I'm impressed by your, and their, hearing comprehension here! Granted, English isn't my native language but even with concentration I struggle to hear what they say.
It's easy to forget how many skills and "heuristics" go into listening. I once read a scale of language proficiency that placed "Can converse over a poor phone connection" at a very high level. When a word is garbled or lost, you have to quickly think of all the possible words that could've fit the grammar and whatever sound you heard, consider them in the context, and choose one or two. Then the next part of the conversation should let you pick one. Then add the complication of not seeing body language.
I forget where I read this. I think it was from the US Department of State, but I can't find it now.
Previous experience with aviation radio comms helps a lot. Typical radio comms essentially follow a template, and it’s done in a way where you can safely approximate a LOT (…just not numbers). But the…phraseology if you will, can be approximated quite easily with experience.
Funnily enough, American ATC / pilots are, I find, a lot more frequently ‘fast and loose’ compared to other areas, even English-speaking ones. Countless recordings online of EALD pilots being befuddled by some self-identified hotshot air traffic controller using overly casual / sloppy language, sometimes resulting in near misses or worse.
I use a fork [1] of Valetudo and it lets me do just this. I save one map per floor, then restore when carrying it between floors. One floor gets cleaned much more often, but so far I have preferred this over buying two robots.
Came here to say the same thing: PaaS. Intriguing that none of the other 12 sibling comments mention this… each in their bubble I guess (including me). We use Azure App Service at my day job and it just works. Not multi-cloud obviously, but the other stuff: zero downtime deploys, scale-out with load balancing… and not having to handle OS updates etc. And containers are optional, you can just drop your binaries and it runs.
I know things kind of derailed downthread from here, but I just have to add that your claim is either confusing or simply untrue. I visited a manufacturer of industrial laser welds [1], and they use 16 kWh lasers over reasonably small fibers. I don't know the exact dimensions, but the overall cable looked like… a reasonable cable. Somewhere like 10 to 25 mm perhaps?
> Item A splits off to another belt, while all other items loop back.
This doesn't address the parent comment's concern:
> IIRC splitters only accept a single filter, and so you'd need many of them at each junction
I haven't played Factorio in years, but IIRC the splitter maintains state (direction for next item) per item type, so I guess it can be set up to filter as many types as you like? I remember you had to prime it for the desired item type, but I forgot the specifics of how it does the rest of the filtering "logic".
Oh geez, your comment reminds me of like 8 years ago. You've really been out of the loop haven't ya? Yeah, what you say used to be true, but that's not what I'm talking about.
All splitters today can split items off. You can just click on a modern splitter and say "Left side Iron ore", and all iron-ore leaves the left side of the splitter, and all other items go out the right side. This operates at full speed, no glitches.
> so I guess it can be set up to filter as many types as you like?
So use a splitter per item, and then merge the belts back together later.
If you have 5 items to sort, create 5 filters, and then run the belts to route them where those 5 items need to go.
For "Meta" builds, the key requirement isn't size. Its throughput. When you have 5 filters inserters, you barely will have ~10 items/second throughput (and that will glitch out depending on how successful your inserters are at picking up items, corners can pose issues for example)
When you have 5 filter-splitters (on 5 different items), you easily prove that every decision point operates at the full 15/30/45 items/second (yellow/red/blue belts respectively).
It's more complicated when you have many types of item and not many of each item, because a filter inserter can do five types and a splitter can do one.
And if you add some wires, you can have each inserter automatically grab whatever is directly in front of it that isn't on a blacklist. At that point a max-throughput build with inserters is a big but roughly fixed size, while a build for splitters is proportional to the number of items.
Splitters can still only filter out a single item type, so if your goal is to do comparisons using a single entity (for clarity reasons for instance), they won't cut it.
----
Also, Factorio speedrunning has no metagame, since it's not a PvP game (well, aside from the less played PvP mode) : speedrunners don't have to adapt to changes in tactics of other speedrunners, they only have to learn new tricks that other speedrunners might discover, which is part of discovering the game itself.
"The Meta" is how most other people play. The "standard" set of designs that experienced players have all discovered (and rediscovered) as you play the game. Ya know, 3-wire assembly machines feed into 2-green circuits kinda things.
