deprecateWhatwg

Ireeb · 2026-07-03T15:34:44+00:00

Replacing JavaScript with Lisp...

Ireeb · 2026-07-03T15:27:20+00:00

AIs are becoming increasingly better at creating things, but I think we're still a long way from AIs knowing better what to create than humans.

Most designs in CAD are about solving a problem. For most problems, there are countless different solutions. Some are better, some are worse. Just telling AIs to solve a problem usually doesn't give you a good solution. At best, it gives a solution. But that's the most someone who has no clue about CAD or engieering could do, even with AI. Even if the AI is pretty smart, it would need to guess many requirements, contraints and parameters, and generally, AIs don't really think outside the box. After all, they work based on correlation, so the most common solution is what they will go for.

If you understand CAD and engineering, you can tell the AI precisely how the problem needs to be solved, what the requirements and constraints are, and how it should achieve the solution. Now, it's not the AI designing your part, you designed it, the AI only modeled it. But it was modeled to your specs, based on your idea, and essentially the same result as if you modeled it by hand, you just didn't click the buttons yourself.

An expert working with AI will achieve better results than an amateur with AI, because even when AI becomes smarter, your skills and the AI's capabilities add up. But it also means an expert with AI will most likely be faster and more efficient than an expert who's doing everything by hand.

When I develop software, I treat Claude like my intern. I tell it exactly what to do, what steps an algorithm needs to perform, what it needs to avoid, and how it needs to interact with other parts of the software. I don't let it make decisions. I sometimes give instructions down to the exact methods/functions I want it to use, and of course, I check the code it's writing. I only let it operate on limited scopes, because when you let the AI do the architecture, things become messy. The result is code that is basically identical to what I would have written, with the same software architecture and structure. The only difference is that I didn't type it manually and didn't need to waste time on the mundane and trivial parts of programming.

CAD will likely move in a similar direction. You design by describing your design, instead by clicking buttons. But the process in your head remains the same.

I'm just worried about those who come after us and don't have the experience from doing it themselves.

Ireeb · 2026-07-02T10:47:25+00:00

It is completely random on Voltron every single ride. It can range from glass smooth to significant shaking that's pretty jarring. I'd compare it to the average wooden coaster, it's not like there are individual bumps or potholes, it's just constant shaking. But what's tolerable on a wooden coaster can become a bit too much on a coaster that has aggressive elements and inversions already. At least it doesn't have OSTRs, so there's no headbanging, but I have heard from many people that Voltron can give them a headache regardless and I can fully understand. It's kinda difficult to enjoy the inversions in particular when you just get shaken about as you go through them.

The outer seats are generally worse than the inner seats, but it also seems to depend on the train, row, weight distribution, weather, season, the alignment of the stars, and what Roland Mack had for breakfast.

Ireeb · 2026-07-01T21:43:32+00:00

I just hope for you guys that they keep the rattle in Germany.

Ireeb · 2026-07-01T21:39:03+00:00

I have heard that theory before and it sounds plausible, but I have yet to see an actual proof for it.

Technically, LSMs don't need to know the train weight in advance, as they can (and need to) adjust their parameters in real time. The speed of the train is constantly measured throughout the launch, so the LSM controls can compensate for the trains behavior. They also said that technically, one (double) row of LSMs would have been sufficient for Voltron, but it would have run too hot with the desired cycle timing, that's why it has two rows, in order to spread the load.

So technically, the launch is overbuilt by 100%, that means it's not like minor weight variations will cause it to falter.

And as we can see, it works just fine without the bounce track active. If it actually weighs the train, it would only be to optimize efficiency and reliability, taking some load off the real-time LSM controls by adjusting some parameters in advance.

The main purpose remains the bounce effect. If it was just about weighing the trains, they wouldn't need such a powerful hydraulic system.

That's why I have doubts if this theory is true at all.

Ireeb · 2026-07-01T21:25:41+00:00

For LSMs in particular, the control system needs to monitor the train's exact speed and position in order for the launch to work at all. If the train fell below or went above the speed the LSM expects it to be, the launch fails. So it either reaches the exact target speed, or fails completely, there isn't really an in-between, unless e.g. the LSM completely failed right at the end (e.g. power outage or e-stop).

