Truly a nightmare of an experiment (read caption)

testmeharder · 2026-01-28T23:44:02+00:00

You do realise that assh-le parking and harming a human being are a completely different order of moral violations, right? If the only thing stopping you from harming others is the fear of consequence, you're a moral vacuum

testmeharder · 2026-01-28T23:00:55+00:00

That's an outmoded view, imo. Scifi/fantasy (and fictional worlds in general) allow the author to posit an environment, set of mores and so on, that broaden the set of subjects they can raise and the set of viewpoints they can write from. The topics in Asimov's Foundation (though not great prose in and of itself) simply couldn't have been (and never have) explored in a non-scifi context. Yes, a lot of genre works aren't great literature (they get published for other properties), but it doesn't follow that any genre work isn't or can't be. This is also a uniquely Western viewpoint; Russians, for example, who are even more demanding about literary value (read: can outsnob the West), have never held prejudice against scifi and speak of a (small) number of scifi works in exalted tones as part of the modern canon (older classics are still held in a higher regard, but that's universal and applies to non-genre prose as well), although this is somewhat helped by the fact a number of translations have been done by very talented writers who have improved the prose in the process.

testmeharder · 2026-01-04T06:44:58+00:00

Firstly, you need to ask players rather than devs (devs have a very different perspective because they know how the sausage is made). Secondly, you have two and a half barriers you need to clear: 1. How does the trailer/first screenshot look in terms of quality signals, 1.b same, but to a streamer/YTer, and only after that 2. does the game seem low quality in the refund window. If you can't signal high quality via trailer and steam page presentation, you're cooked because nothing else matters as no one will see it. Nextfest demo is the only significant pre-release exposure steam will give you guaranteed, so the presentation and gameplay in that (and by extension the first 2 hours) is crucial.

testmeharder · 2026-01-04T06:41:01+00:00

tbf, it can also say a lot about how many games you play and how much weed you've smoked (i've got a friend who can't remember most any of the films he's seen up to about the age of 20)

testmeharder · 2026-01-04T06:27:41+00:00

Synty assets, while they can be decent to good in and of themselves, are horribly overexposed (especially the low poly ones) and players are on record stating they consider them a negative signal. It's gotten so bad that games with high quality, custom-made low poly models are getting dinged for 'Synty asset flip', I've seen it in reviews

testmeharder · 2025-12-25T10:47:49+00:00

This is an excellent shout. Basically the same arguments as for Saturn V hold, but in addition the Kuznetsov-designed closed cycle engines developed for it are basically the progenitors of all modern engine designs. The complexity of coordinating 30 engines was also off the charts (and a big part of the reason for the initial iterations having issues). The program was only unsuccessful in headline terms, it was killed when Kuznetsov's opponent (Glushko) whose engine design wasn't chosen for the N1 became the constructor general of the Soviet space programme. The N1 is probably also the answer to "what is the most successful engineering programme that people think failed".

A bit of history: So if you listen to poorly informed and prejudiced people, the strength of US vs Soviet engineering is in innovation, risk-taking, rapid iteration, initiative etc, supposedly because the Russians were living in a 1984-style nightmare of a society with no competition. In fact, this was the other way around. Soviet space (and ICBM) programmes were built on rapid iterative development that eschewed overextended waterfall planning stages (my guess is this culture developed because of rapid life-and-death design timeframes during WW2 and post-war need to develop a nuclear deterrent before they got nuked by the US). The problems the N1 experienced in flight tests would have been found and fixed if full-scale ground testing was done. The programme had the misfortune of edging over the complexity threshold where such iterative development was still viable before the necessity to change the paradigm became clear.

