It also had some big gameplay departures from 1 & 2. I’m not talking about being an FPS (although no longer having to worry about accuracy was pretty significant) but the fact that putting on different clothing magically made you more intelligent, and that it was a lot easier to do everything.
In FO3 you can pick all the locks, hack all the computers, pass all the conversation checks, and take on hordes of enemies all by yourself. In FO1+2 you had to pick the couple of things you were good at and not be able to do the other things until your next run.

“If anyone ruins my big boy parade I’m going to throw the biggest tantrum you’ve ever seen!”

why don’t they program them to look up math programs and outsource chess to other programs when they’re asked for that stuff?

Because the AI doesn’t know what it’s being asked, it’s just a algorithm guessing what the next word in a reply is. It has no understanding of what the words mean.

“Why doesn’t the man in the Chinese room just use a calculator for math questions?”

Kinda of actually

I’m reminded of an early model that was trained to find if tanks were hiding pictures of forests / jungles. Was doing great with the training data then was given new images and seemed to be guessing wildly.

Turns out it in the training data all the pictures with tanks were taken on cloudy days.

I they got sued by shareholders for doing so. I guess CEOs aren’t the only ones that need to be on the list…

Lemmy isn’t a court of law, neither is the Internet.

Proceeds to cite general Internet opinion as proof of guilt.

but as an atheist, it sucks to be lumped in like this.

Every person with a religious belief knows this feeling.

If you’re seeing dying much sooner as direct result of his actions as an equal outcome, I’m not sure what to tell you.

There’s dying, or a 1% chance of not dying. These are in fact not equal.

he saying whatever he thinks you want to hear to give him your vote

Which to someone starving to death is a lot better than someone saying “everything is fine, keep the status quo”.

Are you glad he got voted in?

Nope. I was spending time trying to argue with people to do the bare fucking minimum to stop this, and the Democrats did not help with their campaign of “lets change nothing because everything is fine.”

Is your life better now?

Not an American. I’ll be fine. I can just understand why someone who is desperate (which according to polls is over 50% of your population) could decide to vote for someone who says they want to fucking change things, instead of the people saying everything is fine and they will change nothing.

Best case scenario with the honest man: he does nothing and I starve to death. Worst case scenario with the lying man: I starve to death anyway. May as well try changing things.

Sure, maybe I starve to death faster, but you give most people a choice between “100% chance you starve to death” and “99% chance you starve to death and 1% chance you don’t” and they will take the 1% chance.

At least the lying man admits there’s a fucking problem. “Everything is fine and nothing needs to change” was not a good strategy.

If a known liar is lying to you and you take action supporting those lies, should you be responsible when the lies are indeed shown to be lies?

If I’m starving to death, and the most trustworthy man in the world says “I will do nothing to help you” while the most dishonest man in the world (Donald Trump) says “I will shower you with more food than you have ever seen in your life” I’m going to take my chances with the dishonest man. Maybe the lie is how much but there will still be something. Better than a guaranteed nothing.

Por que no dos?

So how’s their strategy working out for them?

There are two groups at fault here:

1. The protest voters refusing to take the simplest action to prevent what is now happening.

2. The people who said “we’re not going to try to change or improve anything because we’re running against a literal dictator so it’s not like we have to actually try to improve people’s lives. What are they going to do? Let Hitler win?”

How long before people get complaints about something said in the summary which is incorrect?

The business model isn’t terrible, it makes money, but it is terrible for the consumer

I am aggressively opposed to anything that is profitable at the expense of the consumer. That is a terrible business model.

So what would you have them do instead?

You are not entitled to get things the way you want them.

“You want to purchase something and use it the way you want to? How entitled can you get?”

How DARE you suggest things should be better for me, the consumer, instead of the way our corporate overlords feel is more profitable!

Well, that’s certainly an… Interesting take on someone saying things should be better…

This is my personal machine that I own, there is no reason for my operating system to “hide” options from me. If I want to never update my system or delete core operating files that’s my fucking problem to deal with.

You know what else windows hides from normal users? How to disable information tracking, ads, and this AI bullshit.

When you pull out “software I didn’t start for six months wants to update”

Did the software “want” to update or “force” an update? There’s a meaningful difference there and windows often doesn’t give you a choice or do anything else while it’s updating.