People view the image in different conditions. There’s so many factors involved. How bright your surroundings are, the make and size of your display device, how you perceive colors. Professionals perform color grading to avoid ambiguity like this in movies and such. Even your cultural expectations are hypothesized to change how you perceive the dress. (Eg. living in a desert environment can make you expect more yellow shading)

There’s a similar illusion called the spinning dancer, where some people simply cannot see the image spinning one way or the other, while some can even switch between them. There’s more information in the dress to make an objective assessment, but if that information isn’t observed or obscured by the aforementioned reasons, it’s totally understandable. That’s what OP’s image is showing.

That seems like a normal restart initiated by using the start menu. The error code 0x80000000 does stand out, since on my personal Windows 10 install a normal restart gives a code of 0x0 (Indicating success). The “Other reason (Planned)” is normal though, it’s simply the default reason for the shutdown command. The error code 0x80000000 isn’t actually a specific error code that says anything, it’s basically the ‘empty’ error code (Since error codes from windows system calls range from 0x80000000–0xFFFFFFFF). I think it might simply mean the restart was cancelled, which you would know if you did, or failed for an unknown reason.

Did you confirm the message occurred roughly around the time the unexpected restart occurs? If the timing doesn’t align, it might just be a complete red herring.

But if it aligns, something is somehow using your file explorer or task bar (which is what explorer.exe is) to initiate the restart, which would be unexpected since most often it would just directly shut down the computer by issuing the command for a restart directly (And you would see the process that initiated it instead of explorer.exe)

You might be looking at something that injects itself into the windows explorer, or something that directly uses keystrokes or mouse inputs to control the start menu (But you might be able to see that if so). Not necessarily nefarious but you should be on guard anyways. Maybe hotkey or macro software, or software you installed that works through the right click menu in the file explorer, or anything that adds itself on top of the default windows explorer like toolbars or plugins. A virus or such would be possible too, although one would wonder why it would just restart the PC and not actually do anything in secret. In cases where it’s not a virus, there would likely be a pattern to where you perform a specific action and the restart occurs.

I would probably run down a classic troubleshooting checklist like remembering if you installed anything recently that aligns with the issue starting to occur, checking if there’s any unknown applications starting with windows (You can check this in your Task Manager -> Startup), and running antivirus more aggressively (Such as scanning the entire disk). And if you can, ask around on forums where people much more familiar with this stuff hang out (Like here) or involve someone with more knowledge that can physically access the PC like a local computer repair shop or a tech-savvy friend.

But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they’re not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They’re just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn’t elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. “Even if he’s indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham.” or “You’re right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn’t change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.”, and none of this would have been necessary.

You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn’t. So if you aren’t misunderstanding what they’re trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative?

You really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They’re just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.

If you’re from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that’s democratic or not. If you’re not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.

Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.

As someone without aphantasia, I don’t always quite get it either. Reading is often a last resort medium for me, but it does have it’s place. Plain text primarily engages my narrative imagination (where is the story going) and only a little bit of visual imagination (since it’s kind of hard to convey certain things like body language in text without being very boring), while for example a video might invoke narrative, visual, and auditory imagination. Video games are even better to me, as they engage narrative, visual, auditory, and decision making imagination. It’s about stimulation to me, the more coherent the better, and books just don’t seem to stimulate enough for my imagination to kick off to where it’s enjoyable to read.

Outright bans never work with vices.

It can’t be taken 1:1. Vices being banned in the past was typically because legislators saw them as productivity drains, despite the pleasure it provided. Therefore making those bans inherently tyrannical to habitual users and certain non-users, incentivizing disobedience.

But this time, it’s being banned for a group that’s not habitually using already, meaning extraordinary reasons would require them to become habitual users in the first place. And smoking is typically not very pleasant at the start to begin with, so there’s little incentive to start. And, unlike in the past, smoking is no longer present everywhere. And of course there’s the knowledge that it will give you cancer and cut your lifespan.

There’s just not much enjoyment left, so even if 1% of those affected by the rolling ban slip through the cracks with an underground market, there isn’t the room for growth that sustains or spreads an illegal market like for eg. recreational drugs. Which is why those bans need to be enforced to perfection to have a chance to work, which they never do, and which is why they never work.

There are so many ways for people to harm themselves that we don’t need to ban because they come with severe risk to the person, so they self regulate. The only reason smoking needs that ban is because of how widespread smoking was, and so even if way less people start smoking than before, that’s still way too many people. A ban just needs to be successful at getting far less people to start, not absolutely halt every single usage, and eventually it will fade from culture on it’s own.

EDIT: Slight corrections. But kinda wild to get overly downvoted for the thing pretty much everyone else is saying in this thread, just with a little more in-depth analysis. Come out and tell me where I’m wrong, I don’t think you can.

The brain worm is already at it

There’s some key details to not forget.

Factorio essentially kickstarted the genre. Satisfactory was inspired by it. I totally dig what Satisfactory has done but having a blueprint that is proven to work is skipping a lot of risk.

There is an inherent tradeoff between graphics and gameplay. Both have good reasons to focus on. Factorio has optimized it’s graphics and logic to an insane degree. Far beyond what is typically expected of an AAA game. You just don’t see that directly, since it provides value by absence. The game doesn’t even start to slow down until you are hundreds or thousands of hours in.

