I have! Many times. I am one of those who is not nostalgic with D1 simply because I did not finish it until late (the first time I seriously dived through it was 5 years ago).
Could you point out things that I said that are inaccurate or incorrect?
Good question, I think both games are masterpieces each in their own way.
I personally prefer D1 because it's more focused on tactical gameplay than D2. If you play it right you can tackle the whole game without drinking a lot of potions. D1 rewards both the "skill" of the player aka how good they are at the game, and also the character progression in itself. However D1 lacks a good endgame (although some fellas did engage in PvP fights and PvP tournaments). But there are mods out there that expand the challenge in interesting ways.
D2 is more focused around build and playstyle variety, character progression and trading. It does have a bit of tactical gameplay but it's mostly common sense.
I think D1 is more single-player oriented where D2 is more multi-player oriented. I enjoyed a lot D2:R when it came out so I do like D2 too! I only place it below D1 because of personal taste.
I disagree that you owe a face to face conversation. No one should forced to go meet someone if they don't feel like it.
In the context of dating, if you get ghosted, consider that the person is not interested in you after all - and just move on. No big deal.
Negativity. It's ok to criticize, but there was something about Reddit that encouraged people to bash each others until one side wins instead of agreeing to disagree and move on.
I don't want them making money out of the content I voluntarily and freely created. I was contributing in subs like C_programming to help newcomers. I have been thinking that all these posts I made will help the next AI - and Reddit (not me) will get paid for it.
So I mass edited each post and comment I made. They won't get away with my data. My data belongs to me, not them.
Reddit broke my trust. No way I'm going back there unless a major change occurs such as the CEO leaving to make place for a new one who is not as profit driven. But no way that's gonna happen
Ich spreche nur ein bischen Deutsch aber ich verstehe dieses Meme !
I think having no reputation point is a good thing, it gives no incentive to post low-effort content just to get reputation points.
One key difference I found is the lack of user karma. You have no incentive to post something "just to get karma" because there is no global karma on your profile.
This encourages to post what you want to post instead of posting something that someone posted years ago because it's easy free karma
I'm all in to get programming classes where children learn to code on PCs. That's a high pass for me. But AFAIK children aren't doing programming on their phones.
In general i doubt using a phone at school is going to help them program or teach them about technology. They have plenty of time to explore phones on their own when they get home, especially now that kids don't go much outside anymore. It's not like a school ban would be cutting that away from them.
We can all agree that alcohol isn't bad by itself and that we can learn to use it safely (don't drink too much, knowing when we had enough etc..). And yet we keep away alcohol from children. Why? Because it is a well-known fact that children may not have the capability to limit themselves; they might very well become addicted and fall into it.
Why should it be any different for mobile phones? We know it can become an addiction. And we also know that children do not have the means to limit themselves because of their young age.
Deliberately letting a kid having a phone for an indefinite amount of time is being irresponsible. What would be responsible is only allowing to use the phone for a limited time.
Schools banning phone could be one way towards that. It would be a good way too because the kid would not be suffering from any social pressure from their peers as everyone would be concerned with the ban.
Il casse les idées reçues de certains média comme quoi un jour l'IA pourra complètement remplacer l'être humain.
Il explique (grosso modo) que l'IA ne sera jamais meilleure que nous sur l'ensemble des domaines. Tu peux faire une IA spécialisée dans un domaine, et l'IA sera sûrement meilleure que toi (par exemple aux échecs). Si on était capable de produire une IA pour chaque domaine concevable - alors peut-être que l'IA nous dépasserait. Mais le nombre de domaines étant infini, ça ne sera jamais le cas.
Même dans les domaines spécialisés, l'IA est complètement inefficace en terme de ressources par rapport à un être humain. Les deux exemples majeurs qu'il donne pour illustrer ça :
La conclusion de sa vidéo c'est que l'IA c'est juste un outil. Un outil très puissant et qui sera certainement meilleur que nous dans certains domaines pour lesquels il a été conçu. Mais qu'il y aura toujours besoin d'un être humain pour le manier, et qu'on est à des années lumières de l'IA "Hollywoodienne" qui serait réellement intelligente.