Etc. This stuff was very real and is a ten second search away, maybe try that before accusing parent of having a faulty memory because it doesn’t agree with yours.
Those weren't advertisements. The browser was packaged with other software and automatically installed if you didn't catch it and prevent it. I'm pretty sure it also made itself the default browser during the installation without user interaction.
There are screenshots of the installers in those links.
Paying a second of CPU time is an inconvenience to a user but trivial for LLM scraping.
The GPU cost to pretrain on that page once will dwarf by 2-3 OOMs the CPU cost to compute Anubis, scrape and post process it. And you’re not going to just train on it once!
At best you’re creating a speed bump for wannabe players scraping with no real plan. The folks training models people use just do not care.
LLMs are also very good at writing code for newly invented languages, especially if they can execute it and iterate. I strongly believe the barrier to switch languages is lowered in a post LLM world.
Ten years ago I was at a startup where we used Datomic, and it was okay, but six months in the sales team was like “ok how do I run SQL queries so I can triage leads”. We had no answer of course.
Today it would simply be: type what you want in natural language and we’ll generate the query with Claude.
I just tried one representative query from that startup against a hypothetical datalog query tool in Rust and it did just fine.
I did this with our team: I created a schema.md document with an LLM-friendly explanation of the schema, and walked the whole team through how to create a Grafana query using an LLM and this document.
Within a couple of weeks we have totally non-technical folks with very sophisticated queries in their dashboards. It works fine.
It was very cut-and-paste, though, and I'm working (when I get the chance) on doing this via a chat interface where the LLM can interact directly with the database and Grafana to make it smoother.
So I think the answer is not necessarily new languages, just better integration with the final interface. In an ideal world we should be able to ask in chat "what were the sales numbers for last quarter for APAC excluding the three largest customers?" and get an answer near-instantly, and then we don't really need to deal with queries or languages at all.
Yeah, but it was a lot of questioning and refining to get it to understand the wrinkles and edge cases. I think we're on about version 5 of the doc now
I agree that an LLM could also generate the code for a new query language. But my point is that fewer people will attempt to author a new query language in the first place because an LLM will be writing the queries either way. So the effort would be less impactful.
I have an implicit belief that SQL isn't the most effective low level language we could have and LLMs will free us up to explore that space, similar to asm.js -> WASM. But I'm open to being wrong about that.
I think it strikes a good balance between still human-readable and low-ish.. any lower I suspect you'd need to dedicate a lot more documentation else where..
What about cases where e.g. there's an earthquake with thousands of incidents and you need to triage help to the worst? It's not common, but there are absolutely cases where small amounts of intelligence applied in parallel is a genuine advantage.
M:N distribution itself has been massively devalued in Space Age - it’s so cheap and easy to build everything from scratch in situ with the new production buildings.
Eg you don’t need city blocks making circuits, just pipe in molten metal and make them with foundries and EM plants. And then you also get steel, copper wire, gears, whatever else you might need.
There are a few exceptions of course, like lubricant for electric engines, but it’s not nearly as complicated as it was pre Space Age.
Washing ore is probably the easiest solution - research high levels of mining productivity, put quality modules in drills, filter off uncommon+, and loop them through recyclers until they are at the desired quality level.
It’s inefficient but has a very low cognitive load.
You can improve the efficiency a little by increasing the quality floor each level, eg rare iron ore, epic iron plate, legendary steel. But in my post endgame playthrough I was drowning in so much legendary ore with this method I didn’t bother.
Yes. Quality boosts storage for wagons and speed for trains. Also unloading is more compact due to inserter belt side selection.
I did a 1m eSPM base though, and I don’t think the totality of all of that would bring me back to trains. Belts are extremely reliable, and I have never managed to make trains so.
Trains don't need to be optimal, they just need to be viable. The fun makes them optimal. I think the quality, speed, and belt improvements did enough to return them to this balance (but I have not played, so I can't say myself).
For complex recipe graphs beyond vanilla train routing is also way more efficient. You get to reuse the same rail network, and sometimes not have to route dedicated belts for 6 low throuput ingredients from all over the map
I feel like a lot of the challenge in early Pyanodons is place-and-route and belt congestion. Unlocking trains feels amazing. They're definitely optimal for a lot of recipes in that mod I think
> For complex recipe graphs beyond vanilla train routing is also way more efficient
This had never ocurred to me. Starting to develop a picture in my head that looks a lot like train-served dropshipping. Continuous vs demand signals like top-up and running out? The space savings seem extreme.
I haven't played the space expansion, but from old vanilla I only used trains for bringing ores to the main base. For rare low throughout recipies the flying bots (I forget the name for them) worked well, and towards the end of the game they got pretty fast as well.
As a longtime fan of trains in games like OpenTTD, it always felt like there wasn't enough of a focus on trains. Arguably this is something that Satisfactory did slightly better, there was more reason to use them there (that game certainly has other weaknesses though, and overall I prefer Factorio).
I'm am curious how you used satisfactory trains - I always found the satisfactory stations to be so overwhelmingly huge that they basically didn't fit anywhere (unless I build a layer of foundations a couple of hundred feet in the sky, which feels like cheating)
I don't care about aesthetics in factory games (which is a reason I prefer Factorio to Satisfactory, there is way less focus on building pretty factories), that probably helps. I'll happily build a massive factory with very few pillars to hold it aloft, with a bunch of train stations on the side. And to be fair, many machines in Satisfactory are also massive.
I found that the way the resources are spread out in the games and the amount needed for various recipes and the amount of scale you needed to beat the game lead to more trains in Satisfactory. In particular it made it such that spread out smaller factories near resources that then transported intermediate products to big central factories made more sense. In addition, since resource nodes are infinite you don't need to keep moving the mines all the time like in Factorio, so building additional local infrastructure is more viable than in Factorio.
Because the world is hand crafted and more rugged it also means running belts all over the map is less viable, building one long difficult rail that can be used by a bunch of separate transports makes even more sense than in Factorio.
So in summary, I think it is a bunch of small things that all nudge me more towards trains in Satisfactory than in Factorio.
I agree they’ll be viable. They’re much harder to use but roughly equally good.
Also my late game experience is probably not representative of the phase just after victory where trains may have a slight edge - there could be a sweet spot there where the decoupling is worth it because you can horizontally scale through bottlenecks.
By the end I was using dedicated patches for each science so trains just get in the way.
they are getting better in 2.1. They get bigger and faster with quality, but the biggest win is the ability to direct unload from the landing pad to bigger trains via the new landing pad unloading bay, within a reasonable range of the landing pad.
