Ollama is great. I discovered it today while looking for a way to serve LLMs locally for my terminal command generator tool (cmdh: https://github.com/pgibler/cmdh) and was able to get it up and running and implement support for it very easily.
The error in the author's code seems to be better described as an "unnecessary function call" than a "stray parentheses". I spent more time looking for that stray parentheses than I should have before noticing the call to .title().
It's certainly an issue to consider if you're starting a company.
If you are creating a organization that is less focused on making money as a core element like a business is, then you should feel fine using .org or any other domain.
The amount of progress over time is a bell shaped curve. For a period of time after the technology becomes practical, it will get more funding & smart people involved. During that time most of the major advanced in the tech will be made. This phase may last a long time. After much of what can be done with it is discovered and optimized, the amount of progress will slow down.
Adderall helps me with focus and motivation but it makes me feel absolutely not like myself. I've done various drugs throughout my life but the feeling I had on Adderall was honestly downright scary once I had wrapped up the programming tasks I set out to do on it.
Some people have goals with their speculation. I assure you many of these people are gamblers, but there are plenty of reasonable folk in the space too. It's just you don't hear them beating the drum as loudly as the naive.
Are certain cryptographic algorithms going to be banned when used in a cryptocurrency?
These are all loopholes they'd have to tie up if they want to go down that rabbit hole. It will cost them millions of dollars and man hours to stop it. You're baiting the government to play a neverending and increasingly complex game of whack of a mole. It seems like a beyond awful use of tax dollars to me. We cannot let our government get sucked down the black hole of trying to regulate the unregulatable. They need to come up with solutions to co-exist with it, not outright ban it. That will be a disaster in the making on par with the war on drugs.
> Bitcoin and cryptos ought to be banned for good.
Strong statement but if you have a valid argument then I can be convinced.
> Cryptocurrencies are scam and outright bubble that will bring down the world economy.
And that's not an argument, that is purely speculation as well.
> There is no currency without an authority to guarantee its value.
There is now, they're called cryptocurrencies.
> Cryptos are pure bubble.
2 things:
1. What's the difference between a pure and impure bubble?
2. Why is it a bubble?
> If there is any good in this thing, it's ease of transaction, which is a question of underlying technology - it has nothing to do with lack of authority or decentralized scheme that cryptocurrencies tout as so important (and fail to deliver).
? This doesn't seem to mean anything. Please explain?
Playing a videogame competitively to be #1 is well an good. Playing a sport to be #1 is well and good. But it can't be the only thing you do.
Tom Brady has 5 Superbowl rings but he's involved with so many other pursuits that he has a full, rich life. He dedicates himself to educating people about what works for him as far as physical and mental preparation in the most grueling and damaging sport around. Frankly, everyone should try and model their approach to life like his. He has always had to work hard to achieve everything he does. He comes in before everyone, everyday, and leaves last. He's always the most prepared, at anything he does. I'm sure a lot more people would feel fulfilled if they put their efforts into many pursuits like he did.
Unfortunately, society doesn't really allow for everyone to live like this. Financially, we become stuck trying to make ends meet rather than producing what we want to. I'd love to put my time into many other activities other than just "work" and then go home, perform maintenance on my life/home, and then get a small portion of time to game/work on personal projects.
Gaming is a positive life enriching activity if used correctly. It's easy to blow it off because one has an addictive personality, but the advantages are real when approached with the right mindset.
I had many friends who grinded from Bronze/Silver/Gold up to higher ranks playing thousands of hours. Frankly though, I think these players would've been better served with more fun casual time killing modes, but like I stated in my original post, the game was not released with this emphasised in the beginning.
I think the multiplayer is plenty accessible to players below Masters level. The matchmaking in SC2 was always more fair than the team based matchmaking games because 1v1 ELO systems are legitimately fair systems, compared to team ELO games where there's a lot more variance in skill.
>The beauty of League/Overwatch/PUBG/CSGO as an esport is the burden of game knowledge is relatively low comparatively.
This statement rings false for me - Overwatch and League (and DotA) are practically impossible for a novice or inexperienced player to follow because the number of unique characters and abilities is overwhelming. Contrast that with CS:GO or PUBG which is much more simple gunplay anyone can understand. In the middle of these extremes is Starcraft 2 where most of the in-game units are based off pre-existing sci-fi lore, and thus the function of the units is far more obvious to a novice spectator.
>RTS are essentially giant paper rock scissors games, but so fast paced it's really hard to get over the initial hump/learning curve, especially with as much micro across multiple groups as SC2 requires to get higher.
