MajorasMaskForever

Whenever I replay OOT I never have a problem with Navi. She rarely hard interrupts, usually just a short tone and flashing C button that goes away after a few seconds. The voice lines only trigger if you press the button to call her, in most cases the hints she gives are genuinely helpful, and stays out of your way for the vast majority of the game.

Fi from skyward sword though..... Far worse because she does interrupt gameplay, often repeats what the last dialogue box just fucking told you, and takes several dialogue boxes to tell you what Navi would have taken one to do. I'm glad they significantly overhauled her interactions in the HD release but I'm still going to be hesitant to play that game again

I think part of the "what do I do with this" factor for the iPad was that Apple (and other companies still to this day) were so hell bent on making everything smaller and more compact that releasing a larger product was marketing whiplash. Not to mention that smartphones were being pitched as this "do everything device" so why would you need anything else?

After you get over that marketing sugarcoating, it becomes pretty obvious what you'd use an iPad for. Internet and media consumption at a larger scale than your phone, easier on your eyes than a phone, but retains at least some of the lightweight smaller form factor that separates it from a regular laptop. Sure you didn't have the stick it in your pocket advantage of a phone or the full keyboard and computational power of a laptop, but there was this in-between that for a modest fee, you could have the conveniences if you can live with/ignore the sacrifices.

I live in Colorado, always love finding a new good brewery, big fan of supporting local business...

But my guy, you didn't say what the name of the place was. Tell me where to get more beer 😀

I don't think the MacBook Airs launch is a good comparison.

Sure there was an early adopter tax on being one of the first "thin and light" laptops, but people already know what you can use a MacBook for, there was already a large value proposition in having a MacBook, the extra cost was entirely being more portable than it's full size counterparts. Everything you can do on a Mac, just way easier to take on the go.

I've read a few reviews on it, watched MKBHD's initial review, and outside of a few demo apps they point to the vision pro having no real point to it. Which if true, then it falls in line with existing VR headsets that are a fraction of it's cost and in a niche market, being three times the cost of your competitors is not a good position to be

Oh yeah I pulled 20 years out of my ass. I could see some manager there saying to plan for it even though all the engineers expect a much shorter lifetime

Who Watches the Watchers kinda is a mundane episode about the prime directive since it's morality isn't really being questioned. The interesting part of the episode is watching the Enterprise crew repeatedly screw up trying to uphold the prime directive before deciding that they've already violated it like crazy on accident, might as well use that as a way to try and fix it now. The scenes actually about the prime directive were the most boring parts of that episode.

The issue is that with ongoing service across time, the longer the service is being used the more it costs Kia. The larger the time boxes Kia uses the bigger the number is and the more you're going to scare off customers.

Using Kias online build and price, looks like the most expensive Telluride you can get right now is $60k MSRP, cheapest at 30k

Let's assume Kia estimates average lifetime of a Telluride to be 20 years so they create an option to purchase this service one time for the "lifetime" of the vehicle. Taking in good faith the pricing Kia has listed, using that $150 annual package, and assuming that price goes up every year at a rate of 10% (what Netflix, YouTube, etc have been doing) across those twenty years you're looking at around $8.5k option. At the top trim thats still 14% extra that is going to make some buyers hesitant, at the base model that's 28% more expensive.

Enough buyers will scoff at that so Kia can either ditch the idea entirely as they'll lose money on having to pay for the initial development and never make their money back, or they find some way to repackage that cost and make it look like something that buyers are willing to deal with.

To me the bigger issue is the cost of the service vs what you're getting. Server time + dev team + mobile data link cannot be costing Kia more than a few million annually, mid to upper hundred K is more likely so they must not be expecting that many people to actually be paying for any of this

It's IEEE misinterpreting the guys original paper.

https://liuyang12.github.io/proj/privacy_dual_imaging/ (can't find the full paper, but here's the abstract at least)

The paper author straight up says the light sensor is impractical to use as an attack vector, but when you use it in conjunction with other sensors you might be able to gleam more information than most might think. It leaves me with question of what other sensors can you combine to start getting behavioral information that is a security threat?

I'll say it worked for me. I read the IEEE headline, called bullshit, dug into it and yeah you can only get a tiny bit of information that you have to stretch pretty far to get useful conclusions from.... But it's more than the zero I initially thought. So props to the paper author, he met his goal. IEEE wanted sensationalized clicks, which they too unfortunately got.

Yup your right, I was wrong. Valve keeps the copyright regardless.

