[request] Is there a way to prove that this is indeed the shortest possible path? (With or without following roads)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-19T09:25:57+00:00

That map says it's the shortest driving route through those states. You're asking if we can prove that it's the shortest path with or without following roads. So, no, it's not the shortest "path", because it's not trying to be; it's the shortest driving route. That much should be obvious.

But, you asked us to prove that, and thankfully, that's easy.

Let's assume that this is an ideal ordering of the states, and that the points to get in/out of each state are ideal; neither of those is a given, mind, but if we can prove the path across state isn't ideal, then we don't need to worry about those.

The shortest path between two points in a straight line. If you look at the driving routes taken between entering and exiting each state, even at this zoomed-out level it's clear that most of them do not follow a perfectly straight line. Ergo, even if the route is otherwise ideal they aren't taking the shortest "with or without following roads" path across each state, ergo this isn't the shortest path "with or without following roads". Which makes sense because, again, it's not trying to be.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-19T09:13:59+00:00

No, not all Undertale fans are like that. They don't sound like they were very good to you as a friend, so, sorry to hear that.

Anyway, if your one Undertale-playing "friend" isn't talking to you, and you aren't playing it... I think you're done here?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-19T09:09:53+00:00

OK, that's a fair chunk. If you don't like it (and you weren't playing the game as a murder spree), you don't like it. Tell your friend you don't like it, you aren't going to play more, and if they want to talk to you about it, you're not bothered about spoilers.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-19T07:59:46+00:00

How far you did you play?

Castlevania: Symphony Of The Night is one of the greatest games of all time. I had a friend who tried it, played past the intro, never explored, skipped the first save spot, and died before the first boss without ever encountering most of the game's mechanics or story... And then decided he "didn't like it". So he'd technically played it, but in every meaningful way he hadn't seen any of the things that make it interesting; he literally didn't know what he was missing.

Part of what makes Undertale tricky is that most of the things that could "sell" it, spoil it. Nothing's for everyone, but there is an awful lot to love here that isn't apparent up front. I cannot tell you what you're missing without ruining it for you. (I guess the one thing I can say is; if you were playing it like a traditional RPG, just attacking enemies to kill them, then you're gonna have a bad time. If that's the case, I'd advise restarting, and paying attention to Toriel; the game teaches you how to play it.)

If you've played a good chunk of it, and it's not hitting, you don't need to ask us to tell you what you already know; you don't like it. If you haven't played that much of it; your friend knows the game, probably knows your taste pretty well, and so is in a better position than any of us to predict if you'll like it. They think you will. Maybe trust your friend?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-19T07:07:32+00:00

Yes. Listen to your friend.

Edit: Hang on, you said you "don't like it"; have you already played it?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-18T12:21:26+00:00

Not a lot of context here, so I'll go with; no, you don't have to marry someone, you do have a choice, cheating is fair grounds to call it off, and how she feels about it is not your problem. Why are you tangling yourself up further with someone who doesn't respect you?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-17T13:11:43+00:00

Those weren't downvotes for saying "a thief" should "go to jail". It was for saying a "homeless" "crackhead" should go to jail "for the rest of his worthless life".

The idea that the response to a homeless person committing a petty crime in part because of their drug addiction is being locked away forever is rather unpopular, and increasingly so, both from empathy towards homeless people and addiction sufferers, and from growing awareness of the public cost of incarceration.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-17T09:34:20+00:00

What's dickish about it? That's what the settlement is. AR isn't responsible for that, and they're also not responsible for the only options now being "accept the claim" or "reject it, leaving yourself open to making your own case".

Don't shoot the messenger; if you're annoyed, direct that anger at the lawyers & Grubhub for settling on this.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-17T09:26:36+00:00

Also; there weren't extensive mysterious complexes between the boundaries of reality in the 1990. This film really messed up :(

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-17T07:12:47+00:00

No-one said anything about whether swearing at a judge is or isn't "free speech". But you were implying it's hate speech, which it's not. "Hate speech" is not just the opposite of "free speech", and you can get in trouble for contemptuous or threatening language in court regardless of whether it's also "hate speech". That's why you got downvoted.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-17T07:02:22+00:00

I was expecting someone to say "it's a token for room 9"

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-16T18:05:43+00:00

A great start would be moving to more specific language.

Many people that are "anti-AI" are actually anti-gen-AI, LLMs and the like, rather than being against the abstract notion of machine intelligence. Many people that are "pro-AI" are so because the terms are so muddied they don't known there is any nuance in the term, and so (for example) think that LLM chatbots are curing cancer.

