Some ARM CPUs that are advertised as microcontrollers have 32 bit address spaces and roughly the same power as an i486.

This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.

I do think the complexity of artificial neural networks is overstated. A real neuron is a lot more complex than an artificial one, and real neurons are not simply feed forward like ANNs (which have to be because they are trained using back-propagation), but instead have their own spontaneous activity (which kinda implies that real neural networks don’t learn using stochastic gradient descent with back-propagation). But to say that there’s nothing at all comparable between the way humans learn and the way ANNs learn is wrong IMO.

If you read books such as V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee’s Phantoms in the Brain or Oliver Sacks’ The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat you will see lots of descriptions of patients with anosognosia brought on by brain injury. These are people who, for example, are unable to see but also incapable of recognizing this inability. If you ask them to describe what they see in front of them they will make something up on the spot (in a process called confabulation) and not realize they’ve done it. They’ll tell you what they’ve made up while believing that they’re telling the truth. (Vision is just one example, anosognosia can manifest in many different cognitive domains).

It is V.S Ramachandran’s belief that there are two processes that occur in the Brain, a confabulator (or “yes man” so to speak) and an anomaly detector (or “critic”). The yes-man’s job is to offer up explanations for sensory input that fit within the existing mental model of the world, whereas the critic’s job is to advocate for changing the world-model to fit the sensory input. In patients with anosognosia something has gone wrong in the connection between the critic and the yes man in a particular cognitive domain, and as a result the yes-man is the only one doing any work. Even in a healthy brain you can see the effects of the interplay between these two processes, such as with the placebo effect and in hallucinations brought on by sensory deprivation.

I think ANNs in general and LLMs in particular are similar to the yes-man process, but lack a critic to go along with it.

What implications does that have on copyright law? I don’t know. Real neurons in a petri dish have already been trained to play games like DOOM and control the yoke of a simulated airplane. If they were trained instead to somehow draw pictures what would the legal implications of that be?

There’s a belief that laws and political systems are derived from some sort of deep philosophical insight, but I think most of the time they’re really just whatever works in practice. So, what I’m trying to say is that we can just agree that what OpenAI does is bad and should be illegal without having to come up with a moral imperative that forces us to ban it.

deleted by creator

Make the page 15x more bloated with JavaScript popups and it’ll be “modern”.

While I agree that it’s somewhat bad that there is no distinction between lossless and lossy jxl in the file extension, I think it’s really not a big deal compared to the present situation with jpg/png.

The reason being that if you download a png file you have no idea if its been converted from jpg, if it’s a screenshot of a jpg, or if it’s been subjected to lossy reencoding by a tool or a website upload process.

The only thing you can really do to try and see if the file you’ve downloaded has suffered encoding loss is to do an image search on it and see if there are any better quality versions out there. You’d do the exact same thing with a jxl file.

You’re right that I’ve never read the 2e and 3e sourcebooks, just 5e and some OSR stuff, but nothing in between.

Most of my experience playing DnD comes from playing in homebrew settings. Maybe the real problem in that case comes from trying to use a roleplaying system that has a bunch of cosmology and mysticism baked into it in a setting that either lacks that or has metaphysics that actively clash with it.

But if so I think that’s probably a pretty common experience with how 5e is played.

I’m gonna respond to your points a little bit out of order, because it’s more expedient for me to set up the topics I’m going to talk about that way.

Yes, you can just get rid of long-lived species if you like. You can also modify the world to match the fact near-immortals exist and I don’t think it’s that hard. It’s your decision, ultimately, but there’s a lot of ways to solve it.

I agree with this. One of my favorite settings, World of Darkness (specifically the Vampire versions of OWoD), is completely defined by the fact that immortal beings are present in the world, and their machinations dominate everything about it. And one of my favorite DnD-like settings, Arcanum, deals pretty heavily with how humanity interacts with longer lived races, and major parts of its backstory are defined by the actions of the longer-lived elves and dwarves.

The thing is neither of my DM friends that I mentioned in my original comment wanted to deal with the elven illuminati and they didn’t want to make elves senile. Their world was also not very Tolkien-esque, so “elves spend most of their lives doing nothing” didn’t fit the vibe they they were going for.