Dolphin situation was different though. https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2023/07/20/what-happened-to-dolphin-on-steam/

Valve only ever insisted that Nintendo had to give Dolphin permission to distribute since Valve was afraid of a potential DMCA coming from Nintendo if Nintendo thought that the encryption keys were IP illegally being redistributed. Since Nintendo says emulators are illegal everywhere but a courtroom, Dolphin team knew that they'd never get an ok. Valve probably knew that but didn't care enough to help fight that legal battle.

I'm not sure Valve cares about brownie points with Nintendo. The Steam Deck is a direct competitor against the Switch, Valve has done nothing to curtail the use of Switch emulators on Deck, and the work Valve has been doing makes using a switch emulator a better experience.

This whole thing only makes sense if Valve wanted to protect their IP. Involving Nintendo really does sound like blame shifting without having to actually go to court

I'm with you on the first part. It makes no sense for Valve to do this. Using LibUltra or not, Nintendo has been relatively lax on people creating new code for the N64. At least to my recollection only in cases where Nintendo felt their IP was directly being threatened did they try and take down fan projects. Even then they heavily rely on the redistribution of Nintendo IP to take things down. Admittedly I have only seen others talking about the Portal 64 project using LibUltra but even so that's Nintendo's fight, not Valve's.

I don't see how Valve could possibly be afraid of getting sued here by Nintendo, it doesn't make sense. Valve did not create it, nor distribute, advertise, or aid in any way. IANAL but I don't see how Valve could possibly be listed as a party to the lawsuit unless Nintendo lawyers agreed with Valve lawyers to go after this guy for IP theft.

TBH I see this more as Valve seeing that with a project this publicly known, if they don't defend their IP here they'll lose any future copyright claims and want to prevent it. They also see an opportunity here, blame Nintendo who won't flinch it at since they get labelled legal bad guys all the time, no real dent to their reputation while saving Valve's internet golden child perception. Valve would never do something like this so it MUST be Nintendo's fault. Based on the comments in this thread and I've seen else where, that seems like a good assumption. Nintendo takes the heat while Valve protects their IP.

In pure C things are a bit different from what you describe.

Declaration has (annoyingly) multiple definitions depending on the context. The most basic one is when you are creating an instance of a variable, you are telling the compiler that you want a variable with symbol name X, data type Y, and qualifiers A,B and C. During compilation the compiler will read that and start reserving memory for the linker to assign later. These statements are always in the form of "qualifiers data_type symbol;"

Function declaration is a bit different, here you're telling the compiler "hey you're going to see this function show up later. Here are the types for arguments and return. I pinky swear promise you'll get a definition somewhere else". You can compile without the definition but the linker will get real unhappy if you don't have the definition when it's trying to run. Here you're looking at a statement of "qualifiers return_data_type symbol(arg_1_data_type arg_1_symbol,...);" Technically in function declarations you don't need argument symbols, just the types, but it's better to just have them for readability.

Structs are different still. Here you're telling the compiler that you're going to have this struct definition somewhere else in the same translation unit, but the data type symbol will show up before the definition. So whenever the compiler sees that data type show up in a variable instance declaration it won't reserve space right away but it has to have the struct definition before compilation ends. This is pretty straightforward syntax wise, "struct struct_name;" (Typedefs throw a syntax wrench into this that I won't get into, it's functionally the same though)

One more thing you can do with variables during declaration is to "extern" them. This is more similar to function declaration, where you're telling the compiler "hey you're gonna see this symbol pop up, here's how you use it, but it actually lives somewhere else k thx bye". I personally don't like calling this declaration since it behaves differently than normal declaration. This is the same as a normal variable declaration syntax with "extern" tossed in the front of the qualifiers.

Definitions have two types: Function definitions contain the actual code that gets translated into instructions, Enum, struct, typedef definitions all describe memory requirements when they get used.

Structs and enums will have syntax like "struct struct_name {blah,blah,blah};", typedefs are just "typedef new_name old_name;", and function definition "qualifiers return_data_type symbol(arg_1_data_type arg_1_symbol,...) {Blah,blah,blah}" (note that function definitions don't need a ; at the end and here you do need argument symbols)

Lastly, when you create a variable instance, if you say that you want that symbol to have value X all in one statement, by the standard that's initialization. So "int foo = 5;" is declaration and initialization. Structs and arrays have special initialization syntax, "struct foo bar = {5, 6, 7};" where the numbers you write out in the list gets applied in order of the element names in the struct definition. You can also use named initialization for structs where it would look like "struct foo bar = {. element_one = 5, .e_two = 6, .e_three = 7};" This style syntax is only available for initialization, you cannot use that syntax for any other assignment. In other words you can't change elements in bulk, you have to do it one at a time.

C lets you get real wild and combine struct definition, struct instance declaration and initialization all into one! Though if I was your code reviewer I'd reject that for readability.

<\wall-o-text>