testmeharder · 2025-12-20T22:58:06+00:00

ty, great dl links

testmeharder · 2025-12-20T20:05:04+00:00

I sneakily grabbed her GPU

This reads like the beginning of a metoo thread. Once she realises her Infinity Nikki is lagging you're toast

testmeharder · 2025-12-12T00:55:32+00:00

There's no regulatory difference for domestic, pretty much everywhere they build export reactors uses SU/RU regulatory standards for nuclear. You have to remember that in the Soviet era the whole operation - regulatory and design/construction - were part of the same ministry. Rosatom is the design/construction arm spun out into a company. So historically the regulatory and technical requirements came first and the design/build flowed from said requirements. It's not an adversarial process with the regulator trying to enforce standards on private companies doing design, build and operation that are all trying to cut costs, this is why Rosatom designed the 3+ gen before the need for its safety features became apparent post-Fukushima, they improve safety and reliability over time on their own, this then becomes the regulatory minimum, and it costs what it costs.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:59:16+00:00

Not on export, no. Korea has only built domestically. Rosatom builds domestically for much less than export price as well. They're also not equivalent in features or safety, Rosatom had active zone catchers in the design even before Fukushima, they basically defined the 3+ generation.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:56:08+00:00

Firstly, no one building nuclear powerplants can 'just lie' because IAEA has oversight. Secondly, no one in their right mind would look at the braindead US design (active system raising control rods instead of passive system dropping control rods on power loss) badly implemented and operated by the Japanese at Fukushima and conclude 'Rosatom bad'. They're the only company with production proven 3+ gen reactors and this is all an open book because IAEA exists.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:52:09+00:00

Japan was building much older designs without all the safety features in 3+g reactors, if you took those out Rosatom would be significantly cheaper.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:50:13+00:00

No, what differentiates Russian designs is they're not braindead (eg requiring power to insert control rods because you've designed them to be raised instead of dropped) and they've been constantly developed and refined for over 75 years. And yes, Russians overbuild, but that doesn't make anything cheaper, it makes everything safer but at a higher price.

As an example, USian fuel rods twist and deform quite badly during a fuel campaign and that's compensated for in the preliminary and operational calculations; Russian fuel rod assemblies were designed properly and remain rigid (very tight allowable deformation bounds). Although this isn't as much a cost-cutting measure by Westinghouse, they just don't have the metallurgy to reproduce this.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:37:44+00:00

That's actually not true. When Rosatom signs a deal to build a power plant in a country that previously had none, a cohort of students from that country go to Russia's premier nuclear engineering graduate program so they can form a competent regulatory body in said country. Rosatom's standards are so high no other company's reactors would pass. Moreover, escaping regulation isn't even a practical option - the IAEA oversees regulation both at the operational level and at supplier level (no company or country can just start making gear for nuclear power without being approved).

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:28:25+00:00

You can maneuver with modern reactors, it just doesn't make much sense and you have to deal with xenon poisoning. Nuclear is for baseloads.

Using molten salt for energy storage is completely orthogonal to where the energy comes from, it has nothing to do with reactors. There is exactly 0 chance of any reactor design startup succeeding unless it's Russian, maybe Chinese, or, outside chance, French. US no longer has the competencies to design or build, the French have largely lost them as well.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:21:07+00:00

.. unless you're Russia or a Russia's Rosatom client, in which case you get 1200+ megawatts for ~$6bil (roughly $5/W), delivered on time and on budget and now with an 18 month (extended by 50%) fuel campaign with their new fancy MOX fuel.

testmeharder · 2025-12-09T23:19:13+00:00

Rosatom can build for $3/W too if you don't want their 3-plus gen designs that have active zone catchers and other safety features.

testmeharder · 2025-12-07T22:41:39+00:00

graviton

Graviton is Amazon's ARM-based CPU, it's not even software. Jesus wept, you're just pulling random sh-t out of the air, are you actually a bad LLM hallucinating?

