.
You 100% have a religious or moral compulsion to make these comments. Just a heads up, it comes off as really assholish, and I'm guessing it's making your social interactions worse, unless you live in a monestary.
It certainly involved a lot of skill and expense, but how many more lives could be saved if the same money had been spent on improved traffic safety or NHS in general?
Wow, logistics to <remote place> are very expensive! We could spend that money better in the cities!
Wow, logistics in <city> is expensive! We could spend that money better in rural areas!
I read about a new road tunnel in London last year, a ten-digit price tag for about 1km of road IIRC. I'm 100% sure some people suggested that that money could have been better spent in rural areas.
The one thing you seem to be missing in your anticolonialist tirades is the fact that Tristan was uninhabited. It’s not like native peoples were displaced by the British colonists, right?
Many self-described anticolonialists forget that "self-determination" doesn't actually mean "people who live far away from the mainland should just fuck off and take care of themselves".
I've experienced it a bit as a Frenchman (and we have quite a few remote territories as well) who has lived on a couple of remote places (that were uninhabited as well before becoming French, but that shouldn't actually matter) and it's incredible how puny, short-sighted and simply egoistical some people can be.
I'm saying that it is common for some people to advocate for jettisoning other parts of their country, especially if they are far away from where they live.
No, you're correct Britain is a collection of islands in the northern hemisphere. This however is an island in the Atlantic ocean and is a British Overseas Territory.
People respond to inspiring stories that show what is possible. Inevitably that means choices that might not match what a perfect allocation looks like.
Quiet, bland execution in government will get you voted out. Technocrats tend to come in after corruption, but they don’t usually last.
There's been repeated efforts to depopulate the Island by the UK government because it's expensive when you have to do drops like this - the people living there want to be there and prior to them getting there it was an uninhabited island.
I'm not really sure it meets the definition of a colony in the modern sense of the word.
It's a small price to pay to keep political control. Probably not the entire motivation here, but generally countries like keeping their remote islands and settlements lived in because it represents a claim of the land by proxy.
Not true, I tried just now. Took 30 seconds of due diligence. You could have done this too. Do better.
The problem is they’ll do what you ask. And if you are the type of non-curious person who replies “ Autocomplete only 'knew' how to output a scraper...”, then you’ll tell it to make you a scraper instead of ask what your options are for getting HN data.
Sounds like you didn't even know what your own tool was doing. This would be a prime example of why relying on autocomplete based tools makes you look like a fool.
Linked lists are a lot less slow if you use Arena allocation around your hotspots and make sure to allocate space for as many as you thing you need, since they will be carved out of a contigious block of memory and will stay in CPU cache.
Golang also requires you to write more code, as it lags Zigs try operator.
reply