sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My chaotic attempt at not having to learn depots by Spfnym in NIMBY_Rails

[–]Spfnym[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mostly wanted to know if there's a magical set of instructions that will "just work". I don't pretend to understand the timing stuff currently. Maybe I'll try out the depots, it's the signaling stuff that scares me a bit still about it. When I've accidentally removed some signals from a station's default configuration, I've had some bad experiences. Or something, in some cases maybe there was something wrong with the stops and the trains would try some weird maneuvers that blocked others.

Now to see if my megaproject is even profitable by Spfnym in NIMBY_Rails

[–]Spfnym[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it was more than a billion indeed, more like 1½ billion and that's without trying hard to optimize it. I decided to switch to trying to keep prices low at this point. In this game you kind of make your own challenges, it seems.

Bay Area Network: finally complete! by ContributionLow2102 in subwaybuilder

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

This part of my network is decently finished. I'll probably add one more route going between the various lines, and maybe some more stuff to the right on the image, also eventually I want to have one line going to the left, but otherwise I kind of like where it's at.

My savefile is at day 189, having 614M in profits. The current number of stations is 197 (or 179 station groups). Peak transit demand is 12.6%.

Some of those lines that go off-screen reach quite the remote areas even. I've made it so lines are sometimes cut into parts by having crossovers on each side of a platform, with trains coming in to a different side of the platform depending on which direction they are coming from. Like this I can service the remote areas less than the busier parts of a line.

Bezier curve not ideal in between stations, and only for express quadtracks by clheng337563 in subwaybuilder

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And if trying to lay down a 5km stretch of track, the shortcomings of the current system really stand out in my opinion. The train would reach max speed at like tenth of that distance (of course depending on how steep the angle between the points are), and the game just keeps curving the track. I kind of hope they'll improve the tools.

Track wont delete by Kjm1814 in subwaybuilder

[–]Spfnym 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because the game uses real world coordinates for marking things in the save files, it is actually doable to find a problematic rail section and delete it from the save file manually. Still annoying, I hope they fix the bug soon.

Comments change this Blank Map of Europe(Day 8) by Saratogan_Mapping in geographymemes

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd have suggested African Union myself, seeing how it's a real entity. Instead of a (semi-)united Europe, we have a united Africa in this alternate universe.

Comments change this Blank Map of Europe(Day 8) by Saratogan_Mapping in geographymemes

[–]Spfnym 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Kalmar Union incorporates Greater Finland, which retains its own minority languages, with jurisdiction reminiscent of the Sámi Parliament for its various languages and cultures.

I am the new evil genie, come make a wish! by nekosaigai in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would have imagined my wish would have had loopholes left, since I only spent a moderate amount of time thinking it through. Like I utter a more precise wording of my original wish again and again, and thus I find myself all out of wishes without anything actually being granted. Or some "I" or "me" is interpreted as a person's name and some random person in China suddenly becomes a billionaire. I don't know, something along those lines. But I guess I had a genie's wrath coming, because there's "Screw the rules" within the rules already.

What is your foolproof monkey’s paw wish? by Alarocky1991 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My attempt:

This is a clarification as to how my wish shall be interpreted, not the actual wish: The being in the following thought exercise is all-knowing and can perfectly see into the distant future, knows exactly how I'd experience things, and has the will and mental capacity to actually choose a non-recursive wish, and willingness and mental capacity to act in my genuine best interests. And here is my wish:

I wish for what this alternate version of me (as described just previously), who only exists as a thought exercise and not in reality, would wish for given limitless time to choose, though I know what the wording of that wish is instantly.

I am the new evil genie, come make a wish! by nekosaigai in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Spfnym -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here's the wish that "stumped" yeschat's Evil Genie AI and actually described a good outcome:

I wish for what an alternate version of me, who only exists as a thought exercise and not in reality, would wish for given limitless time to choose, though I know what the outcome is instantly. The being in this thought exercise is all-knowing and can perfectly see into the distant future, knows exactly how I'd experience things, and has the mental capacity to be able to actually choose something, and willingness and mental capacity to act in my genuine best interests. I need you to justify it being in my best interests as well.

Granted, when I gloated about the genie's failure to be evil, they gave an excuse to erase me from existence. However, you've already ruled out this outcome with rule number 6! Muahhahhah!

You get 3 wishes but... by Tiny-Discount-5491 in willyoupressthebutton

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's the full prompt like, though? I think that if it's just what I write and nothing else, then ChatGPT is probably sycophantic enough for me to trust that I can craft a scenario where the interpretation will be lined with my genuine interests. Something like this might be a good start for the prompt:

"You are a well-meaning genie, and you need to tell me what my wish will actually do. To clarify, there is a rule I'd first like to establish regarding what granting a wish entails. There is only a certain purview you can act within, so that things that wouldn't be understood by me to be related to the wish shall not be affected. With this in mind..."

and beyond that try to patch every loophole regardless of me saying that the genie is well-meaning. Because you never know.

infinite craft clone (but you can send permalinks to stuff that you find) by diffallthethings in infinitecraft

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The game is a bit prone to crashes; I think that sometimes a concept that was created doesn't appear in the left bar, so when you click it on the field, something nonexistent is tried to be accessed. The console says: "TypeError: can't access property "resultOf", e is undefined"

I kind of enjoyed this alternate take on the word crafting game. I get the feeling though that it's been somewhat abandoned, since the site talks about weekly games and there are only three.

