> If StarCraft 3 comes out it would only be popular in South Korea and possibly not all that popular at all even there.
Given that StarCraft 2 still hasn't fully displaced BroodWar, I shudder to think of the uphill battle a StarCraft 3 would face.
Really, in this era of live service games, it would make more sense to release a client refresh (multithreading + anniversary graphics) for SC2, and an expansion pack of new campaigns...
Did you catch that we can't LAN with it? Might seem small, but that's how some of us still choose to play. Being able to host on our own terms is kind of the main reason we still play the ancient versions...
Because they are very comfortable. I'm not saying people should be obsessed about them, but that's part of why they are paying premiums for SUVs. Driving higher on the road on a wide car has a strong appeal for most people.
My little sister is a very petite woman, and drives a massive SUV, when I asked her why she said it makes her feel safer, I suppose that is a form of comfort. I'm 6ft tall and skinny, that's not particularly tall, but if I was a driver, I'd certainly consider the leg/head room of an SUV.
As a bigger guy, I don't really buy this argument. I have a mid-size SUV at the moment, and it has roughly the same legroom as a mini cooper (just higher off the ground). I'd much rather have the longer legroom in an estate car / station wagon (and when this car reaches an end, I will be going in that direction).
That's a silly stereotype. My wife is thin and loves SUVs for the extra leg and arm room, in addition to the extra driving height. That said, obese people will certainly enjoy the same benefits.
Is it only fat people who pay extra for more personal space on any other form of transport?
I think there's a stronger argument that if you really don't want huge vehicles, you could at least improve ventilation. Air quality and temperature have a massive psychological effect.
Anecdotally, I think most people were fine with a subcompact back in the day because they weren't so airtight and we used to even have crotch vents. So much comfort has been sacrificed over the years because of autistic designer bullshit like "road noise".
It's why you can hop into an old Toyota truck (far smaller than modern SUVs) and instantly feel at ease and grounded. Fits like an old glove and that was always the point. You get improved road awareness and less highway hypnosis. You don't get that nervous system disconnect between your inputs into the car and the feedback. It feels more like an extension of your body and less like a spaceship or coffin on wheels.
After 10 straight hours of freeway driving across Texas, give me a spaceship on wheels with "autistic bullshit" no road noise, please. Or better yet, something that drives itself. Don't get me wrong, I love a spirited jaunt through the mountains on four or two wheels, but the vehicle for that isn't the vehicle to drive in an almost straight line for 10 (or more!) straight hours.
I don't think the vehicle is going to make a difference at that point. You shouldn't be driving so long without a break anyway!
Thanks for demonstrating the attitude that got us here in the first place, though. In your reply, we have an answer for the rest of the world why americans buy SUVs.
That attitude is a physics problem reflected by culture. El Paso to Houston is a 10 hour drive. it's worse in Africa. Algiers to Marrakesh is a 15 hour drive. Djibouti to Johannesburg is 4.5 days. But Amsterdam to Berlin is only 7 by car/bus/train or 80 minutes by air. Seoul to Pyongyang is only three hours. Theoretically.
The difference in the amount of people who live between those is vast though, and the rest of the world is used to horribly long bus drives, they're just too poor to complain anywhere you or I would frequent. Point is, EV self driving sleeper cabins are going to change the world, though self-driving hot tubs in major cities is liable to come first.
Ironically, larger crossovers have been among the least comfortable cars I have driven. Sure, they are a tad higher so someone with knee issues can more easily get in, but it seems most of the extra space they take up is somehow wasted. If you care about your rear seat passengers or carrying capacity, station wagons are far superior.
The whole "higher on the road" thing is a red queen's race: if everyone is higher on the road, nobody is. You've got slightly better sight yourself until all the other people upsize, and in the meantime you are blocking everyone else's sight. Considering SUVs are more expensive, the only people winning are the car makers.
As someone who lives in an area of Europe replete with narrow roads between stone buildings... standard SUVs have grown ~20cm wider in the last decade, and it sucks
And to that point, station wagons tend to have better cargo length than equivalent-capacity SUVs as well. Where the SUV does win is height - but then again, if you regularly transport large boxes, some variant of minivan would be even better.
The current safety and mpg targets for car manufacturers incentivize them to produce 'cars' of a certain size and weight to avoid compliance with stricter standards on smaller vehicles.
As such, the manufactuers have incentivized customers to buy SUVs for a few decades now.
Presumably the docker container has network access because something else in the build system requires it? I don't think sandboxing the entire build process is the right level of granularity here - one ideally wants to be able sandbox each package's build scripts individually.
Putting your writing in version control turns out to buy you a lot of metadata for free. These days it's an Obsidian vault in git, but I used to just keep plain markdown files for notes/writing/etc
Money flowing from the rest of the economy means money no longer being spent on something else. Assuming for the moment it's not all a big circular inflationary scheme, what exactly is being cut back on to fund this infinite spend on AI inference?
Any one actor has finite cash flow (plus their cash-on-hand buffer). Directing cashflow towards inference necessarily directs it away from something else. Either these companies are spending less on something else, or they are returning less profit.
Token resellers don't change the equation, they are just adding a tax to the revenue stream, it still has to flow from an actual upstream source.
If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that's a case you have to make, not one you can just derive from an accounting identity. Also it doesn't have to be increased revenue- it can be reduced costs. This is more likely to be their motivation. Of course, it's one that may be more problematic for the economy as a whole.
In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it.
So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".
Given that StarCraft 2 still hasn't fully displaced BroodWar, I shudder to think of the uphill battle a StarCraft 3 would face.
Really, in this era of live service games, it would make more sense to release a client refresh (multithreading + anniversary graphics) for SC2, and an expansion pack of new campaigns...
reply