KoboldOfArtifice

Your point specifically doesn't stand. Not the one you made in your comment. You're getting incredibly upset over being corrected when the correction was genuinely well meant and important to the discussion at hand. I'm sorry that this is something that angers you, but your hurt feelings don't change the fact that what I'm bringing up isn't pedantry but a correction on a misconception which is being propagated for political gain.

I know what events you're referencing and misrepresenting, yes.

The correction was entirely on point because the framing of this being an example of rampant inflation and thus a major governmental failure is misinformation propagated by the Republican party.

While it is certainly imaginable that the erratic pricing of eggs in particular could have been handled better by the Democratic government, it's entirely false to present it as just one example of a wide reaching problem as the price increase in this case is unique to this product. Inflation has been happening and is comparatively high, putting a lot of pressure on lower income households, but it is not effectively apocalyptic as it is presented here.

Your response is completely unwarranted as in no way was I even attacking or talking down to you.

Inflation describes the decrease of the value of your money. When a currency is affected by inflation, all prices go up as you require more of that money to equal the same worth of goods.

If eggs shot up to a price of 8 or so bucks and then went down to 2.69, you weren't being affected by inflation as it is unheard of for a currency to suffer such insane inflation and then immediately recover from it.

What happened in your case would have been a large shift in supply and demand, possibly brought on by the mentioned problems in the egg production, or price gouging by whoever was selling these. Possibly also just a mix of those.

In no sense did I say that other people's dislike for their games is a problem. I take no offense to that. I myself am literally of the opinion that the newer AC games are hard to enjoy and insulting to the players time.

Nonetheless, I can acknowledge that it's a source of comfort for some, even when I fail to enjoy it. Making them feel bad about it just isn't OK.

I'm sorry, but "Really? Ubisoft though?" is not just rubbishing Ubisofts practices. It's condescending to OP.

The fact that just because I criticized your choice of words makes you assume that it's in defense of my own tastes is unreasonable too. Is there not a chance someone might sympathise with someone without sitting in the same exact boat as them?

Point is, many people would feel bad about being approached the way you did and it is not exactly unreasonable to think that they would.

There's so much attempted shaming in these comments. People like some of their games and some like them a lot. Even if you don't feel like they're the best, Original and Odyssey still carry the attachment people have for Assassin's Creed and Anno 1800 has no real direct comparable alternatives.

Stop trying to make people feel bad for just wanting to enjoy something they like when they are the victim of these companies trying to make their life harder. The fact that Ubisoft treats their customers like trash isn't something to rub in someone's face, it's too bad that some people's hobbies are locked behind something like that.

I see many comments discrediting this somehow, but I want to put my two cents in as someone who does work with sensor based AI assisted processing in real time and safety reliant environments.

Just because a concept can be thought of that sounds reasonable and maybe even works in simple tests, that doesn't mean that it's actually useful for the real use case. Many typical approaches to creating models that can solve computer vision tasks such as this can result in unstable results and no system that has a considerable false positive rate would be tolerated by any airliner. This isn't even to speak of the false negative rate which might then still be rather high, which still leaves the system useless.

Naturally it's not to say that no such system could be created, but they can't be just whipped out like some people here claim. If, as people here are already assuming, the problem happened because someone climbed onto the conveyor belt and was carried in, then this type of problem is sufficiently unthinkably rare that most companies didn't think about it much either.

Clearly greater security is necessary, but people are being unreasonable with how trivial they portray the solution as being.

Their claim does have support in so far that the early testament contains a lot of work written by polytheistic people that later in would become the monolatrists and even later monotheists that we know as Jews, further branching off into what today are Christians.

This does not mean that Christians in any sense are not purely monotheistic. Not only are they so, it's one of the most critical parts of their beliefs, to the point where even believing that their one god has in any way shape or form some kind of tangible division is considered strict heresy from trinitarian churches which form the mainstream of Christianity and have done so for hundreds of years.

Edit: There is a great video by Alex O'Connor interviewing Esoterica on that topic in particular and they talk about the evidence that supports the viewpoints.

Either works, though the usage in the comic is certainly more archaic. But that's also intentional, as it gives it a more grandiose and maniacal tone.

It's not quite that simple. Crowdsourcing has many of the drawbacks that AI has too.

While it can have a higher reliability in detecting nonsensical inputs or inputs that it's simply unfit in processing, that comes at an intrinsic cost in scalability. Some tasks can't be effectively crowdsourced for, either because of volume or urgency.

Machine Learning systems learn to approximate decision making and thus can attempt at learning from crowdsourcing efforts. It is notable though that depending on the use case, model and training method, machine learning algorithms can potentially be better than the data it was trained on. Or much worse, it's very fickle.

It is definitely still the case that crowdsourcing is a really important tool and oftentimes machine learning relies on it's efforts. And it naturally can solve tasks that we don't have a viable automated approach for.

Most games don't even try to be reasonable about stuff like that, so it's not really your fault. BG3 often enough fails that itself, but it clearly does it's best to consider stuff like that.

Hope you have fun with the rest of the game, it's amazing fun. And trying to really roleplay a bit and get into the character interactions is rewarded a lot both throughout the game and at the end, so keep at it.

From the perspective of a DM in a real DnD game, the enemy would simply not have an incentive to follow you. It wants to guard the forge, not kill you at any cost.

If you really wanted to, I'd have let you go that way, but I wouldn't just let the creature run into suicide or abandon it's only task for no reason, so I think BG3 does this fight really well. Especially because this is actually a fight where using the environment can make the fight much much easier and there are environmental clues before the fight that hint towards a weakness in the boss.