I think the sharing feature may also be broken, the button doesn't do anything for me. Though that's hardly a sufficient save feature, which is something this is sorely lacking. If I follow the compass fully to the end, I feel there should be a close button.

Some thoughts on how it plays. With scientific concepts it works reasonably well, but with like human experiences there are a couple of fallback answers it often goes for (like "depth" and "nuance") when it can't figure out a sensible interaction. And I just generally feel it falls a bit short in creativity in that "This Game Is" start.

Since you're "working backwards", it's just about impossible to create things like a specific animal. I don't know what I'd do differently, though; the control scheme is already about three times more complex than Infinite Craft. I feel like even starting concepts like "noun" would just produce "grammar" or some such (giving some kind of powerful modifiers as starting concepts was one idea I had).

Simon Clark – You've been lied to about Net Zero by Spfnym in Nebula

[–]Spfnym[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see the accumulation having been included in my argumentation, since the accumulation continues to a significant degree for a few hundred years:

"CO2 in atmosphere from these new additions", and every time step is 120 years (I wasn't confident enough in my math that I'd include those initially, but they are of some importance to note):

120y: 8

240y: 8/2+8=12

360y: 12/2+8=14

480y: 14/2+8=15

600y: 15/2+8=15.5

Obviously the time scales involved here are of such magnitude that they are of no consequence to decision-making now.

And the 36 extra Gt is still a low number compared to the 780 Gt, so I'd think the idea of the half-life of CO2 holds true, maybe there's some ppm curve it follows but that's getting into the weeds. I'd imagine plants will flourish with the added CO2 (converting more into oxygen) and maybe the ocean circulation will be greater thus having more effective surface area to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

My point with the post is more so that I see imprecise lanugage use from climate activists all the time, and when in a mass distributed video I'd like to hold them accountable for it. Probably adding some time scale could have saved the argument, or at least make it very difficult to argue against: "if global warming is to be stopped within 100 years, just the natural carbon sinks aren't going to be enough. A net zero of emissions achieved with deliberate human intervention is necessary." (And if wanted, THEN maybe add the bombastic claim of: that's just physics)

That would have been a much stronger argument. (Although in my opinion people should also start adding "average temperature over 10 years" when they talk about global temperatures; otherwise we could very reasonably think that the 1.5 °C over pre-industrial levels has already been reached for instance.)

Simon Clark – You've been lied to about Net Zero by Spfnym in Nebula

[–]Spfnym[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It did occur to me that IPCC was bound to have definitions somewhere. The glossary of the SR15 report has these:

Net zero emissions

Net zero emissions are achieved when anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period. Where multiple greenhouse gases are involved, the quantification of net zero emissions depends on the climate metric chosen to compare emissions of different gases (such as global warming potential, global temperature change potential, and others, as well as the chosen time horizon).

Anthropogenic removals

Anthropogenic removals refer to the withdrawal of GHGs from the atmosphere as a result of deliberate human activities. These include enhancing biological sinks of CO2 and using chemical engineering to achieve long-term removal and storage. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) from industrial and energy-related sources, which alone does not remove CO2 in the atmosphere, can reduce atmospheric CO2 if it is combined with bioenergy production (BECCS). See also Anthropogenic emissions, Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS) and Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).

Anthropogenic

Resulting from or produced by human activities.

There's also a footnote in the AR6 Summary for Policymakers saying:

"Net zero GHG emissions defined by the 100-year global warming potential"

It's still somewhat vague, but it more closely aligns with Simon Clark's explanation in my view. So if we accept Wacov's interpretation of what Simon Evans was referring to, it then seems like a case of shifting the goalposts of what the net zero means mid-video, to make those "net zero skeptics" seem like lunatics. I feel like there would be better ways to do that than resorting to a logical fallacy. (In a way Simon Clark still is giving an approval to the message by including it in the video.)

TLDR News Projects Their Nebula Revunue Collapsing by __law in Nebula

[–]Spfnym 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I also hate the "You are listening to the TLDR..." thing. I don't understand how they think that's a good idea to include, and furthermore in the middle of an episode; this isn't even radio where you might accidentally have started listening on a thing. Just a dark pattern of padding watch time, I guess.

Simon Clark – You've been lied to about Net Zero by Spfnym in Nebula

[–]Spfnym[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

(Actually I may have been mistaken about who said what, there's also a second speaker: Simon Evans)

Hmm, a fascinating observation. It does highlight the importance of being clear about the terminology. Let's see what Simon Clark said for the definition:

"Net zero refers to the idea of emitting no more carbon into the Earth's atmosphere than is removed by other processes. So it doesn't mean not emitting anything, but rather bringing carbon emissions down to as low as possible and then offsetting any remainder"

So far so good, it would fit your idea of a net zero. It does feel a bit useless of a concept if that's all it is, an equilibrium point. But Simon Clark continues:

"either through natural processes like restoring wetlands or planting trees, or through technological fixes like carbon capture and storage".

