tal

searches

https://pdroms.de/files/nintendo-nintendoentertainmentsystem-nes-famicom-fc/gits-2

GITS2 is a program for adjustment of colour TV sets of system PAL through the game console DENDY (Russian NES). GITS2 is the second (improved) version of the program GITS, which was published in a Russian magazine RADIO number 8 for 2001.

The codes of the ROM (2 Kbyte), videoROM (2 Kbyte) and electrical circuit of the cartridge GITS2 are published in Russian magazine RADIO number 10 for 2002 (www.radio.ru and ftp://ftp.radio.ru/pub/2002/10/gits2/gits2.zip).

I am somewhat-cynically wondering if the optimal political strategy is to sit on Twitter (which has more European voters to see one's actions) and loudly complain about a lack of Twitter alternatives (which probably scores points with European voters) than to actually use a Twitter alternative.

Well...I mean...even assume that they did. Mastodon fits that, and was built specifically to be a Twitter alternative. Heck, even on the Threadiverse, Mbin supports both formats, does both Reddit-style Lemmy/PieFed Threadiverse communities and Twitter-style Mastodon microblogging.

X is no longer a public square

A group of 54 members of the European Parliament called for European alternatives to the dominant social media platforms on Monday.

IIRC the EC actually paid for some of the development of Kbin (now Mbin) with a grant.

The Threadiverse is also social media. I mean, it's distributed and not owned by a single company, and much of it is funded by donations, but...

EDIT: And Mastodon is a direct competitor to Twitter, and it also runs on the Fediverse.

I don't agree with the whole "I hate anyone wealthy" thing that some of the left-wing crowd here has, but at least I can see where people are coming from. But...the bar for having a safe deposit box is pretty low. Depends on the size of the box, but you're talking maybe $50/year in the US? I mean, okay, sure, "wealthy" is something of an arbitrary line, but that's a...pretty low wealth bar for hating people. I just grabbed a pizza last night, and it was something like $25.

I believe that "older" mods can remove other mods, same as on Reddit, though I've never tried. So mods that show up higher on the list of mods in the right-hand sidebar in the Lemmy Web UI for the community.

Or instance admins on the instance where the community lives. They probably won't get involved unless the mod is violating the rules they've set for their instance. Your idea of what constitutes acceptable behavior for the mod and their idea may or may not be the same.

You'd have to talk to either those "more senior" mods or the instance admins and convince one of them that the mod shouldn't be a mod for that community.

Only alternative is going and creating some alternative community elsewhere and drawing users away.

Altman responds to Musk

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll get mud all over you, and the pig enjoys it.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

The Trump tariffs amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,100 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026.

Unless you have some really serious hardware, 24 billion parameters is probably the maximum that would be practical for self-hosting on a reasonable hobbyist set-up.

Eh...I don't know if you'd call it "really serious hardware", but when I picked up my 128GB Framework Desktop, it was $2k (without storage), and that box is often described as being aimed at the hobbyist AI market. That's pricier than most video cards, but an AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX GPU was north of $1k, an NVidia RTX 4090 was about $2k, and it looks like the NVidia RTX 5090 is presently something over $3k (and rising) on EBay, well over MSRP. None of those GPUs are dedicated hardware aimed at doing AI compute, just high-end cards aimed at playing games that people have used to do AI stuff on.

I think that the largest LLM I've run on the Framework Desktop was a 106 billion parameter GLM model at Q4_K_M quantization. It was certainly usable, and I wasn't trying to squeeze as large a model as possible on the thing. I'm sure that one could run substantially-larger models.

EDIT: Also, some of the newer LLMs are MoE-based, and for those, it's not necessarily unreasonable to offload expert layers to main memory. If a particular expert isn't being used, it doesn't need to live in VRAM. That relaxes some of the hardware requirements, from needing a ton of VRAM to just needing a fair bit of VRAM plus a ton of main memory.

