I have to imagine it’s to prevent consumer confusion. To the average consumer the two look the same, and it could be confusing if a shop is selling “Game [Physical]” and “Game [Game-Key Card]” (and “Game [Digital]”). Nintendo just wants Physical and Digital.

That being said it’s a policy and one that I think they should change. Or better yet sunset Game-Key card, and just have physical or digital.

but where is the problem here? You are getting ports of games.

One of the questions the author asks is exactly that, are you really getting ports of games?

how many people are actually playing these AI-assisted ports? Not watching demonstrations, not congratulating their creators, but installing them, putting significant time into them and enjoying the games themselves.

The author doesn’t have an answer, but it is a question that requires further investigation.

If instead of AI we had a magical machine that gave you a bike. That’s great! You can do all sorts of things with your bike. So you hop on down to the movie theater, but the wheels fall off half way. You can’t fix the bike, so you walk home and miss the movie.

Now you’re right that any hobby project might get abandoned. But there were also generally only a few hobby projects. They had different reputations and track records.

Back to our bike example. Now we have hundreds of thousands of different bikes being printed from our magical machine. How do we pick the right one? What if all the bikes fail? What if there are a few that are good? How do we find the good ones?

The answer here might just be waiting to see how this all shakes out. Everyone has an oven at home, and everyone can make cookies. It’s great that everyone can do that. But not everyone can be a baker. Or I’m wrong. Maybe with AI everyone can be a baker. That is one of the arguments.

mfw

You look like Jim to me. Congrats, she found you!

So I’ve never milked a cow before but I completely agree with you that my first instinct is to pull, so non-pullable teats is a design flaw.

But then I looked online and it seems that for a real teat the instructions say, “Don’t pull”.

So maybe, just maybe, the warnings are there to teach the proper way to milk a BBQ sauce teat.

The club scene in the third act is so much fun.

Sadly, yes. It is real.

an emotional 1,323-word diatribe

I also genuinely thought this was just a fake shit post.

I would expect the audience for each to be different, although I am surprised to see Wildwood is rated PG-13. Clayface is R rated, and for adults. You Can See Everything is R rated, and for adults. So I would think Wildwood could sneak into the “for kids” category, but PG-13 probably pushes people away.

To be clear I’m actually more interested in seeing it knowing it’s PG-13. It’s rare we get more mature animated feature films. Plus Kubo and the Two Strings was an excellent film, so the same studio and director, I bet it’s good.

But… To your point, October has been a surprisingly busy month for movies.

It’s because “you can see everything”. I’m sure Nathan asked if he could film him in the shower as a joke. Billy and Elizabeth are allegedly participating in the documentary in order to be transparent, and being naked is being (physically) transparent.

Within the past week I watched “You Can See Everything”. I don’t want to oversell the film, but you should absolutely see it. It is worth your time.

Front Right is King, it’s where The Pan lives. The Pan is the heart of the meal. I am The Man I Am because of The Pan!

I’d watch.

I love how Nathan just says what everyone is thinking. The eggs. Billy just grabs the bowl and starts beating the eggs. Elizabeth passes it off as a little quirk of the relationship, but it’s just a clear example of Billy being controlling. Nathan of course just calls it out.

I think that’s fair, but just because everyone else is wrong doesn’t mean I don’t want to be right. But I’m glad I’m not horribly confused, the terms are just misused a lot.

I read this over and while lengthy I think we’re largely on the same page, which is good because I thought this was all too new and I was way off.

I know people sneak into spoiler threads so let me start by saying, yes, this film is incredible. Whatever you think about Elizabeth Holmes going into this film, you’ll walk out with a whole new set of thoughts.

It’s a long film (3 hours), but I do recommend seeing it in a theater, or at the very least with other people, because their reactions are part of the film. There are hilarious moments in this film, there are moments where you’ll say “What the fuck” for lack of a better reaction. It’s not as “awkward” or “cringe” as other Nathan Fielder projects, but perhaps the theater experience is what lessened it. As for the length itself, it’s basically two films, and you’ll know when shifting from the first to the second, there is a clear fade to black.

Ok, spoilers now.

The film starts off good but the “Who’s on first?” moment broke me (and Nathan) and is when the film shifted to great. Elizabeth has to be full of shit, right? She dug a lie too deep and so she has to play this “innocent” character. Right? Or does she really not see it?

But of course the real villain of the film, Billy the husband. I think somewhere in him he thinks he’s doing the right/good thing. I think he thinks he’s protecting Elizabeth. It’s abusive in a “he beats me because he loves me” kind of way (and to clarify I don’t think Billy is physically abusive, but he is controlling abusive.)

But also, is Billy just the new Sunny (Elizabeth’s former romantic and business partner)? Is Elizabeth falling into her old patterns? Does she realize it? Or did she pick Billy because he can be the “bad cop” in the relationship?

I have so many other thoughts, but the unanswered question, the New York Times reporter quote. Did Elizabeth say she created a character? Did she slip? Or did the reporter mishear her? Nathan and Amanda (who I forgot to say is amazing in this film) have the moment where even Nathan isn’t quite sure he recalls their conversation correctly.

The story of Elizabeth Holmes is far from over. I don’t know what to expect next.

I’ve been trying to understand the terms and the opening graphic on this site did a good breakdown.

So my understanding is that a decomp or decompilation is turning the machine code into something human readable. It’s the first step but technically isn’t anything the average person can use because it still needs to then be (re)compiled into a game someone can run.

However the term “decomp” in general usage refers to the human readable middle step, AND a way to create something for the average person.

Versus a recomp or recompilation is performing the conversion of machine code to some middle state, then immediately (re)compiling it into a game the average person can run.

However the term “recomp” in general usage refers to the same, but always with the use of AI.

Is that right?

I held my phone upside down to make the joke work. 🤝

If you haven’t seen “Digger” I really do recommend it.

It’s frustrating to see so many comments about films having people begging for something new and original, and then when that happens everyone just shits on Hollywood and actors.

The film may be a box office flop because it took a risk. The budget is too big and it’s not a “Top Gun” type film is that going to rake in millions of dollars. I like those type of films, and if you expected “Digger” to be one… Fair enough, you might not enjoy the film.

But if you give the film a little freedom and a chance, you’ll get an interesting story. Also it’s hilarious and the film knows it.

I saw it yesterday and it’s a great film. Everyone I know who’s seen it has enjoyed it.

I had seen the articles about it not making money, which is a problem, but not necessarily a reflection of the film itself.

I was surprised reviewers were treating it so harshly. I absolutely have issues with the film but it’s still a solid movie. I definitely left the theater with interesting things to think about.

I’m reminded of the recent film “The Drama”. The summary of that film is “A happily-engaged couple is put to the test when an unexpected turn sends their wedding week off the rails.” If you’ve seen the film, sure… Technically that’s true. But the film is about A LOT of other things that are much more interesting. (I don’t want to spoil more, but it’s an excellent film but as fair warning it deals with heavy issues.)

I think “Digger” is like that. The trailer and summary pitch a simple plot, “The most powerful man in the world embarks on a frantic mission to prove he is humanity’s savior before the disaster he’s unleashed destroys everything.” Again, technically that’s true. You will see that story in the film. But you’re also going to see something else and that something else is interesting and entertaining.

I really enjoyed this film. For someone who only saw the trailer or only read the summary, there is more to this film. The film has a shift or a twist about 20 minutes in that really has you start to question and wonder what story the film is trying to tell.

It’s also hilarious. I found myself laughing throughout the film, the cat in the opening is just ridiculous, the President and his cabinet are ridiculous, and of course Digger himself is an over the top ridiculous character.