There's patterns of play between players. We all got our own style, but some designs are universally deployed across all experienced players, because those designs are just so good.
There's no "metagame" in Factorio because its not a PvP game.
The "metagame" in Magic the Gathering or Starcraft revolves around the game before the game is played. For example, if I see that my opponent in Starcraft is a Terrain player (and I'm a Zerg player), I can study their games and see that they prefer to open 8-rax 3 marines very early harassments.
I then decide to practice 9-pool / 6-ling and make sure I'm good at that before the game even starts, so that I'm well practiced against what they like to do. That's the "metagame", decisions you make before the game even starts.
Or in MTG, its knowing how good Rakdos decks are (or whatever is popular today) and finding counter-cards. You play the game before you even start the game, because you have to prepare your deck.
--------------
So there's no real "metagame" in Factorio. There is a "meta" however. (IE: what most players tend to do).
The game being PvP is not relevant. PvP games have a goal, beat the other player(s) or team(s). Factorio has a goal, launch as many rockets as you can. Not to mention, within the community or your own imagination there are an infinite amount of niche game styles encompassing goals of their own. For example: speed runs, smallest footprint, highest efficiency, most advanced automation, most chaotic pipes, CPU design, actual PvP mode (yes it does have PvP, but in the spirit of my argument I'll ignore this)...the list goes on and on, and permutations of all of the above.
Regardless of the goal you choose, you're competing, expanding knowledge, and defining standards with yourself and/or the community in some way, be it by playing co-op mode or sharing your results / optimizations / innovations on forums. Similar to PvP games, reaching that goal requires extremely nuanced strategic planning and making tactical decisions, even before starting the game, drawing from personal and/or community experience, understanding and adapting to game patches that may affect strategies, etc.
Regarding "meta" vs "metagame," I still assert the former is simply shorthand for the latter.
I'm gonna disagree with you - accepting your definitions, Factorio has both a meta and a metagame. Because co-op can have a metagame, except instead of needing to know what your opponent will do in order to best hinder them, you need to know what your friend will do in order to best help them.
Point in case: try joining a deathworld server (with experienced players), and then spamming burner miners. Once you're immediately kicked, please ponder your statement that "there's no real 'metagame'".
That's still game, not metagame : burner miners are bad because polluting, that's just game knowledge, you would have trouble if you tried to do that yourself in your own Death World game.
But great point, co-op might require modifying your tactics to better work with teammates - in case of Factorio I know that you have to be WAY more careful to not make spaghetti in MP, which might also depend on the familiarity between the players - so I would say that you can potentially have a metagame as soon as you have MP, even without PvP.
But now that I think of it, you can potentially have a metagame even when playing against AI. It's just that it needs to be advanced enough to be able to play rock/paper/scissors and remember previous games against you. AFAIK these games exist, but because it's much less effort and better reward to support basic AI + MP, they tend to be vanishingly rare, especially for more complex games.
Counterpoint: open source software, of which there are many great works without anyone being forced or pressured into making it. There are many more ways of getting motivation than applying "some pressure". Indeed, people are inherently curious and motivated, but it can easily be suppressed by environmental factors. In particular "stick and carrot"-type reward systems.
For a (much more) elaborate expansion on this, see the book Drive by Daniel H. Pink.
All this musk-style motivation 101 BS is direct from the CIA's manual on domestic espionage - frustration from within.
The means define the ends. If you treat people like shit, or as morons who need BS pressure techniques, you'll get a demoralised company.
Treat people well, set them clear targets and say it without fluff when they're slacking. If you can't tell somebody they're not good enough, you cannot help them to be good enough. None of this psychobabble BS where you're constantly second-guessing in a failed attempt to retain them on the rat-race for the rest of their life. Stop building ratrace companies.
They build rat-races because they are all still rats at heart.
Endemic crisis of leadership and vision bred men who cannot think
outside the maze. No amount of climbing extended their horizons or
released them from slavery to money and the misery it brings.
> released them from slavery to money and the misery it brings
Good point. I often wonder what motivates a billionaire to keep making more money. For most it seems like ego, greed, and inability to rethink their life. I suppose they climbed so high by being relentless and not stopping. This is what makes the example of Yvon Chouinard so interesting.
The vast majority of open source done in peoples free time is unfinished and at best of limited use. The serious projects very often have payed developers. The good ones done by unpaid developers have some pressure in terms of expectations by their community or the developers put pressure on themselves to achieve some self goal.
You are quite right that open source done purely in free time usually takes much longer to be "finished" but that is more a question of the time available to spend on it than absence of pressure.
OSS projects that have paid developers often manage to avoid much of the pressure that occurs in closed source.
Some OSS projects like the kernel manage to harness companies as way of funding full time developers without giving them too much say in details or deadlines. A feature ships in Linux when it is ready and accepted by the maintainers and Linus not when some manager says it has to ship.
Of course this works far better for large projects that are essentially a "commons" like the kernel, less so for open source projects where most of the developers work for a single company.
OSS projects are also prone to leadership issues and tend to have "good ol boys" clubs. It's utlimately human nature, OSS or not. See Linus Torvals or some of the things that went on in Rust community. Also, StackOverflow mods that volunteer their free time have so many issues. Wikipedia editors and Reddit moderators. Same.
Putting a OSS lipstick isn't doing any favors to understanding the human nature and how to create a good governance model to keep people happy. I suspect this is never going to be "solved", only solved in one person's views or ideological bias.
We barely recently got decent open source computers (but not smartphones), now try to imagine a GPL car...
That said it wouldn't it be cool have some sort of open source VW Bug. Stainless steel cyberbug, EV for the people. Low tech, curb lasts whole century, ubiquitous parts.
> That said it wouldn't it be cool have some sort of open source VW Bug. Stainless steel cyberbug, EV for the people. Low tech, curb lasts whole century, ubiquitous parts.
AWS would just fork it, package it as a SaaS, give nothing back to the project and it would then slowly atrophy and cease to exist.
It's interesting to read about Durable Objects. It strikes me as conceptually very similar to what's called Virtual Actors, or Grains specifically in Microsoft Orleans, even if the underlying infrastructure is quite different. Seems like they struggled with naming as well.
One critical thing that I couldn't find info about is what reliability to expect from the persistent storage for a Durable Object. Is it more or less a write to a single disk without redundancy? If there's redundancy, to what degree? Essentially, how much would you need to build on your own in terms of replication for a production scenario if using Durable Objects as primary storage?
I get that they can use other, separate storage if necessary, but either way it seems like an important consideration when designing a system on top of them.
Durable Object storage writes are not confirmed until they are on disk in three geographically separate datacenters. So, pretty reliable.
The fact that there is one unique instance of the object live at a time (and therefore only one client for the distributed storage) lets us do a lot of tricks to hide the storage latency.
Not really. See the trial against the founders of The Pirate Bay for example, and the controversies surrounding it. Also, the FRA surveillance. Also, according to the ISP Bahnhof, the police at least used to submit lots of data requests without a court order and for non-serious crimes.
AIUI, Bahnhof and other VPN providers stay in the clear by avoiding storage of data in the first place. They can be compelled to hand over any data they have, but not to log any additional data. (ISPs etc are forced to log more data IIRC.)
At least there's nothing like the Australian laws for forcing and gagging developers.
> At least there's nothing like the Australian laws for forcing and gagging developers.
Actually I'm not so sure that's true. I'm pretty sure similar gag orders have been mentioned in episodes of P1's Gräns. Might want to double check that...
There are two major pieces of legislation [1][2] that have been enacted in the last few years that have eliminated any expectation of privacy and security in Australia.
The AABill introduced warrants that can be handed down without judicial oversight that compel the recipient (individual or institution) to grant (or, critically, develop the means to grant) read access to any system to the government; while simultaneously acting as a gag order preventing disclosure of the warrant's existence. Violating this gag order would incur jail time.
The IDBill introduced warrants that allow the government to "disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying or deleting data in order to frustrate the commission of serious offences online" and further allows them to impersonate the online profiles of a person deemed significant to a criminal investigation.
Both of these bills were rushed through parliament with minimal opportunity for public comment. Where public comment (from the legal, tech, and human rights arenas) was made, it was universally negative. We have just ousted the government that drove these bills, but the new government (supposedly considerably more left leaning) supported both these bills with minimal opposition and has made no public plans to repeal or amend this legislation.
A previous Prime Minister once said (not in regards to these particular laws): “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.”