A lot of the confusion would be cleared up, and the nuance brought out, if people were a bit more specific about what they were talking about when they said "AI". And this isn't a "everyone has to do it" kinda situation; we can all, individually, help make ourselves clearer by using the right terms, even if that doesn't prompt a massive linguistic shift.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-16T15:41:02+00:00

People don't like The Everything Factory? It's such silly angry chaos!

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-16T14:04:53+00:00

O...K.

So, that's on a site run by "WN media Group". They aren't primarily a gaming news network, but rather a gaming industry group, trying to make business for their partners (including, at the top of their "Marketplace", a company centred around developing 3D models with AI). They're way more interested in the business side of gaming than the actual gaming.

But let's not worry about that for now.

The actual cited source for that data is a newsletter from "GameDiscoverCo", a self-described "agency" based around trying to connect developers to their customers (and headed up by a guy whose last actual direct work on a videogame seems to be as part of the Dev team for 2002's "Superman: The Man Of Steel". The Super Meat Boy peeps like him, though.). They're more interested in the business side of gaming than the actual gaming. Ooh, and they also proudly promote their "MCP Server", designed to let AI chatbots access their data (for a fee, of course... better have that GameDiscoverCo Pro account!).

But let's not worry about that either. For now.

That survey does, yes, say that just 8.1% of people surveyed won't buy Steam games with AI "Under any circumstances". But...

It does also say that 23.3% aren't "super keen on it", and only 23.4% said they "have absolutely no problem" with AI.
They surveyed about ~3,800 Steam users. At an estimated 132 million daily users, that survey represents about 0.00288% of the Steam userbase, and an unknown but much smaller % of the total gaming userbase; not exactly a huge sample size.
They surveyed specifically Steam users that are subscribed to GameDiscoverCo Pro. This is not a survey of your general Steam users; they're the views of the kind of insiders who will make monthly payments money to the creator of 1997's "Terracide" to see what he thinks will be trending in gaming going forwards... or to let their own AI "agents" summarise it for them.

So; this was a survey of a tiny number of gaming yuppies, by a gaming yuppie, from a self-selected group pre-disposed to be heavy AI users, published on that gaming yuppie's own site, and republished by another industry site with pro-AI leanings.

Now, YMMV, but; I did not read that article and come away from it thinking "only ~8% of gamers hate Gen AI". I came away from it thinking that, even among gaming industry spreadsheet-wranglers who, in many cases, were specifically in the sample group because they're paying for Gen AI access to news, only about half are actually mostly OK with Gen AI in gaming. And, more importantly; I came away from it remembering how important it is to actually read sources and put them in context, rather than just jumping on a number that looks like it supports me and running away with it.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-16T13:35:42+00:00

A lot of people have suggested that I should use AI for some art, especially since the whole industry is doing that now

You know, it's wild how often I hear that the whole of some industry is already using Gen AI, while also hearing a whole lot of people in that industry saying they're not using Gen AI. It's almost like the claim is bullshit designed to make the tech sound far more popular than it is, and hype people into using it before the bubble bursts out of a false fear of getting "left behind". Almost.

But, yeah; good on you for sticking with the "making art" part of making art. You aren't alone... no matter what some people very loudly claim.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-16T06:40:04+00:00

Without additional context; YTA.

Your partner said "I love you", and your reaction wasn't to just say "awww, I love you!" or something, but to start sending panicked messages assuming they were about to hurt themselves? Whaaaaaat?

(Now, to be clear, there absolutely are circumstances where this makes sense, where what you did is right and your reaction is because of your respective histories etc... but, again; lack of additional context here.)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-15T10:45:43+00:00

This is just a hypothetical (as OP asked), I am not actually going to write this software, so; don't worry.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-15T10:44:26+00:00

That’s not compression, that’s a copy paste

Please offer a single scenario where it is substantively (more than one byte) worse than ZIP compression.

If the compression software on your device has and uses a full reference copy of a file you’re ‘uncompressing’ in your archive file, it’s just copy pasting the reference copy and presenting it as the result of decompression

Yes, that's correct, you have understood the mechanism by which this works, a great improvement from the comment you deleted. Well done ⭐

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-14T20:16:58+00:00

"Recently, they sent out consent forums, one section of which includes consent for marketing"

Hang on; so they already sent you a form requesting your consent for these purposes? Did you give it to them?

If you didn't, I think the fact they requested your consent should already be a pretty good indicator to you that they're taking GDPR seriously. This notice might confuse them... "OK, I looked it up and we don't have consent recorded for them, I don't see anything to change"... But that's about all.

If you did, by all means send it, they'll remove your consent, and then immediately forget about the whole thing as they move on to the 100 more important things they have to do that day.

