Im all for this. I miss the tactile feedback of older hard drives, you knew the computer was actually doing something. New computers are too quiet, like electric cars.
The game itself is written in JS and packaged up with electron. I used PIXI.js for all the rendering - it's great for 2D-anything really. On the server side, the evaluator is written in node and a bit of php.
I'm aware this tech stack is a bit divisive :) but I made sure it runs just fine at 120 fps on my non-gaming laptop.
Thank you for this! Too bad there isn't an already prepared virtual project where you can view this in 3D. Might be a fun coding project to load the slices into a UI for easier viewing.
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
Not just an online gag, that's related to an excerpt of an alleged December 1997 issue of "Association of Air Force Missileers" on the GLCM Guidance System. Likely submitted in jest.
On the admin side it's gotten worse. Working in IT and having to support Windows 11 through Active Directory is a nightmare now. MS has removed almost all admin control in favor of user choice forcing us into workarounds and hacks to get most things working. It also seems evident they would like Active Directory to go away in favor of their cloud options which are horrible slow and clunky.
> having to support Windows 11 through Active Directory is a nightmare now. MS has removed almost all admin control in favor of user choice
What does that mean - group policy has many fewer policies? Why would Microsoft do that - it is only used in organizations with IT departments, and they definitely want to automate and lock down configuration.
Mr. Robot had one of the craziest endings I have ever seen in a show. I'll admit I had a tough time watching it around S2 because so much was unexplained, and I felt like I was going insane.
So glad I stuck it out though, I still think about it.
Hell, I’d argue a similar prompt could be useful for a lot of people. I use something similar for coding and ask it not to provide direct code and more a guide on coding principals with source links if possible.
one of the more important ones in my opinion would be a prompt to make ChatGPT much less agreeable.
Unless explicitly asked for, it never really challenges your observations and will just keep being supportive and telling you how well of an argument you're making.
I fear this will push even more people into deep rabbit holes they won't be able to get out of because they think this neutral AI has confirmed their suspicions/ideas/observations.
yeah that's actually what I was thinking about. I have a PhD in physics, so I easily notice when ChatGPT just keeps agreeing with me even though we're on very shaky ground. But I worry about the times it does this when we're talking about stuff I'm not as knowledgeable about.
And you can see the influx of people on r/physics and the like who are convinced they've solved dark matter/quantum gravity/... because ChatGPT kept agreeing with them when they presented their ideas to it. Just recently there was a post by a guy who essentially "rediscovered" 17th century physics with the help of ChatGPT but was convinced his formula would explain dark matter because ChatGPT told him so.
How well has that worked for you? Sometimes just hearing other ideas helps get to a solution even if none of the ideas heard were the actual solution. Sometimes, just being forced to get out of the rut you're in at the time by being "forced" to stop to think about something else is all that's needed.
It worked okay at first but seemed to start just giving me answers again after a few questions. This was ChatGPT for reference. I might try something again now that they have "Projects" where you can define a prompt which sticks to the entire project.
The idea was to use ChatGPT as debugging ducky 2.0
