benni

All that I wanted were things I had before.

All that I needed, I never needed more.

All of my questions were answers to my sins.

All of my endings were waiting to begin.

Don't worry bro, I voted them back up for you. Except the Peter Griffnyn one, I downvoted that too.

Same in Germany, I think this common in many countries, no?

Moderation isn't necessary if you're willing to just throw the whole site away when it turns to shit.

Well, yeah. Storing your potatoes in the dark is also not "necessary" if you're willing to just throw them away when they sprout. But wanting to preserve things we like is a given to most people.

He looks kinda like a mix of Putin and Zuckerberg.

I hate him so much bros

Should ask somewhere else, you won't find these people in a federated open-source communist link aggregator website.

It's been two days, how did it go??

As a background, I loved the Ezio games and also enjoyed AC3 somewhat. I also love open world RPGs in general. But I hate grinding and mandatory generic side quests.

I tried it years ago, but did not like it and stopped playing after some hours. Assassinations via sneaking up and one-shotting were not possible AFAIR, which ruined the fun on assassinations for me. RPG mechanics like leveling and skills were present, but were designed in a way that added nothing of value to the experience while requiring a boring grind. There were many side quests, but they felt boring and generic and. I could have overlooked these things and concentrated on the main story, but engaging in the level grind and the generic side quests was to a large degree mandatory to be able to continue the story. That made me feel like I'm wasting my time and made me stop playing.

Overall I felt that the game tried to find some compromise between story-based action adventure and open-world RPG, but just ended up combining the worst of both worlds. It felt like the RPG features were pushed in top-down ("everyone is doing open world, levels and skill trees now, we should put that in the game") without any regard to WHY these features work well in some games and how they have to be integrated in order to make the experience more fun.

This article of a dentist testing other dentists gives some more anecdotal evidence: https://www.rd.com/article/how-honest-are-dentists/

In that case it actually makes sense because the main goal is to make an artificial entity appear intelligent to the player. This is not the same as calling all ML algorithms/models AI.

I'm kind of dissatisfied with the answers here. As soon as you talk about actually drawing a line in the real world, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers stops making sense. In other words, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers is a concept that describes numbers to an accuracy that is impossible to achieve in real life. So you cannot draw a line with a clearly irrational length, but neither can you draw a line with a clearly rational length. You can only define theoretical mathematical constructs which can then be classified as rational or irrational, if applicable.

More mathematically phrased: in real life, your line to which you assign the length L will always have an inaccuracy of size x>0. But for any real L, the interval (L-x;L+x) contains both an infinite number of rational and an infinite number of irrational numbers. Note that this is independent of how small the value of x is. This is why I said that the accuracy, at which the concept of rational and irrational numbers make sense, is impossible to achieve in real life.

So I think your confusion stems from mixing the lengths we assign to objects in the real world with the lengths we can accurately compute for mathematical objects that we have created in our minds using axioms and definitions.