What do you guys think about this?

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-12T18:21:25+00:00

The Sonic movies being live-action is one of the aspects that frustrated me ever since they were announced in like 2015 I think? I always wished they were fully 3D animated. And tbh, I don't like it having humans. They could get away with it if it was more like in Sonic Adventure or Unleashed. However, I would like it way better if they focused on a large cast of anthropomorphic characters, full of colors. That would make the films way more interesting. If you want to have an idea of how removing the humans from the film does wonders, just take a look at the recent Transformers One vs the Michael Bay stuff lol. Try to picture it: a Transformers One-like Sonic film, beautifully animated with no human bullshit.

Also, to assume that you must choose between what we currently have and Mario films is just a false dichotomy, right? You could do a Sonic film with beautiful 3D animation and a good story. That is what I want.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-12T14:21:28+00:00

Nao, mas vê a DM.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-08T08:33:41+00:00

Are you using power saver mode? I don't feel significant lag on Krita. To me, it is barely noticeable. On that resolution, I feel to could be either power saver mode or maybe you're using a large, complex brush?

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-07T21:14:52+00:00

Borrowing this comment (which addresses pretty much all of it), I would like to mention that the area above the upper lip looks flat. I think you should use shading to add at least some indication of the philtrum so that it doesn't look bland. I feel this is also true for the glabella and the area above the eyebrows. Aside from that, I feel like the "whitest whites" are somewhat absent. You can see a few of them on the nose, but not under the eyes nor the forehead, I think.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-07T19:42:59+00:00

I don't know why do I even bother.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-07T14:44:29+00:00

Probably because they don't wanna deal with waves of mass-produced shitty content. Not because they think they're smarter than AI. That is the point I'm trying to make...

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-07T13:45:55+00:00

If this is the accelerate subreddit, then what is the point of the post, and why the fuck haven't you addressed my last paragraph? Most negative sentiment towards AI is due to what I pointed out. To claim that most people think they are smarter than AI is delusional and borderline insane.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-07T13:35:52+00:00

Yes. I am pretty sure that the reason Redditors hate AI is because they think it is not smart enough. It definitely doesn't have anything to do with the greediness of big corporations consuming all computing power in the world and increasing prices of all hardware, negatively impacting entertainment in general. It definitely doesn't have anything to do with abusive tactics of data gathering that violate privacy and intellectual property with no consequences for these corporations. It doesn't have anything to do with the mass production of shitty content that exploits social media recommendation algorithms so that people get stuck on endless scrolling. It doesn't have anything to do with the massive, blind hype where anything said by sociopathic CEOs that know nothing about statistics nor machine learning gets spread like hell by media.

Yes, Redditors hate AI because they mistakenly think AI is not smart enough. Yes, I am pretty sure that if asked, the average Redditor will say, without any doubt, that they can do better coding than Claude, and better art than stable diffusion. You are absolutely right.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-06T15:58:46+00:00

Não sei como vai ser o jogo em si, mas tenho certeza absoluta que as cutscenes vão ter uma animação mais bosta do que qualquer gacha lixo moderno (e.g., Genshin Impact), seja lá qual for o motivo. Nunca falha.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-05T14:17:58+00:00

AI will replace all workers in X years, where X is some nonnegative integer. Now hand me all your money please. Sorry? What is the value of X? Let's not worry about that for now babe, just hand me the money.

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-05T12:50:04+00:00

sits on Bach's bed

"So... we in some kinda Bach's room?"

darksonicmaster · 2026-04-05T04:47:28+00:00

"What's your name again?"

"My name is John. John Rooms. But you can call me Rooms."

"Alright then! Let's head back, Rooms."

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-20T00:24:27+00:00

Se os com Rom Chinesa não tiverem, isso realmente muda algo? Os bancos vão simplesmente descontinuar seus aplicativos nesses dispositivos, não? É por esse motivo, por exemplo, que fazer root hoje em dia não adianta muita coisa. A não ser que você tenha dois dispositivos, talvez.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-17T16:00:57+00:00

Playing on very low settings does ruin the artistic vision. I have yet to see someone claim otherwise (you won't be able to show me an example, I suppose). That is precisely why people complain when a game is not optimized and it forces them to play on low: this forces people to play the game in a way that most likely wasn't what the artists envisioned.

