It's kind of crazy how nice people in multiplayer are. Nobody says anything about my mother or what kind of content I'm downloading to cause lag. Everyone's got the personality of, like, a chill dad now. People are more interested in a good game than just winning. It's really nice.
The other day, I was playing a noob game where one opponent on the other team was way better than the rest of us and rushed. His own team came down on him after.
I am a chill dad and I rediscovered aoe2 a few months ago, after being addicted to Age of Mythology. Previously it was Songs of Syx, Foundation, Farthest Frontier... I think we're just a different type of gamers.
I'm not in the scene, but I used to love Age of Mythology - is the AoM scene as big, or as AoE2 become the sort of de facto classic Age of Empires game now?
AoM is not as popular, but I can't give you the numbers. All I know is I'm very good in AoM, and very bad in AoE2. AoE is easy to learn and hard to master, imo. I assume it's the biggest old school strategy franchise with a PvP scene that refuses to die, and it's not driven by hype or marketing.
Haha, I think the experience is a bit different at the higher levels (between ranks 50-1000), but overall people are quite a bit nicer than those playing League of Legends or Dota.
I don't play a lot of games but one thing I've noticed over the years is that the best games with the best communities are more niche. Like Xonotic for instance. It has a fair number of players; there's always at least one or two servers going in the evening. Everyone is friendly to each other. I've never seen any kind of trash talking in there. Same with other games like Quake etc which are long past their heyday. Wherever the masses are, that's where the toxic assholes are. When they move on, things just get a lot better.
Maybe I'm buying into the cool-aid, but I actually really liked the self-aware tone of this post.
> Based on our benchmarks, we are uniquely good at catching bugs. However, if all company blogs are to be trusted, this is something we have in common with every other AI code review product. One just has to try a few, and pick the one that feels the best.
> Today's agents are better than the median human code reviewer
"...at catching issues and enforcing standards, and they're only getting better".
I took this to mean what good code review is is subjective. But if you clearly define standards and patterns for your code, your linter/automated tools/ AI code reviewer will always catch more than humans.
Absolutely love this kind of project, combining different data sources to predict/model how you're doing. I also use chess as a proxy for my brain is working!
If anyone Googles it and is wondering about Feeling Good (1999) and Feeling Great (2020) by the same author, it seems like Feeling Great is just an updated version of the original book, based on more experience and new insights. Here's the author discussing the difference:
I love Addy's work, and enjoyed this article -- and I completely agree that it felt very LLM-y. I'm not sure what's scarier; that we know some of this didn't come from the author (and maybe that's okay?) or that one day soon, we'll get to a point where we won't be able to tell anymore.
This feels like a good second draft. There's definitely a message in here, but it shifts through the piece. To me, the most poignant sentence was " If I can just keep chugging forward, I will end up somewhere that is not here." I think the message is "Why are you working this hard? What do you hope to get out of participating in hustle culture; to what end?
So glad someone already spoke up about this -- I love Wired, and I think that piece is really poor (not because I love Ruby or think it's without fault, but because the argument it makes is essentially "it's not Ruby or Python, which have static typing tools.")
The other day, I was playing a noob game where one opponent on the other team was way better than the rest of us and rushed. His own team came down on him after.
reply