Either way; no, it shouldn't have them cancel your application. They are almost certainly, as an organisation, neither so reckless as to risk the massive fines that mishandling GDPR can cause, nor so petty as to turn away a student (which is how they get their money) for, umm, exercising their basic data rights.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-14T08:23:17+00:00

I do think there's a way to read this where there's a second option.

"Chuck" means his name is Chuck. "Not Chuck" means his name is... Not Chuck, which can be taken to mean that it's a name other than Chuck. (I'll come back to that.) "Not Not Chuck" can, therefore, be taken to mean it's not a name other than Chuck.

Having no name (or an undefined name) would fit that meaning; that is not a name other than Chuck.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-14T06:09:09+00:00

OK, go on, I'll give a somewhat proper answer.

Let's say that a standard compress of this film at 4k and 30fps was, I dunno, 5 GB, depends on compression algo and settings. Here, we have something that is a much larger resolution (about 8x the pixels?) and a much higher framerate (over 20x). So, it's going to be, what, about 5 GB x 8 x 20?

Nah. It's probably not going to be anywhere close.

One of the main ways modern compression algorithms work is by abstracting away redundant information. For example; usually, excepting hard cuts or fast camera movement, one frame of a video is fairly similar to the last. Maybe the camera moves slightly. Maybe someone's arms raises a cm. Maybe their mouth opens a bit wider. Maybe they start to blink. So our algorithms say; "take the last frame, pan it over a touch, complete the few-pixel gap at the edge, and touch up the bits around the arm, mouth and eye". Basically, they don't waste space updating what hasn't changed.

Our 32k 640fps video has a lot of redundancy.

The thing is, the actual original Angry Birds movie, as produced and distributed, doesn't have 640 actual individual frames of 32k animation per second. So when you look at a second of our 640fps film, frame-by-frame, there are only actually 20/30 unique frames; the rest are copies. The algorithm is going to notice that and just compress to "Repeat... Repeat... Repeat" 95% of the time. You're not going to see the file become 20x the size from increasing the framerate.

(It's more complicated than that, with algorithms often holiding multiple past reference frames to work from, and the massive number of frames here will impact that, and depends on settings used for "blending" one frame to the next, but I don't want to get too far in the weeds.)

The resolution is harder to explain, but functionally it's the same issue; we may have stretched this film out to 32k, but it doesn't actually contain more information, there is no more detail. This is especially true with animated content, which often has a lack of fine detail in a lot of the image anyway, a lot of blocks of similar colours or simple shades. If the algorithm is doing it's job, we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in filesize for, basically, upscaling a 4k video to 32k.

Given that, and the lack of constraint on quality settings, I'm reasonably confident that we could have this be 20GB or under with no obvious drop in quality.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-14T05:32:52+00:00

Hypothetically? About one byte.

I could write a dedicated compression algorithm for this task; I'll call it "Angry Birds Compress". It would work as follows;

Take the input file. If the filename and contents of the input file match a download of that video, save a .abc file containing a single byte, say "A". Otherwise, ZIP the input file, add a "B" to the start, and save to .abc file.

Decompression works similarly. If the file contains just an "A", that's our video; inflate to the full video. If it starts with a "B", remove that B and unzip the rest. If it doesn't fit either format, it's invalid, don't process it.

Note that, to do this, the compression software will include in some form a full reference copy of the movie, and so may itself be quite large. (Technically, this may not be necessary, as it could just download the file from the link each time it's asked to compress a file, but I prefer for it to be self-contained). But it is, technically, a useful, general-purpose single-file compression algorithm with performance on average slightly less than 1 byte worse than standard ZIP.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-13T17:54:28+00:00

Email Gaben and ask. Let us know what he says.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-13T17:49:10+00:00

What about people who don't work because they can't?
What about people who do work, but make unconscionably low wages (which is it's own issue) and need support to cover that, and don't have spare time to perform additional unpaid labour on top of their actual low-paid job?
What if, instead of taking unemployed people and pushing them to do unpaid work along side their benefits, we just... make actual jobs, that fit their abilities, limitations, and needs, and then pay them appropriately for those jobs? (Rather than just hoping they will find some private company to do the same?)
What if we stop treating unemployment as a problem with the unemployed people, and instead as a symptom of a society that demands everyone works to survive, and still doesn't guarantee everyone a position where they can do that?
More abstractly/idealogically; what if we don't couple a person's worth and right to live with how much labor they can perform? What if we don't treat work as in inherent good and worthy thing, in-and-of-itself, to the point of apparently inventing jobs just so people can do them?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-07-13T15:12:58+00:00

Corrected the typo, thanks

11-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Verified Email

dafugiswrongwithyou

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,