least that’s supposed to deliver explosive surprises!

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 wrong irrelevant.

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.

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!

“debunking” requires a source… otherwise they just put forth a claim

deleted by creator

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!

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…

i looked it over and … holy mother of strawman.

that’s so NOT related to what I’ve been saying at all.

i never said anything about the advances in AI, or how it’s not really AI because it’s just a computer program, or anything of the sort.

my entire argument is that the definition you are using for intelligence, artificial or otherwise, is wrong.

my argument isn’t even related to algorithms, programs, or machines.

what these tools do is not intelligence: it’s mimicry.

that’s the correct word for what these systems are capable of. mimicry.

intelligence has properties that are simply not exhibited by these systems, THAT’S why it’s not AI.

call it what it is, not what it could become, might become, will become. because that’s what the wiki article you linked bases its arguments on: future development, instead of current achievement, which is an incredibly shitty argument.

the wiki talks about people using shifting goal posts in order to “dismiss the advances in AI development”, but that’s not what this is. i haven’t changed what intelligence means; you did! you moved the goal posts!

I’m not denying progress, I’m denying the claim that the goal has been reached!

that’s an entirely different argument!

all of the current systems, ML, LLM, DNN, etc., exhibit a massive advancement in computational statistics, and possibly, eventually, in AI.

calling what we have currently AI is wrong, by definition; it’s like saying a single neuron is a brain, or that a drop of water is an ocean!

just because two things share some characteristics, some traits, or because one is a subset of the other, doesn’t mean that they are the exact same thing! that’s ridiculous!

the definition of AI hasn’t changed, people like you have simply dismissed it because its meaning has been eroded by people trying to sell you their products. that’s not ME moving goal posts, it’s you.

you said a definition of 70 years ago is “old” and therefore irrelevant, but that’s a laughably weak argument for anything, but even weaker in a scientific context.

is the Pythagorean Theorem suddenly wrong because it’s ~2500 years old?

ridiculous.

just because the marketing idiots keep calling it AI, doesn’t mean it IS AI.

words have meaning; i hope we agree on that.

what’s around nowadays cannot be called AI, because it’s not intelligence by any definition.

imagine if you were looking to buy a wheel, and the salesperson sold you a square piece of wood and said:

“this is an artificial wheel! it works exactly like a real wheel! this is the future of wheels! if you spin it in the air it can go much faster!”

would you go:

“oh, wow, i guess i need to reconsider what a wheel is, because that’s what the salesperson said is the future!”

or would you go:

“that’s idiotic. this obviously isn’t a wheel and this guy’s a scammer.”

if you need to redefine what intelligence is in order to sell a fancy statistical model, then you haven’t invented intelligence, you’re just lying to people. that’s all it is.

the current mess of calling every fancy spreadsheet an “AI” is purely idiots in fancy suits buying shit they don’t understand from other fancy suits exploiting that ignorance.

there is no conspiracy here, because it doesn’t require a conspiracy; only idiocy.

p.s.: you’re not the only one here with university credentials…i don’t really want to bring those up, because it feels like devolving into a dick measuring contest. let’s just say I’ve done programming on industrial ML systems during my bachelor’s, and leave it at that.