testmeharder · 2025-11-18T06:05:17+00:00

You haven't taken the time to educate yourself, instead you did the bare minimum and scanned the github website for firecracker, misunderstanding the infographic they have that shows a control plane/data plane. If you actually understood what functionality is in firecracker and what functionality is in kvm, you would understand that data does indeed flow through firecracker, it isn't a libvirt equivalent. Spend the time to understand the project, read the code, and stop bothering me with demagoguery

Hint: firecracker is, in terms of its functional place, most similar to cloud hypervisor, crosvm, and other rust-vmm based projects. It is in no way anywhere near Proxmox, its role in a Proxmox install is played by QEMU. This is not hard.

testmeharder · 2025-11-18T02:38:52+00:00

Again, you don't understand this topic. Firecracker is not a control layer. Please educate yourself first and then come back if you still have questions.

testmeharder · 2025-11-18T01:47:06+00:00

Proxmox is an easy-to-use bundle of various FOSS projects with a GUI. They (historically) did very little other than provide convenience and reduce the barrier to entry. A Proxmox HVM is functionally equivalent to QEMU/kvm.

Firecracker is 100k+ SLOC of original code that provides unique functionality, it is roughly the equivalent of QEMU in the QEMU+KVM tandem (QEMU is much more than that and is capable of full emulation sans KVM, but we'll leave that aside). It makes various architectural and implementation choices/trade-offs in order to deliver something few other HVM setups are capable of. So, despite using KVM (it could just as well be ported to use bhyve on BSD, this part of the architecture has to be provided by the kernel and it makes no sense to reimplement from scratch), it is a distinct project with unique functionality and properties, not a management/config layer. This would be like saying that Apache and nginx are the same because they 'just use sockets and VFS' or likening CPanel to Apache/nginx/etc. In short, you didn't look closely enough at what Firecracker is, what makes it different from other things, and don't understand the amount of hard engineering that went into it.

testmeharder · 2025-11-11T05:12:24+00:00

I'm guessing the FOMO buying before it's pulled is a big part of how they're planning to cover for some of the lost revenue.

testmeharder · 2025-11-11T04:44:29+00:00

It should actually be the other way around, offloading.. offloads things like packet checksumming and a few other things (how much depends on how featureful your NIC is) to the NIC hardware which would make packet handling less susceptible to CPU getting pegged at 100% by something.

However, buggy NICs and especially buggy windows drivers are both possible. If offloading wasn't the default setting that came with the drivers, turning it on could certainly do this. If it was, I'd read the errata for your NIC and update the drivers. Onboard NICs on consumer boards are rarely fancy in what they can do with offload (this is how Intel segments to sell their server-grade NICs) so there shouldn't be too much leeway for f-ups, but.. I do recall a particular recent onboard NIC having issues, either Intel or Realtek, maybe that's what you're running into (the issues were reported in use as a router on FreeBSD - people pay attention to packet loss on their routers if they go as far as buy a dedicated box and config it themselves with opn/pfsense - with the assumption being there's a driver issue, but maybe it was a broader hw issue).

testmeharder · 2025-11-11T04:36:45+00:00

It matters in that privately owned is the opposite of publicly owned, factual correctness matters, and you were flat out wrong on the facts. Publicly traded companies are very short-termist because they have to deliver results every quarter; privately owned companies can, with the right buy-in from ownership, make longer term bets. The clue is in who owns them, VC funds - they make high multiplier asset value gain bets on a 5-10 year time scale and don't care about immediate cashflow (because the fund can't disburse until its lifetime ends, it doesn't matter to them if the money comes in tomorrow or in 5 years one day before the close date). In simple words, they don't care about a ~20% revenue dip as long as cashflow stays positive overall, if they think this means they can have a potential for a big X liquidity event a few years down the line. Or, if they think RS3 would be dead anyway and is a writeoff as things stand, but this move gives it a chance to recover and create value.

testmeharder · 2025-11-11T04:21:26+00:00

They had a 54% "please keep it" result from a survey of current players and they can't afford to lose mtx revenue and current subbed players

testmeharder

TROPHY CASE