'Start adding things like drivable cars

So, first, Starfield is Creation Engine and does have driveable vehicles. I think that if that's the concern, they could do that via releasing the Fallout content on a current version of the engine. Which...frankly, I would like.

But, secondly...

Honestly, I don't really feel like that'd actually add all that much to the experience. Not that it'd be bad, but I think that the game doesn't really suffer much from lack of them. And it'd have, well, balancing effects. Like, a deathclaw is pretty scary if you're someone on foot. If you can just drive away faster than they can run (or, like, crash into them with a car...), it kinda changes the feel of the game.

Maybe you can rebalance that, but then you've got maybe NPCs in vehicles (and the associated technical work), and melee creatures being eliminated and...just...it's necessarily a different environment than someone with a backpack and a gun and a dog on foot.

Thematically, I mean...the Fallout games mostly kinda take place in what amounts to a fallen civilization. I guess that there's The Institute in Fallout 4. But for most of the series, you kind of need a big supply chain to build and maintain automobiles. Fuel alone isn't trivial, if you think about the world-spanning industry that it is. In Fallout 1, where you could acquire a car (though not experience driving it, just use it to rapidly move from place to place) fuel was still a problem. Like, the Fallout series has generally been about someone wandering through the wreckage of what was. Vehicles are something we can use in daily life because we aren't living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Another issue is map size. Like...I think that you need to have a certain density of scripted, hand-crafted events on the map to let people just stumble across interesting things at a reasonable clip. Once you introduce vehicles, you can move across a map much more quickly. So do you let someone zip across the map in short order, lose some of the feeling of scale and make things feel smaller in a vehicle, or do you reduce the density of the placed content, make the world feel empty on foot?

Like, in general, my own feeling

and I'm sure that there are people that will disagree

is that while I like Bethesda's games, if they err, it's on the side of being too broad and not "deep" enough for given functionality. So you get things that feel kind of like they added an engine feature and just enough gameplay to show it off. Like, they have an in-game building feature that's really cool, but they haven't done a whole lot with it from a gameplay standpoint

they had that one battle with the Mirelurk Queen with placeable defenses at The Castle in Fallout 4, which was probably the most-notable.

In general, I'd rather have, say, a better-balanced perk system and better use of the existing engine functionality than spanning out into more stuff, going even more-broad and more-shallow.

Starfield has a visually-impressive terrain generator. Like, Bethesda can make some quite pretty procedurally-generated terrain...but they never integrated it into gameplay. Like, the combat doesn't depend much on terrain, so there's just not a lot of point in the terrain being changed up. When you fight enemies, it doesn't matter much whether you're in a canyon or an open plain or on a hill. The reason roguelikes do well with procedurally-generated worlds is because they generate factors that affect gameplay, make you change up how you play. Bethesda spent a lot of effort making that terrain generator...but didn't really get around to making much gameplay with it.

If they start going out and adding a lot of vehicle stuff, that seems like it'd make the world even broader. I mean, I've already seen people say, in Starfield, that okay, sure you can get a vehicle and drive it around, but there's not a lot of point. It's not like they built a Mad Max-style driving-oriented game. That'd take a lot of work to do something like that.

All else held equal, sure, I'd love if they did all that extra stuff and threw it into Fallout 5 and fleshed out all their existing features. But...I just really want fuller use of the existing functionality they have, more gameplay that uses that, and doing that competes with development resources for adding new features that then need to have gameplay built around them.

Fuck no. I don’t want to go back to downtown DC and its maps that were smaller than fucking 1v1 quake area maps.

I mean, some of that is also the time. Fallout 3 was done in 2008. That's almost twenty years back. Say a typical computer that it might be played on then was maybe three years old? You can only fit so much in both VRAM and main memory on a computer from 21 years back.

Like, one popular mod for Skyrim I recall merged city areas with the outside, surrounding areas. Bethesda split them up back in the day to keep resource requirements down, but today, that's an optimization that you don't really need. You can just throw hardware at the problem.