I only see second-person "you" and not first-person "I" in the linked documentation. Am I missing what you intended to point out?
In any case, this might actually be a good use for an LLM to post-process it into whatever style you want. I bet there's even a browser extension that could do it on-demand and in-place.
Really? For example under "Main concepts" on the "Schemas" site[0], I see stuff like this:
- I support the creation of schemas for any primitive data type.
- Among complex values I support objects, records, arrays, tuples as well as various other classes.
- For objects I provide various methods like pick, omit, partial and required.
- Beyond primitive and complex values, I also provide schema functions for more special cases.
Same for "Mental model", "Pipeline", "Parse data", "Infer types", "Methods" and "Issues" - I'll assume the other sections also follow this style. That's all not showing up for you?
While the LLM suggestion is nice, it's not something I'm comfortable with unless hallucinations are incredibly rare. Why would I use a library whose documentation I have to pass through an unreliable preprocessor to follow a normal style?
I honestly don't want my validation library to "tell a story" at the expense of documentation clarity. It's absolutely fine that this project uses it, I don't want to impose my view on them - I guess it's just not the validation library for me.
To expand on that, as a point of comparison, a single neuron can have thousands of synaptic connections. So we're still a few orders of magnitude out from modeling NNs that have a degree of connectivity similar to the brain, even though the synapse counts are comparable.
Looks like there's plenty of masks available on Amazon. I suspect a major part of why the mask gets a prescription is to make insurance covering it simpler.
There's a funny workaround where mask parts don't require a subscription. The ones I've seen on Amazon are usually selling parts, perhaps a kit of parts, and not a complete mask.
That's not the fear. The fear is that the player will get stuck and simply stop playing because it's frustrating instead of fun.
The way that devs determine where the line is for "most people that play get frustrated and give up" and "most people figure it out and keep playing"
It's certainly possible to design a game where the intuition of the player matches a less contrived looking world, bit it's a lot harder. On the other hand, having a convention that climbable surfaces will be blazed yellow, and teaching it early in the game is comparatively easy.
There's also aspects of pacing and focus to consider. A game that ebbs and flows in it's intensity often feels better to play than one that's high intensity all the time. So if your game is mostly about combat, you'll want to break up big fights with lower energy experiences. But those lower energy experiences really aren't "the game" in a sense, they're a kind of filler that makes the high energy experiences feel more fun. It can't be completely boring, but it should be easier than the primary gameplay experience and also have lower stakes. That's a big reason why do many actiony games have blatantly obvious climbing and puzzles. It keeps the player lightly engaged while letting them catch their breath before the next set piece.
It's not the only way to build games by any means, but it is a generally effective, and consistently reliable, template.
But this is exactly one of the problems of today. Everything uses UX metrics to base their design around. It makes the end result boring and predictable and the opposite of immersive.
I agree that there needs to be pacing, but there are great ways to do that.
GTA and RDR are great examples. You drive somewhere and get a funny conversation, or something happens on the way to the objective that pretty naturally distracts you in a way that makes sense to the world the game is playing in.
Ubisoft games are basically full of these boring filler activities. What point does a huge open world have, if it's just the same 5 things copy and pasted all over the place?
I'd much rather condense those 590 busy work tasks to 5 really nice side quests like in The Witcher 3. At least they give you an experience and not some UX concept of "the user needs to go climb a tree now".
it's a very interesting divide when you have games that worry about this, and then genres/subgenres like the "soulslike" that take pride in its difficulty and precise maneuvering involved just to beat a boss.
Colloquialisms like "in real life" are correct usage. Just because it's not literal doesn't mean it's wrong because the information contained in verbal and written communication is affected by its context, including the society and culture it arose within.
In any case, this might actually be a good use for an LLM to post-process it into whatever style you want. I bet there's even a browser extension that could do it on-demand and in-place.
reply