There is a reason AAA games frequently run badly even on top tier hardware, it’s because they prioritize graphical fidelity over all else. Optimization is often an afterthought, since programmers are expensive, and optimization doesn’t provide the immediately apparent value that graphics or new features do. Factorio had to take that risk though, because the game would not be fun if it couldn’t scale past the first ten hours.

Highly detailed graphics are very skillfully produced as well, but it’s a misunderstanding that a game’s code cannot be of similar quality and depth. A sort of graphical AAA vs functional AAA. Factorio took a lot of highly skilled programmers to pull off, while a graphically intensive game put those resources into their artists.

Let alone the massive backlog of previous generation games and emulators that you don’t need a top line PC for.

I never mentioned premium, because yes it works like that for premium. But even for that paying them directly is better, as it avoids youtube’s cut completely.

While this is technically true, this only works because of the scale. Each individual user contributes less than pennies.

If you really want to support a creator, donate 5 dollars to them every year and you will be more valuable than any ad viewer.

Realistically the artists working on it have a say into what graphics settings are allowed, and they already deal with the fact some people will need to run on very low settings, also affecting their ideal viewing conditions. If the newer DLSS really makes such sweeping changes they would either ask Nvidia for improvements, disable it, or heavily dissuade it.

But player autonomy is also important, so it’s a balancing act. If the players end up wanting it and you take it away from them, it still won’t make sense to strip it out at the end of the day.

This ten times. It’s why the online discourse around AI is often so one sided. Anyone walking into a room where people are all nodding along to the same shallow, unnuanced statements, and throwing stones at anyone that points that out or tries to share their own contradictory to the group’s experience, even doing so in complete good faith, isn’t going to engage for long. And so that discussion is never going to turn nuanced since all the people interested in that have been ousted.

And it sucks, because there are real harms in AI that must be guarded from for which we need widespread support. But the hostility and closed minded discussions just causes people to tune out and contrarily be more open minded towards AI as a response to the closed mindedness.

I’m kind of torn on this, because on the one side I can see the developer’s troubles. If they have 30 years of experience and they considered the impact of using it they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically. Indeed many of the issues people have with AI are a kind of redirected anger, when really they are issues with capitalism, incompetency, or digital illiteracy. And the person posting the issue seems purely there to fan that flame rather than actually contribute. Something maintainers could use just as little as slop authored PRs.

But on the other hand, being open about the usage is a must. It’s the price to pay for going against the grain. If your ideals and means are pure, they should be defendable and scrutinizable to reasonable people, and there should be no issue with that in the long term. Hiding the usage will create doubt about authorship, and make defenses harder to point at, while it won’t stop the horde.

The thing is, many of these guidelines are related to finalized products fully created by AI. As in, the AI produced a written or drawn work at the end of it that on it’s own is the product (Eg. an article or an image). This will probably apply to code in some reasonable way, but at the end of the day there’s only so many ways to write code since it’s syntax and not as flexible as language. It actually has to produce something that works, so there are far less finite arrangements.

If you were to compare code written by two people at two companies, doing a very similar project, you wouldn’t be surprised to find two pieces of code doing almost the same thing in the same syntax, barring synthetic sugar like naming and coding conventions. Neither will likely have violated the other’s copyright since simultaneous invention is a thing. And if they happened to have similar prior experiences, it’s even more likely.

Likewise, the way the code was incorporated into a project as a whole might sufficiently constitute a human contribution, and perhaps even the more important contribution. You likely wouldn’t retain the copyright on the specific snippet, but rarely are small code snippets enough on their own to claim copyright over to begin with. It’s the program or library or system as a whole that’s the finished product.

“Wow, don’t take things so seriously!”

It’s just an appeal to authority. There are plenty of silent majorities that are real, but often the arguments that built those silent majorities are sound on their own and are much better to argue with, so there is no reason to point out a silent majority.

Like, not being a flat earther is a silent majority, because 99% of people don’t even think, talk or discuss such ideas, but you don’t need to rely on a silent majority to debunk it.

I mean, your post says “Forcing windows down Xbox gamers throats”. So people that are already in the locked down Xbox ecosystem, not people that already know that and avoid Xbox. Xbox is just Windows but locked down. It’s both Microsoft.

I completely agree people should just go for a PC, but if someone was buying Xbox already, they aren’t in the mindset. So if they’re going to buy Xbox anyways, having a device that’s not locked down to some console OS means they can switch at any time and rid themselves of Xbox, since it’s your device. To me that’s definitely an improvement over the status quo, even if other better options were already available.

The contracts for the Steam Machine were already locked in before RAM and GPU shortage even started, which means they will (like other consoles) be able to provide a reserved amount of devices at a fixed and lower price. But likewise, this also means that for any console that did not have contracts locked in before shit went down, will suffer massively from this. Thus looking at current prices for hardware isn’t indicative of how much prices will rise. Steam Machine could be the most affordable gaming device of the next decade.

But Valve also isn’t stupid. PC has the unique position where it has one of the longest backlogs of backwards compatible games and applications. Which means you don’t need top of the line hardware. People are still gaming on 10 year old PCs, so the hardware for those will be much more affordable and still be able to play most games. Especially indie games with their insane price to performance to quality ratios. If top line gaming on PC becomes economically unviable, it will simply move down a notch.