Especially since it only has 7 threshold levels... which was clearly explained to you hours before you made this reply. Typo, or dumbo?

Yet the price of what those stations produced didnt reflect the prices of the raw materials needed, and stations making what should be large profits just swallow the money into oblivion, and when stations should be out of money they magically have an endless supply anyways.

The elephant in the room is that its not an economy. In an economy the actors are each trying to benefit from their transactions, most transactions are wins for both parties, consequences when they aren't, motivation to eliminate losses, motivation to reinvest gains, and so on. Thats just not happening in these A.I. economies. Its not even close.

Now, I am a firm believer in duck theory. It doesnt have to work at all like a real economy, all it has to do is look like it does. But again these games fail for the same reasons I pointed out above.

The best simulated economy in a game that I am aware of was in Capitalism II released over 15 years ago, and even that had serious flaws, but at least the competing A.I. CEO's could go broke and tried not to.

You had posted that you just discovered that it is, and now you are posting that it isn't. Make up your mind.

AC poster is right. You must have thought that SLC stored 0 bits since it had only 1 possible "level."

Makes perfect sense to me. Maybe its because I understand binary.

Anything that is vibrating while within the atmosphere is making sound by definition.

With an evil misogynist at one end, and a crying feminist at the other. I think their head would explode trying to decide which was the more important issue to address.

Its sexist and a war on women to ever take mens issues into consideration.

You are proving the god damned point I made in spades. You clearly have no sense in scale, at all. Lets put the situation on the table:

Bangladesh has one of the highest child malnutrition rates in the world, with almost 40% of its children being malnourished. 40% of all births in the country are by girls age 18 or less. 127,000 children under the age of 5 die each and every year. 38 out of every 1000 children never even see their first god damned birthday. Only 43% of the population is fucking literate. 43% of the people live below the international poverty line. A massive 77% of the people have suffered severe dehydration requiring oral re-hydration salts.

These people do not need solar panels, or god damned wind farms. What these people need is cheap energy, a stable government, economic freedom, and maybe some fucking help before that meaningful shit happens.

Yet you are here feeling their plight.... about sea level rise. You proved the fucking point you selfish evil prick. You have no fucking sense at all of scale. Typical western liberal statist ignorant asshole. Selfishly doesnt give a fuck about things that really matter today.

If you really cared about the people of Bangladesh you would get a fucking sense of scale, put some cash in an envelope, address it to one of the major charity organizations operating there, and ask others to do the same. But instead we see you justifying your feelings about sea level rise/global warming and quite despicably trying to use the people of Bangladesh as an excuse to push the solution that you feel.

Go fuck yourself you selfish evil prick.

At 24C I'm not even comfortable naked and I'm pretty sure that nobody else would be comfortable with me being naked either.

An issue is that often times when optimizing for performance that even though performance is only important in those "hot spots" that the optimization frequently involves large chunks of the code base. If you don't understand this then you probably don't understand real optimization efforts and have just been toying with the kind of optimizations that the compiler should already be doing for you.

The professional optimizers, the guys called in because nobody on the team can get even close to acceptable performance, they werent called in to tweak. They were called in to change the underlying structure of everything. They arent looking to get 10% here or 20% there. They are looking to get 10000%. They cant do that by focusing on your silly "hot spot." They can only do that by changing the problem.

For some insight into this, check out the classic book "Graphics Programming Black Book" which is available online in many places for free (such as ) Chapter 17 (on the well known "game of life") is good on this, but the entire book is a good read.

They do have a different definition. They feel problems. They feel solutions.

If they can't feel the problem (such as the problem that the solution they feel increases the poverty of people other than them) then its not a problem.

These are a shitbags that dont understand that the number one killer in the world is poverty, that more than twice the population of the United States is way below the international poverty line in India alone. They are selfish self-centered coastal living fucks that have no sense of scale. They are extremely concerned that some people (such as themselves) might eventually be displaced by the extremely slow rise of the ocean, but are amazingly not outraged at all that the policies that they have pushed for cause people to die now.

You've heard of 1st world problems? This worry about sea level rise is the extreme form of that. They already feel it, even though they havent been displaced and need to be told by someone else that its even happening. And its more important that what we do about it feels like a solution rather than is a solution.

Could is different than should.

You do understand that the entire premise of the summary is horseshit based on the simple fact that there is no such thing as an "HD texture." -- but some eye-candy junkies want to make sure everything is called HD, even the textures!

Whats next, HD fonts? That might look real good in my HD text editor.

I am a witness to new unions doing exactly this. We unionized at my place of work about 6 years ago, and nows its seniority seniority seniority for everything.

So its profitable then? You do understand that it can trivially make financial sense to begin an investment that wont "show a profit" for even hundreds of years, right?

This is well practiced already in many types of tree investments where the tree can take 30+ years of growth before harvesting begins (either the lumber, or more commonly the fruits/nuts they produce.) As time progresses the plot of land becomes more and more valuable due to whats on it, and can even be sold for a profit far sooner than the 30+ years until any revenue begins.