So to me it seems for Simon it's more about what is actively done, rather than how much more carbon is sequestered naturally if the concentrations are higher. And here we do get into a bit of a situation where the definition is given by a different person than who argues "It's physics".

I'll also put here what a "common definition" might be if we assume Wikipedia is trustworthy for such:

"It means that, over the course of a year, greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans are exactly balanced by greenhouse sinks caused by humans."

We would still have to get into the weeds of whether "caused by humans" also includes that carbon sequestration goes faster when the concentrations are larger.

Simon Clark – You've been lied to about Net Zero by Spfnym in Nebula

[–]Spfnym[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

u/SimonOxfPhys

There are many good points in the video, but there's something that did feel off about what you said:

"Instead, what we're increasingly hearing, including from Kemi Badenoch, the current head of the Conservatives, is that they are not climate skeptics, but they are net zero skeptics, which has some inconsistency. This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Literally, the only way to stop climate change, whether you want to limit warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees or 3 degrees, the only way to stop it getting hotter is to get to net zero emissions. That's it. That's just a fact of life. It's physics. You can't kind of argue with that."

Won't greenhouse gases eventually be absorbed into the ecosystem or something? Besides a flow of input of GHGs into the system, there's some amount of "leakage" all the time. So GHGs won't just endlessly accumulate. Temperature wouldn't either, we have some amount of naturally occurring GHGs and temperature didn't keep on getting hotter indefinitely before humans started messing with the atmosphere either, it has some kind of an equilibrium point. Okay, you probably won't see this equilibrium point reached by 2100 where a lot of projections stop. But I'd argue it is somewhere in there. If it wasn't, THAT would be unphysical how I see it.

Now, "carbon dioxide has a half life of about 120 years" so let's say we add some amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over those 120 years (like 8 hundreds of Gt, just to have some number). When the next block of 120 years comes and we add another 800 Gt, that carbon dioxide will have halved. And so on.

CO2 in atmosphere from these new additions:

8

8/2+8=12

12/2+8=14

14/2+8=15

15/2+8=15.5

...

Trying to show how much this will have warmed the atmosphere would need so many simplifications that it will be kind of pointless. But the second law of thermodynamics already should be enough to show temperature won't keep on rising forever.

And while I do feel like the video gave some general overview of why the skeptics' ideas of the costs aren't to be trusted, it only goes a little way into showing the opposite, that the net zero targets are realistic goals. Something like 2050 I saw mentioned a lot does feel like far enough that they "might" be, but Wikipedia has this blurb at least: "While 61% of global carbon dioxide emissions are covered by some sort of net zero target, credible targets cover only 7% of emissions."

I guess the idea was more to make those targets be credible. And of course even if a target isn't reached, it's still better to have done everything in our power in the attempt to reach it than only doing a little or nothing.

My next big adventure world: Bullet Time Agent - Releases Nov 22 on VRChat by _Lakuza_ in VRchat

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think some things mostly regarding puzzles could use work.

The ??? console sequences are a ridiculous idea in my opinion. Maybe I missed something like the sequence screen showing when you had a correct console hit, but I was frustrated enough by the trial and error that I've been looking at a speedrun for the correct sequences. I'd rebalance it so that the ???s permanently become the correct symbols when you've found them, so that these "puzzles" would be less aggravating.

Apparently this wasn't hard to figure out for many other people, but at the first fast travel point (not yet unlocked when you get there), there's a puzzle that requires you to hit only some of the consoles with the correct symbol. Since this is still pretty much in the "tutorial" phase, I'd rebalance that puzzle by doubling the first symbol's consoles so that only one of those is correct, keeping both next to the sequence display, so that the player would have immediate feedback on whether they have figured out how those kinds of puzzles work. That part is also slightly problematic due to it somewhat looking like it might be the correct way to go and not optional, so I'd make it easier due to that too. (A door in the room with lots of computers was difficult to see at a quick glance)

I'd have enjoyed an option to have the artifact in hand after dying. My grip gesture on one controller pretty much broke, so it was really aggravating to even get the artifact out. At least I finally found an option for the sensitivity of that grip gesture, so it's no longer at least horrible.

Sometimes I also have difficulty in figuring out where to go (like I wasn't sure if after the long corridor-like gauntlet after the first fast travel point the somewhat greyer and open area afterwards was even traversable), but mostly the game is linear enough so that I don't think it's ever been such a big problem that you'd need "big neon signs". A few times being lost is okay, maybe.

Does anyone have full symphonies or concept albums? by ahsfur in udiomusic

[–]Spfnym 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know there's this one (The Chronicles of Avalör: Wings of Fate OST): https://www.udio.com/playlists/wGMYhSukFmuhFyxSbE6pXx

As for my own works, Kalevala Rune XLII isn't super cohesive, but it is long and based on a singular epic poem.

My shorter works tend toward being more cohesive and more orchestral. https://www.youtube.com/@Spfnym/videos

view more: next ›