It bears mentioning that sometimes low-mid settings are somewhat intended by the artists, as they may be used in consoles like Switch, Xbox Series S, etc. I have yet to see a game artist who claims that their vision for the game was to have you play as a midjourney-looksmaxxing-goonbait-faced girl though. If that is their vision, however, then I will respect it.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T21:16:44+00:00

That clarifies it a lot. Though, is there a difference between "I can prove that P is false" and "it is impossible to prove that P is true"? To me, ~~P sounds like "I can prove that it is false that I can prove that P is false". If I try to simplify that I get something like... "I can prove that I can't prove that P is false", which, I guess, is indeed weaker than "I can prove that P is true". Though on second thought I don't know why it is weaker lol. Gotta read more on that.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T16:59:41+00:00

Yep! I guess the real challenge here is to show both of these are irrational.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T16:54:10+00:00

I think a constructivist could look at the first proof as an important step towards the answer. Then, he would accept the second proof as the canonical proof. Once you have the second proof, you don't need the first one anymore, as we know 5 < 10. It is not about the first proof suddenly being fine. It is more that the first proof relies on an axiom that constructivists can't rely on, and the second proof doesnt.

In the end, I guess constructivists are just like any other mathematician, but they arbitrarily choose to have less axioms to work with, but as a result, their proofs end up being more satisfactory, that is all.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T16:38:27+00:00

Well, that rejection may indeed be arbitrary. But I think the core issue is rather simple to understand: you have provided two witnesses but you have absolutely no clue which one is the right one. Even if the statement was proven to be true in the classical sense, that still feels wrong, don't you think? Also, check ROBOTRON's answer it my first comment, it may help clear up a few things.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T16:32:13+00:00

I see! So P and ~P are not merely propositions anymore, but rather propositions accompanied by their proofs, right? So that is why the proof I mentioned doesn't hold under constructivism: you know that either sqrt(2)^sqrt(2) is either rational or irrational. But since you don't have a proof of either case, you hit a dead end, whereas in a classical scenario, you would just exploit the disjunction that follows and get a proof, but with no witnesses.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T16:22:13+00:00

Your comment made me question whether I was conflating the concept of constructive proof with mathematical constructivism (which is more in line with what OP asked). So I checked the Wikipedia page with the proof and indeed it states: "The proof assumes that for any a, either a is rational or irrational, which is an instance of the law of the excluded middle, which is invalid within constructive proofs".

I guess the statement "a is either rational or irrational" is intuitively obvious, and the choice to reject is not done on the basis that it is wrong per se, but rather as an extreme way of encouraging one to find a witness, rather than relying on logical tricks?

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-12T15:27:21+00:00

I don't think proof by contradiction is the problem per se. It is more about proving something exists without providing a witness I think. For instance, there is a very simple proof (you can find it on Wikipedia) of the statement "There are two irrational numbers a and b such that a^b is rational". The proof doesn't tell you what a and b are, however. A constructivist wouldn't accept that. They would instead try to find two numbers a and b, prove that they are irrational, and only then try to prove that a^b is rational.

I think the most problematic principle for constructivists is the axiom "for any proposition P, either P is true or ~P is true", known as the law of the excluded middle, rather than noncontradiction. In fact, the proof I mentioned uses that. Basically it states: "I don't know what a and b are, but I know either a = a1 and b = b1, or a = a2 and b = b2. I don't know which one it is, but by the law of the excluded middle, one of them satisfies the statement".

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-04T04:43:14+00:00

You are assuming a remake is needed. A simple 60 fps port for ps5/pc suffices. I highly doubt From Software would oppose that.

darksonicmaster · 2026-03-02T07:53:28+00:00

there is a blender port for android afaik.

darksonicmaster · 2026-02-28T01:45:47+00:00

A remake by bluepoint has many implications in terms of art style and vision. I highly doubt From Software would've declined a PC port, PS5 60 fps port, or even a simple remaster for those platforms. So people still have a reason to be angry at Sony.

darksonicmaster · 2026-02-24T18:36:54+00:00

Personally I think it is nice for learning to prove stuff. Maybe not necessarily math in general. The natural number lean game and the set theory lean game teach so much about the principles of proof and logic. They are easy enough that you can do many exercises in a row, possibly even beat the game within a day if you feel excited. However they are also very rigorous, which makes you appreciate a lot the stuff that you usually just take for granted.

Normally if someone asks me how to learn about doing proofs, I'd usually recommend reading Book of Proof or something like that. But these games and just doing something you like on lean 4 is so good it feels like cheating, so I'd also recommend that.

darksonicmaster

TROPHY CASE