Hence his emphasis on not trusting it, which was right before the sentence you're quoting here.

You realize it’s supposed to be comedic, right?

It's an absurdist deconstruction of the genres it touches. It takes either prior familiarity with Robinson or else more than five minutes to get that.

I respect that. I can't claim I know anything about the series, not having watched it really. It was just my gut reaction to the restaurant scene at the start. Maybe I should give it another shot.

Humans are a social species, and quality of relationships is consistently shown to correlate with mental health.

I've seen that in some cases the definition of mental health will explicitly score against things like "lacks close relationships" or "does not seek companionship". So it always seems to me a bit circular to just assert "being more social is more mentally healthy" when the definition of mental health bakes in "being very social".

If I were to define mental health to include "desires and enjoys spending lengths of time in solitude", then I could assert "Humans as a species crave solitude, mental health is shown to directly correlate with the drive and ability to be alone."

Why not define poor mental health as "puts a gun in mouth and pulls trigger" and then see if it correlates with things like "lacks close relationships". Probably a better method than 'making shit up as you go along' people that want to prove a particular point tend to do.

> force developers to foot the bill for verifying compatibility

How are they forcing developers? If developers don't think it's worth it to make their game compatible with Steam Deck, can't they just avoid doing that?

They are forcing developers to be the one to pay for it if they do it because there is no other player in the space that would financially benefit from games having SteamOS support. Practically every other company with an game platform, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS, Android, etc have programs to fund bringing content to their platform. Also developers can't avoid supporting SteamOS because there is no way for them to 100% opt out of being on that platform.

Your argument is illogical. If devs don’t want to support it, they simply will not support it—as evidenced by the thousands of games that have yet to be SteamOS verified, but either run just fine, or don’t run at all with the devs not giving it a second thought.

Besides, if this does end up putting pressure on the developers to start supporting more platforms than just Microsoft’s data collector ahem I mean, Windows, then I’m all up for it. It’s a win for everyone.

It's way harder to support Linux than Windows from a developer's perspective. Proprietary vs. open source drivers, approach to driver updates (rolling release vs. stable distros), 5 trillion incompatible glibc versions, X11 vs. Wayland etc, janky sound systems with varied support across Linux distributions (Pulse, Alsa, PipeWire), no ABI compatibility guarantee etc.

What has that got to do with Valve providing a compatibility layer so devs can broadly ignore all that nonsense and just target Proton?

I never said they were forced to support, but that they are forced to fund such a thing for their game as opposed to their being an option for Valve to fund it.

They aren't forced to fund anything. They have the option for an additional value add, that's all.

Valve is known for never funding games which is why my original comment expressed surprise. Of course they aren't forced to fund content on their platform, but I had thought they had changed their strategy.

The clsoest thing to funding we ever got was Activision getting Valve to lower the cut for big publishers so they could get onto Steam.

Otherwise, I can't remember the last time they funded a game they didn't make themselves. Maybe in the very early Steam days, but that's long past.

> Practically every other company with an application platform, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS, Android, etc have programs to fund bringing content to their platform.

the only platforms I've ever heard of this for were Windows Phone and the Epic Store

both of which were runaway commercial successes

Have you ever heard of terms like "Playstation exclusive" before? Companies benefit from having good content on their platform and they typically are willing to pay for it.

Not since Bloodborne, I haven't. And I've heard people can play that game on Steam Deck now, too: https://youtu.be/eDHiVsr-jfM

These days the only context I hear "Playstation exclusive" in comes from people trying to analyze how much money Sony lost developing Concord.

I probably will play them, once they're ported to PC and sold for $10 like TLoU and Death Stranding were. I haven't even played Tsushima yet.

Neither one of them is a system-seller though. I don't think anyone feels FOMO because they missed the Day 1 release of Gran Turismo, or didn't play Astro Bot with 7.1 Surround and HD haptics. Bloodborne was a magnum opus, Persona 5 had people lining up outside Best Buy to reserve a copy. The PS5 exclusive library is down right impoverished by comparison, to say nothing of the PC exclusives it lacks.

I don't really know if the concept of "system seller" is a thing anymore. Or at least, all those titles belong to Nintendo now. Sony's only had Gran Turismo and then made up for it with a consistent stream of first party titles. Not Nintendo level, but competitive. Xbox has 2 series and utterly bungled one of them. If you're not a racing sim fan, you're looking at the forest instead of the trees.

All those true "seller" series were always 3rd party and they've all pretty much abandoned console deals mid Gen 8. Bloodborne was truly the lasst of its kind.

The real "system seller" for the ps5 is a bunch of Japanese games that will never really be on Xbox and can't run on switch. So that depends on your taste. Japan's mostly come around on PC though, so it's not truly "exclusive" outside of the shaky optimization.

It is typically neither free nor open to develop on consoles. As in, you pay to access developer tools.

iOS and Android less so (even if there is a one time charge for Android and a yearly charge on Apple). OTOH I have not heard of them usually reaching out to more than a handful of devs for promotion purposes.

You pay, but you get actual support from console makers. They kind of need to given how closed off it is otherwise. The competition also means larger profile studios (indie and AAA) will usually get some good deals to work with.

The one time model from Apple/Android really is just a tax that gets you nothing but access in comparison. It's a full advert model where the biggest players throw millions at Apple/Android for visibility.

Valve's somewhere in the middle of the two. No "p2w" adverts but it's not doing too much to draw devs (except reducing the tax for AAA devs). It doesn't need to. A lot of its community models are "we're having a party, you bring the food and drinks".

This was addressed in the original comment:

> Additionally, no LIDAR manufacturer publishes beam-failure shutoff latency. Most are >50ms, which can be long enough for permanent injury

You should be able to do it way faster than that.

What makes an orbital facility at less risk of getting bombed?

Probably needs more delta-v to match orbit than a suborbital ICBM would. Not less risk—just more expensive. Depends how valuable the target is.

Nah, they are pretty similar in difficulty for interception - the first US ASAT program used essentially the same Nike Zeus missiles used for ABM duty during the late 50s

Except you don't. You only need to match velocities if you want to dock with something.

Hitting something in orbit just requires you to be in the way at the right time.

Basically an intercept is a lot easier.

not really. Suborbital vehicles achieve orbital heights. It's actually probably easier since you don't need a payload. The velocity alone will do the trick.

Because its stupid, not that its hard.

You want to push things out of orbit not turn a massive structure into a supersonic shard field for 20 years

I think the fact that anyone in this thread thinks it's ambiguous is proof by definition that it's ambiguous.

> A Markov chain can only return verbatim combinations. So it might return "Cows are big animals" or "Are big animals happy".

Just for my own edification, do you mean "Are big animals are happy"? "animals happy" never shows up in the source text so "happy" would not be a possible successor to "animals", correct?

Please forgive me. I am not a Markov chain.

Even if we're considering only other cars and not pedestrians, it's still pretty annoying. The brights will only turn off _after_ another car is already in their field of illumination, and only after a short delay. If you're manually managing your brights, you can almost always switch them off before another car even comes into view (by e.g. seeing their headlights approaching)

> I'll just leave it in the parking lot

Do you mean leave it in one of the designated areas? Or are you just leaving shopping carts in the middle of the parking lot?