And a fourth point, Elves may not care/notice at all. If the Elves are insular and live in the woods they’re extremely unlikely to bother remembering the Human king, after all he only lives like a scant 100 years at most so why even know his name?

This is what my friends originally did with elves before they got rid of them, but they had another issue. Very often they would like to end one campaign, do a 100 year timeskip, then start another one in the same setting. If a player character was an elf that meant that they should still be around, and in good health. This was problematic because these campaigns were generally fairly low level, and they didn’t want to have a high level NPC running around.

I’m sure there are ways to deal with that too, but with all of the other issues elves created I gather they decided it wasn’t worth the effort.

Depending on your depiction of Elves the effect is the same (provided the group is Elves) because they’re often predicted as just slower/more leisurely in their approach to life (although I’m not sure what you mean by the statement in the first place, because something being older than you intended doesn’t sound like an actual problem).

So, I should have made this more clear in my original comment, but there are no non-human races in the world that I am building (it’s not even for a DnD campaign). That anecdote was just about me finding out the hard way how long 15,000 years is.

As to why it’s a problem if the knowledge keepers ended up being older than I had originally intended it’s because it’s really hard to keep a cohesive organization with the same goal around for thousands of years. The core of the Jewish religion is probably the most successful at this, and it’s extremely impressive. Some native American and Australian Aboriginal cultures kept accurate oral records for even longer, but that was within a completely different social context.

So I didn’t want my fictional group to do a 2x or 3x better job than real life people. Likewise I didn’t want massive empires lasting way longer than real life empires.

I can go into more detail about my world if you’re interested, but I didn’t want to make this comment any longer lol

Not like I’m going to blow my brains out, whatever happens. And you won’t either.

Plenty of people blow their brains out. 1 in every 12 autistic people attempt it anyway.

Not directly related but something I found while looking that stat up: a full 18% of 8-year-old autistic kids apparently have a suicide plan.

If you want something truly ancient and out-of-touch, you can easily just set it 15,000 years ago instead of 1,500 and no player will bat an eye or even notice

I am currently doing world building for a ttrpg campaign, and recently I did try to set an ancient empire 15,000 years in the past.

The basic idea was that empire A existed 15,000 years ago (them existing while the world was still covered in ice was important to the aesthetic), then they would be wiped out by empire B some time later, only for empire B to be destroyed by a great calamity. I wanted for there to be remnants of empire B still hanging around in the form of people who still worship a few of its god-kings and groups of people who still try to preserve its knowledge and maintain its infrastructure without fully understanding most of it.

The latter group was based partially on the Catholic Church preserving records after the fall of the Roman empire and partially on how the core of the Jewish religion was able to maintain a continuity of information and tradition over vast stretches of time even in the face of mass migration and social upheavals.

The problem was that I underestimated just what a vast gulf of time 15,000 years is. For one I was struggling to fill in all that time with events, and for two I realized that this knowledge preserving group would have had to existed for way longer than I was originally envisioning. Not only would they be older than the Jewish religion, they would be older than ancient Sumer. In fact you could take the entire history of the beginning of the Sumerian empire to the present day and fit it into that span of time twice over.

In the end I had to invent empire C, which refurbished some of empire B’s infrastructure before collapsing themselves, as the actual origin for the knowledge keepers. And even with that I still had to move the timeline up by thousands of years.

It’s also not any less awe-inspiring to have people who lived in an important time period. We still have living veterans of WW2, and WW2 is no less important or intriguing

The problem with that is that it would really change the dynamic of how non-elf civilizations would develop. Unless the elves are extremely insular, and even then. How do you have a plotline involving the player characters needing to delve into an ancient tomb in order to discover whether or not the current ruling family are the legitimate heirs of the kingdom when you can just ask an elf? How does the world get into that situation in the first place when you can just ask an elf?

I have two friends who take turns running DnD 5e campaigns in a shared setting who have made elves entirely extinct for that reason.

While the “elves spend most of their long lives in leisure” explanation is kinda nice and Tolkien-esque, it doesn’t solve everything to do with their lifespan.