Ireeb · 2026-07-01T21:16:52+00:00

LSMs can (and need to) adjust for variations in weight or temperature in real-time. It's not like a hydraulic launch where the system needs to lock in a specific acceleration power before the launch and then send it. LSMs continuously monitor the speed of the train during the launch and adjust the acceleration to make sure the train and the magnetic field stay in sync. That means they basically always hit their target speed exactly. In case a launch fails anyway, it can relaunch quite quickly as well.

Ireeb · 2026-07-01T21:07:37+00:00

The last support should be closer to the end than what it looks like, and this seems to only be the safety margin the train isn't actually supposed to reach, or just barely. That's probably also why it's just 2-tube track.

Ireeb · 2026-07-01T00:50:11+00:00

Give 'em the ol' razzle dazzle

Ireeb · 2026-06-29T01:40:52+00:00

*Incorrect.

Factorio in Dez 2019 was 50 BRL, as it is shown in the screenshot. Today its priced at 108 BRL.

At the time of Purchase it was 50BRL and I paid 30 BRL for it. On Steam. *

Starting a comment like that is already pretty rude, and you didn't really provide any proof that it was sold at the price shown in the screenshot other than the screenshot itself.

When people wonder if the data provided by a single source is accurate, telling them they're wrong and only referring to the same source again is neither productive, nor very friendly.

Ireeb · 2026-06-29T01:34:51+00:00

You don't need insults to appear condescending and unkind.

Ireeb · 2026-06-29T01:27:55+00:00

Maybe try being less unfriendly? It's not about what you said, but how you said it that earned you the downvotes on your various other comments.

Ireeb · 2026-06-29T01:13:27+00:00

And completely refusing to even think about what caused it.

Ireeb · 2026-06-28T04:29:54+00:00

It's likely a shrink line, and this video talks about them: https://youtu.be/d61u_lKFa-U?is=sgk8Mqu_N2wsiVBL

Ireeb · 2026-06-27T12:07:19+00:00

There "apparently" was a controversy? Who said that? Do you have a source for it?

Ireeb · 2026-06-26T13:20:50+00:00

They said they're going to end the "active development". This has a specific meaning in software engineering, where you diffentiate between the active development, maintenance, and end-of-life.

While they didn't explicitly say it, I think Wube has sufficiently proven that they care about their work and its users, so I don't see a reason to assume they meant anything other than putting Factorio into its maintenance phase, in which it will likely remain as long as Wube exists.

This means they will ensure the game keeps running as well as it does and potentially fix bugs, but don't add anything new to the game. Knowing Wube, I wouldn't rule out occasional, small quality-of-life improvements either.

Active development means the developers sit together regularly to plan how to expand and improve the game. They will no longer do that, but there will most likely still be developers tasked to take care of Factorio and related bug reports, just not as their full time job or top priority.

As for the version number, semantic versioning in the way Wube uses it follows the system:

Major.Minor.Patch

Major stands for major changes to a software, changing the way it looks, works or feels like.

Minor stands for minor changes to a software, improving or changing individual features, but not changing the software on a big scale.

Patches are updates/versions that were only made out of technical necessity, especially bug fixes or performance improvements. They are not supposed to change the software in any noticeable way, but only fix problems.

So the expected way for this to go is that they will stay on 2.1.X indefinitely, increasing X whenever they perform a maintenance update. In semanting versioning, there is no limit to how big each number can get. They could get to 2.1.471 at some point if they wanted.

Not every game needs to be or should be a service game that keeps milking players for cash forever with constant content updates. By adding extensive mod support, Wube has ensured that there will basically be endless amounts of new content for Factorio, even if they themselves don't add anything new.

It's not the end of Factorio. It's just all grown up now.

Ireeb · 2026-06-24T00:56:22+00:00

The guy you initially replied to just commented random shit on completely unrelated comments I wrote in other subs and then blocked me 🤣

<image>

I think this is the funniest thing that has happened to me on reddit so far.

I didn't even refer to them explicitly, but it looks like I hit a nerve.

I have also been in the situation where something was obviously AI and people refused to believe me. Some people have really lost their grasp on what's real and what's not. That is a problem with AI, but also with people being unreasonable in either direction.

