If you work on something small and simple on a constrained timescale with a set deadline first—like a Pac-Man clone, or an Arkanoid clone, or a Vampire Survivors clone—it will take you longer than you would've expected, but it still won't take too long, and you'll come away from the experience with some code you can reuse, some ideas of how to do things better next time, and a ton of confidence due to having explored the problem domain somewhat.
"Punching above your weight" and taking on an experimental or otherwise complex game design for a game development project is a good way to learn, but it can be frustrating and you can get burned out when you run into unforeseen design and implementation issues. I think this is the way most people go about independent game development, and it's how I started out when I was much younger, too. "Punching below your weight" and choosing a smaller-scoped project—ideally one with a predefined and tested design—is extremely underrated. Unless you've done something like this many times before, it might seem "beneath you" (especially if you have some ideas of the ideal long-term game project you want to work on that you're excited about), but it's actually a great way to solidify your skills (especially your design skills, as you play around with modifying an existing game design once you've implemented the basics of it), and prove to yourself that you can finish something you set out to do. Plus, in the process, you might find something unexpected in terms of either tech or design that you can take with you to your next "real" project.
Aphorism? There is substantial evidence supporting the statement that most violence is committed by people who know each other rather than by strangers. Here are some key findings from various sources:
- Sexual Violence: According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), the majority of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement show that 93% of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator: 59% were acquaintances, 34% were family members, and only 7% were strangers¹.
- General Violence: Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicates that less than half of all violent crimes were committed by total strangers. A significant portion of violent crimes were committed by acquaintances, friends, and relatives⁵.
- Homicide: In 2004, only 23% of murders were committed by strangers, highlighting that a larger percentage of homicides occur between individuals who know each other⁴.
These statistics demonstrate that violence is more likely to occur within known social circles rather than between strangers. It's important to note that these findings are based on reported cases and surveys, which can have limitations, but they provide a general understanding of the patterns of violence.
With cable TV, you might click around while finding something to watch, but when you found something to watch, you'd watch it, for multiple minutes, until commercial break. Then, you'd either sit through the commercials, or press JUMP to go back to your "backup channel", with something else you'd want to watch while you estimated the duration of the commercial block on the first channel.
The point is, you were being exposed to novel content at a much slower rate than you are when you scroll through your short-video social media feeds. It already wasn't a great situation to begin with, as far as attention spans are concerned, but this new age of short video social media apps has undoubtedly exacerbated the issue.
I'm old enough to remember people saying that about chess, finding things in images, translation, composing music, go, and creating artistically pleasing images.
At what point do we run out of things to say we can do that computers can't? And what happens then?
We will be forced into the most novel (and high risk) edge spaces of the human experience -- because without novelty we will lack any new experiences to compress into new cognitive behaviors to pass on to our young. And then we will run out of reasons to exist in the forward march of time.
That or, we somehow change enough to learn to live simply because of our shared existence with eachother, the novel engagement with ourselves and others, and learn a certain contentment with our position in the universe as unimaginably rare, but also limited.
Sure, but the point is that it's not their intelligence that's valued. You'd often praise a great professor by saying they're very smart, but very rarely a great cook.
2024 is the year that most of us are collectively growing out of the early social media era all-lowercase thing, but everyone hasn't gotten the memo yet.
Am I wrong in saying if it was an generous estimate of 1 million per employee there is 6.5 billion, and that's insane generous. 20% being around 9billion... Back of napkin math would disagree..
Your dramatically overestimating Twitter's revenue. In 2021 it was about $5 billion in total. [1] Probably more like $100k per employee so around $650 million in labor cost reductions, and then around $1 billion loss in revenue. They are expected to become profitable sometime this year, so these numbers are probably roughly in the right ballpark.
Me too. Atari, toward the end, had even mastered color vector displays that look excellent!
Look for clips of "Star Wars" in action.
The 70's was anni interesting time. Atari was employing dynamic vector displays capable of real time motion.
Tektronix was using vectors with their storage CRT tech. Basically the vectors got painted onto the tube phosphors, thus displaying the image without the need to refresh.
4k resolution (vector coordinate space) ended up being a thing!
reply