Imagine you have an event in your setting that took place 1500 years ago. That’s as far back in time as the fall of the Roman empire is from the modern day. In real life that’s a long enough time for multiple empires to rise and fall, for language to evolve to the point that speakers can no longer understand the previous tongue, and for people to change their religion and forget they were ever pagan to begin with.

Elves in DnD live 750 years. A 200 year old elf PC could reasonably say “wait what if my grandpa was there? DM do I remember my grandpa ever talking about this?”

This is a result of taking something that should be awe inspiring and making it mundane (letting people play as elves). And it’s not the only instance of that in DnD.

You live on the edge of the developed area, with suburb on one side and countryside on the other.

And more homes went up, transforming the area that you’re in into more suburb, and cutting you off from nature.

Do you think the people who moved into those houses also wanted to live with suburb on one side and nature on the other? Conversely, how do you think the people living near the previous edge of the suburb felt when your house went up?

Do you see the problem with this kind of development?

The other day I saw a car with a Rosie the Riveter bumper sticker next to Trump 2024 sticker.

No better than what?

CRI is defined as how closely a light source matches the spectral emission of a thing glowing at a specific temperature. So, for a light source with a 4000 k color temperature its CRI describes how closely its emission matches that of an object that’s been heated to 4000 k.

Because incandescent bulbs emit light by heating a filament by definition they will have 100 CRI and its impossible to get any better than that. But the emission curve of incandescent lights doesn’t actually resemble that of sunlight at all (sorry for the reddit link). The sun is much hotter than any incandescent bulb and it’s light is filtered by our atmosphere, resulting in a much flatter more gently sloping emission curve vs the incandescent curve which is extremely lopsided towards the red.

As you can see in the above link, there are certain high end LED bulbs that do a much better job replicating noon day sunlight than incandescents. And that flatter emissions profile probably provides better color rendering (in terms of being able to distinguish one color from another) than the incandescent ramp.

Now, whether or not you want your bulbs to look like the noon day sun is another matter. Maybe you don’t want to disrupt your sleep schedule and you’d much rather their emissions resemble the sunset or a campfire (though in that case many halogen and high output incandescent lamps don’t do a great job either). Or maybe you’re trying to treat seasonal depression and extra sunlight is exactly what you want. But in any case I think CRI isn’t a very useful unit (another reddit link).

One apple (223 g) is supposed to be 116 calories.

There is already a Chinese EV that uses a sodium ion battery, the JMEV EV3.

It’s a tradeoff of range vs price. The EV3 only has 155 miles of range, but thanks in part to its sodium ion battery it costs only $9220 new. Which is a price that will probably drop even more as more sodium ion plants come online and economies of scale kick in.

EDIT: even if your commute is 40 minutes long, driving 60 MPH the entire way, that range is enough to get you to work and back using a little more than half your charge. Given that it’s also generally cheaper to charge an EV than pump gas, and there’s less maintenance costs, I think there’s absolutely a market for such a car.

Trying to create a cheap microwave burrito that’s also healthy and filling seems like a pretty noble (if difficult) goal to me. Making it vegetarian also decreases its ecological impact (though I don’t know whether or not Adams cared about that).

Trying to fortify each burrito with 100% of your daily vitamins was a really stupid idea though. It was unnecessary (just take a multivitamin if you feel like you need it), it made the burrito taste worse (Adams described it as “chalky”), and it was potentially unhealthy if someone were to eat multiple burritos per day (and thus receive multiple times the recommended daily dose of… everything).

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Adding on to what GreyEyedGhost said, since the year 2000 the price of solar power (per watt) has fallen by more than 50x. Because of this huge drop in price the installed solar capacity has been doubling every 3 years. That means that in the time since 2020 we’ve built more solar capacity than we did in the previous 20 years combined.

If that’s not good enough then idk. Imagine holding any other technology to that standard. The model T came out almost 100 years ago for an inflation adjusted price of $27,000 and with an MPG of 7.5. ICE cars today are better in a lot of other ways but they are not 50x cheaper and they are not 50x more fuel efficient than that.