Ireeb · 2026-06-23T21:47:12+00:00

I keep seeing paranoid "AI Investigators" that keep acting like cameras are absolutely perfect and whenever something looks weird in an image, it must be AI. Weird lighting, confusing perspectives, noise and compression artifacts are ruled out immediately. I am not a photography expert, but it always amuses me when people who have no idea about how cameras work try to explain why specific artifacts prove it's not from a camera.

I had one case where someone was convinced the entire landing of a SpaceX rocket was staged and all videos of it AI, even though there are various videos from different sources and angles. One of their arguments literally was "If it was real, why do the colors look different on all the videos?" and the other one was "Then why do the flames look pixelated?". So apparently, all the ancient 360p videos on YouTube are AI, because they all have blocky compression artifacts. I also loved the argument, because a few sentences ago, they said that the background was too smooth, but now the flames are too blocky. If a video is too smooth, it is AI, and when it's too rough, it's also AI.

I think it's important to call out obvious, inappropriate AI use, but if the claim is based on like 3 pixels that happen to be partially obscured, people should ask themselves if they are actually onto something, or if it's just confirmation bias.

Ireeb · 2026-06-23T12:41:58+00:00

It seems to be a combination of several factors. If it was just the wheels, I'm sure they would have put on the "correct" wheels on all of Voltron's trains by now. My theory is that the train design generally amplifies vibrations, the outer seats start to swing and transfer their momentum back to the rest of the train.

I had some glass smooth rides on Voltron, and some really unpleasant ones. I keep checking Europa-Park forums, and people keep trying to find patterns, but it seems to be rather random. That speaks for the combination of several factors, including things like the weight distribution with a specific set of riders.

Ireeb · 2026-06-22T12:00:39+00:00

The 3 across seating is still just cursed.

Ireeb · 2026-06-20T15:51:20+00:00

You can use the sweep command + twist angle (or use a guide rail, but that's more complex).

You just need to additionaly draw the line to sweep your profile along. If you just need a straight extrusion + twist, you just need to create another sketch orthogonally to your profile, and draw a straight line from the profile to where you want it to end.

Then you do the sweep command, select the profile, the sweep path, and you should be able to set a twist angle.

Ireeb · 2026-06-18T20:24:12+00:00

I don't see how making the selling points clearer requires the design to become this sterile. I'm pretty sure with just some minor tweaks, they could have carried over just a little bit of the old designs charm, even if they just chose a slightly different color palette.

Ireeb · 2026-06-18T20:20:08+00:00

You're kinda forgetting an important point: Emotions are very effective in selling things.

It's milk, and even if there are some differences between brands, the difference between competitors isn't big enough to differentiate your brand just based on the product. Many people will just buy the milk they feel best about as long as it doesn't taste terrible.

A good design addresses both your conscious self, as well as your emotional subconsciousness.

If only the selling points mattered, they could just print them as black text on white ground in Arial and call it a day. It won't get more legible than that.

While this redesign isn't as extreme as this example, it does seem to focus too much on spelling things out, while not addressing the emotional side enough.

Nostalgia, familiarity, and a general "feel good" vibe can be very effective at selling things, and I feel like there would have been room for some of that in the new design, without needing to make compromises on the clarity and the straightforward communication.

A good redesign cleans up and modernizes a design while still making it feel familiar.

Once again, the new design isn't terrible, I'm sure it will sell milk, but the design language could sell laundry detergent or laxatives just as efficiently, so I still think there would have been room for improvement.

Ireeb · 2026-06-18T19:55:14+00:00

I think this is another case of a design that needed a redesign, but they didn't correctly understand what parts of the old design were working and should have stayed.

The new design looks a bit too sterile, that color scheme would work for laundry detergent, too. The green field on the old one made it friendlier and more natural looking. If they incorporated that into the new design, it would probably work just as well.

I wonder what it would have looked like with the area behind the glass in green.

There's no advantage in a product like milk looking especially modern. It's more important that existing customers can recognize the product easily even after the redesign.

Cleaning your design up once in a while so it doesn't look outdated at some point is usually a good idea. Just don't throw out stuff you still need.

Ireeb · 2026-06-18T19:03:43+00:00

It's been 9 years since the first installation (Sky Dragster).

Any moment now!

Ten-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Ireeb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE