Ace T'Ken

Nah, they were never independent. They were owned by CBS prior to that, and before that they were owned by Red Ventures, and originally Whiskey Media.

Not always! Giant Bomb going independent recently is one example.

… It’s just mostly bad.

Now bring Jeff back and make him play Mario Party.

I am absolutely in the same boat. I would love to listen to Jeff as well and every time he has a guest on I make sure to grab the podcast, but I can’t listen to one person podcasts. He absolutely needs a co-host or guests every week.

The part that doesn’t make sense is how a guess on a QC in a binary is any better than a scientist just guessing an outcome from a binary. Yeah, it can do it a lot, but if you can’t test the outcome to verify if it’s correct or not, how is it better than any other way of guessing outcomes?

Statistically, it absolutely isn’t. Even if it continually narrows things down via guesses, it’s still no more valuable than any other guesses. Because in all the whitepapers I’ve seen, it’s not calculating anything because it can’t. It’s simply assuming that one option is correct.

In the real world, it’s not a calculation and it doesn’t assist in… anything really. It’s no better than a random number generator assigning those numbers to a result. I don’t get the utility other than potentially breaking numerical cryptography.

So that’s the part that gets me stuck. There is no clear answer and it has no way to check the result as QC aren’t capable of doing so (otherwise they wouldn’t be using QC since they can only be based on binary inputs and binary guesses of true / false outcomes on a massive scale). How can it decide that it is “correct” and that the task is completed?

Computations based on guesses of true / false can only be so accurate with no way to check the result in the moment.

I appreciate the reply!

I made the attempt, but couldn’t parse that first link. I gathered that it was about error correction due to the absolutely massive number of them that crop up in QC, but I admit that I can’t get much further with it as the industry language is thick on that paper. Error reduction is good, but it still isn’t on any viable data, and it’s still a massive amount of errors even post-correction. It’s more of a small refinement to an existing questionable system, which is okay, but doesn’t really do much unless I’m misunderstanding.

The Willow (and others) examples I’m skeptical on. We already have different types of chips for different kinds of operations, such as CPUs, GPUs, NPUs, etc. This is just one more kind of chip that will be found in computers of the future. Of course, these can sometimes be combined into a single chip too, but you get the idea.

The factorization of integers is one operation that is simple on a quantum computer. Since that is an essential part of public / private key cryptography, those encryption schemes have been recently upgraded with algorithms that a quantum computer cannot so easily unravel.

With quantum computing, a system of qubits can be set up in such a way that it’s like a machine that physically simulates the problem. It runs this experiment over and over again and measures the outcome, until one answer is the clear winner. For the right type of problem, and with enough qubits, this is unbelievably fast.

Problem is, this only works for systems that have a known answer (like cryptography) with a verifiable result, otherwise the system never knows when the equation is “complete”. It’s also of note that none of these organizations are publishing their benchmarking algorithms so when they talk about speed, they aren’t exactly being forthright. I can write code that runs faster on an Apple 2e than a modern x64 processor, doesn’t mean the Apple 2e is faster. Then factor in how fast quantum systems degrade and it’s… not really useful in power expenditure or financially to do much beyond a large corporation or government breaking encryption.

Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?

How about a use case that isn’t simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?

I’m not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else beyond what I listed.

When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they’re simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That’s pretty much it. To me, that’s fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.

Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It’s not just Microsoft. It’s being developed because it’s being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.

Any of the “quantum computers” you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it’s far too slow to be used for anything.

Just FYI, as per their own terms you can cancel up until it ships.

For anyone looking, someone Archive.org’d the final Win x64 compiled version:

https://archive.org/download/ryujinx-1.1.1403-win_x64

What was the final build? I have 1.1.1402 on my PC.

It looks like I will be nearly the only dissenter here. I didn’t care for the game.

PROS:

• The music and sound design were completely appropriate and fit the world.
• An initially interesting story setup.
• Some of the planets have a SUPER cool premise and are a joy to explore.
• The DLC adds some much-needed (albeit mild) horror elements.

NEUTRALS:

• Achievements are implemented, but are mostly for irrelevant side activities. Do you like using a guide to figure out how to get all the achievements? Well, you will have to.

CONS:

• This is not an adventure game, this is a puzzle game first and foremost. If you are not down with figuring out hundreds of vague Dark Souls-style lore blurbs scattered all over in order to work out how to solve environmental puzzles to progress, do not get this game.
• In the same vein, if you are not down with having a loop end before you’re done exploring an area only to have to trek all the way back there and go through everything all over again in case you missed something, do not get this game. This could be partially solved by having the logs you find on a planet permanently NOT GLOW any more after you had read their chain, or maybe a ship notice letting you know there were undecyphered texts on a planet still. I had to re-tread an astounding amount of ground just to make sure I wasn’t missing something.
• When your ship directs you to a planet that you need something from, the navigation on some of them is so obtuse that I found several places I could not find again even after dozens of visits to their planets. A map or better signposting would alleviate this.
• The characters were deeply forgettable, and you are constantly inundated with dozens of gibberish alien names so unless you follow a lore guide or take notes, you’re not going to figure out who did what. And speaking of…
• The story has a veneer of “pretty good sci-fi” but is told quite poorly. You will beat the game, get the incredibly lacklustre ending that doesn’t close out the story in any way, and watch one of many lore explanation videos that will make things click into place. The fact that the lore videos have SO MANY HITS is endemic of the fact that this is a narrative poorly delivered. You will find the lore in random order. If spread over multiple sessions like I played, this will mean you will not make some absolutely needed connections.
• Many things do not make sense within the context of the world and there is no reason for them to be happening at the time except for the hand-waving “It’s a video game” excuse, which breaks immersion. Why only now is sand being moved from one planet to another at the beginning of a cycle? Why only now is one planet being broken by lava? These (and other that I can not speak about due to spoilers) are not explained - the systems have existed for ages and would have (and should have given the environments they set up) occurred before this, but because it makes for a more interesting setup, it all happens now.
• The controls are… an acquired taste at best. Look at many of the negative reviews; many state the controls as an issue. There is a reason for this, even though I did become accustomed to them over time. I swapped to a controller and it was less bad. The keyboard and mouse controls are abysmal.
• I played the final build after the DLC came out, and even this far in development, I had some severe bugs. Controls would get “stuck” and force a game restart, achievements didn’t unlock correctly, etc.
• I wound up quitting because I didn’t know what to do next and didn’t care to watch yet another video to figure it out. There were hundreds of text logs that may or may not have been useful, and no idea how to find what was missing to help me progress without consulting guides, and it became too much. I eventually realized that I was just throwing time into a hole with nothing to show for it. It genuinely felt like it wanted me to give up and I couldn’t help but oblige. I just… stopped. I hated it. I kept doing the same thing over and over and eventually felt that I wasn’t enjoying anything. I hate the very concept of repetition as a game mechanic unless executed well; this wasn’t executed well.
• Despite quitting, I have seen all the endings. The real ending is legitimately nonsense and is basically an appeal to emotion while leaving the reality of the universe behind. It abandons the premise with what can only be described as a narrative hug that does essentially nothing, but presents the veneer of “feel good.” It is nothing. It is empty. Everyone but me loves it for this, and I can’t figure out why.

CONCLUSION: Meh? I really don’t understand the adoration people have for this game. It’s a mediocre non-combat roguelike with about 3 hour of content they’ve spread over 20 hours. It feels very much like a case of style over substance. This game genuinely makes me sad. I really wanted to like it, but… ugh. It feels like work.

Looks like what I’d want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.

17276667. Thanks for the memories.

Ah! A few ways to do things:

1. Go into the YouTube “three dots” options and you can “Create Clip” which will allow you to shave out or repeat any length of video you want. If you shave it out, you can make it private and just repeat the single video. and / or
2. Use any YouTube download site (say like this one) and just get the MP3 or video which you can play over and over using any media player. and / or
3. If you’re on a phone, use a third-party YouTube app like GrayJay and it’ll block ads.

If you have questions, ask away!

But manually looping any part of it inside the video which you can do past the first 2 minutes would still not be an ad. Also, who doesn’t use an ad blocker on YouTube? All of those problems that you listed have incredibly easy solutions that you can execute with zero training.

And realistically if they are looking for profit (and they absolutely are) I still see no reason why they would keep these up. The benefits are absolutely minimal at best and the drawbacks are quite large.

Sometimes they are, if it’s just audio and a static image. Some of them definitely are not that though. The ones with visualizers or full music videos or the like are not nearly as compressible.

So to combat use cases like this, why not just add a repeat option? There would be no break if it cached the beginning again.

Also just download the audio you want and loop it yourself. It would take roughly 2 minutes and use way less bandwidth.

I wonder why they would kill old videos instead of just removing those 10-hour plus loops of the same song over and over again that nobody watches. You’d think those giant loop videos would be taking up far more space.