That's quite an oversimplification of the strategy required in Starcraft:Brood War or SC2. I'm sure other RTS are like this, but the ability to scout in those games creates a skillful back and forth with how a players build their tech/base/army and evolve their strategy throughout the match.
The problem with games like League & DotA is they're nearly impossible to understand what's going on as a spectator unless you already play the games. They're a victim of their own complexity - over 100 characters each with a minimum of 4 unique abilities. It makes major fights practically impossible to follow as a person who doesn't play the game.
SC2, on the other hand, is much easier to grok as a spectator. It's 1v1, so you know each army is controlled by 1 player, and the capabilities of the units are far more obvious as well, since a lot of them are based on pre-existing science fiction concepts.
League & Dota get far more viewers because the games are far more popular, however, as a spectator sport, they fall short because of their complexity.
SC2 is a beautiful game, as a spectator sport and as a competitive activity. I've put about thousands of hours into the game, achieving Masters in 1v1 ranked 8x. I've thought long and hard about what Blizzard could have done to make the game more popular from the get go. Some of my thoughts:
1) The multiplayer should have been F2P from the beginning, and the campaign should have been a buyable add-on. Valve was already doing this on top of the in-game paid cosmetics, and Blizzard could have easily copied their business model for SC2. The game was ripe for those kind of additions.
2) The original UI was far too heavily focused on 1v1 ranked. The reason games like SC:BW and WC3 had such long-term and widespread appeal was because of how easy the casual modes (custom games, big team games) were to access.
3) Blizzard, in an attempt to prevent another Kespa power grab situation, created very restrictive rules for non-Blizzard SC2 tournaments that effectively prevented a large number of independent tournaments from being run. This goes in stark contrast to a game like DotA 2 where Valve put little regulation on independent tournaments which allowed the scene to thrive organically.
4) The official tournament system for professional play was terribly implemented from the get-go. Region locking was a very short sighted idea used to give a boost to non-Korean players, but it was wholly irrelevant as Korean players won every tournament anyways and effectively made the early rounds of Blizzard tournaments much more boring and predictable because you would have mediocre foreign players getting smashed by the Korean players. If Blizzard did this again, they should have simply let the "best" players in, regardless of their region. This is why the GSL was always the more exciting tournament - the player base, from top to bottom, was always far more talented than the WCS.
5) Implementing MMR decay was a terrible idea - it caused a huge number of competitive players to abandon the game for games like League of Legends and DotA, where they could take a legitimate break from the game and come back and still face similarly talented players. It was good Blizzard went back on this, but they damaged the game's competitive playerbase with this move.
6) For too long, Blizzard was far too afraid to make sweeping changes to their game in the same vein as DotA or League. As a competitive player, I don't mind this much, but to keep players coming back, doing major game altering updates is a guaranteed way to keep your playerbase coming back. Very recently, i.e. with the most previous expansion (Legacy of the Void), Blizzard has been actually doing some serious and interesting changes to the game that I believe will keep it fresh and fun while the core game stays intact.
Making the game F2P is great news, and certainly the book is not closed on SC2. I hope Blizzard does not give up on the game now that it's F2P and instead focuses on growing the game organically again. SC2 tournaments should have the same hype levels as a major boxing match - everyone who follows esports should at least tangentially be aware of it happening. The game has the potential to be that kind of spectator sport, it's just up to Blizzard to keep working on it at this point and keep player interest up as best they can.
I still play the game, albeit much less than I used to. If the playerbase started growing again, I would be tempted to put more time in again. It's still a great game - it always has been.
>don't believe for a second "everyone should own."
You really should own if you're going to stay in the same place. If you can't take care of your place, and you rely on a landlord to do it, you're going to be in for a bad time when you have a landlord that doesn't give a shit. Which a lot of them are.
This to both. However, the problem with the web is there are old implementations that must be maintained in browsers for backwards compatibility. The issue with this is that it increases the barrier to entry for web development because it's much harder for a new person to even know what options to gravitate to.
Of course, there are books and guides to help people, but how would someone figure out which guides are worth it? There are a lot of highly rated books on the topic of web development and if you don't already know what you need, it can be daunting.
Bingo. If this had the tasks split up among multiple threads/processes correctly and using a very fast performing language + good developers, the tickrate is less important. Some army control module could manage the unit micro within the bound of a tick with other modules updating other info the system draws from to perform actions.
I get the feeling software engineers are going to end up net positive in grey matter regardless of their gaming habits just because of the nature of the job.
Thanks. I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that as well. The entire point of Mulan was to show that regardless of your gender you could be a powerful leader and warrior. Her pretending to be a man is there to show you that the gender roles are bunk.