Don't get me wrong, I loved the first season of Sliders. But its science was *shit*, and the second season was kind of weak and after that it fell completely off the rails.
"How can other human beings have a different opinion from me on something that's entirely subjective???"
My "year in review" prominently displayed a picture of the back of my car having been crushed in when I got rear ended by a giant truck. My obvious response was "gee, thanks Facebook." Obviously that doesn't have anything on a picture of someone's deceased daughter, but it shows how poorly conceived the feature is.
The funny thing is that if artificial intelligence does kill us, it won't be because of malevolence or a warped sense of justice like most fiction portrays it, it will be because someone made a programming error and/or didn't include a proper failsafe. It will kill us because we programmed it to kill us. I don't think AI will ever reach the point of doing something I would consider "thinking" or "reasoning." At least not through software and hardware development the way we understand it right now.
Take the case of a sentry gun or unmanned drone programmed to use computer vision to identify and kill human targets. That's totally an AI murdering people, but I would never consider it to be "thinking" or "reasoning." It's not malevolent or spiteful. It doesn't have some sense of justice or revenge. It is literally just doing what it was programmed to do. Now imagine an orbital nuclear launch platform with similarly simplistic AI. That's how we'd kill ourselves with AI. Not The Terminator. Not Dune. More like a microwave.
As long as you don't mind working in military simulation, there are always tons of jobs in Orlando and Melbourne. Can't speak for the other cities in Florida.
There's always cool shit going on here in Orlando. Where do you live?
I just got an extra hour of sleep and it was great.
The entirety of it is exactly 160 bytes.
Just slightly too long to be a tweet.
You could also just describe the controller sequence here in text rather than link to it in a Youtube video.
Because when you include something in a menu or even advertise to users that it exists, it becomes an officially supported feature, and you have to pay Quality Assurance to test it, then Customer Service has to support it after release. Cheaper to just disable it and let people find it for themselves.
You do realize that URLs can't contain quotation marks.
They don't have contempt for gamers. They have contempt for "gamers," by which they mean the exact same juvenile assholes you get pissed off about having to mute on voice chat when you play online games. If you'd actually read the article, and aren't being purposefully intellectually dishonest, you'd realize this.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the article.
"Gamer" is in quotes because she's not talking about "people who play games" but adolescent boys or emotionally stunted man-children that have typically been the prime target audience for video games since marketers in the early 1990s arbitrarily decided video games were "for boys." The "gamers" she is referring to are the same people who shout racist and misogynistic garbage over voice chat on Xbox Live, and are the very reason many Slashdot posters either only play single player games or disable voice chat the second they enter an online game. This is pretty clearly spelled out in her article, and is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Her article is about how gaming has finally grown and evolved to the point where the audience is large enough and diverse enough that game companies no longer have to make games specifically designed to appeal to this small niche group of men physically or mentally aged between 10 and 18. Games no longer have to be about the adolescent male fantasy of murdering all of their foes and rescuing the large breasted, scantily clad woman. We can still have those games, just like we still have those books, those comics, those movies, etc. But those experiences no longer have to be the primary focus of the industry. There are other gamers aching to be catered to that don't fit into that classical "gamer" demographic box the marketers constructed 20 years ago.
You didn't read the article, or are purposefully misrepresenting its contents. She put "gamer" in quotes in her headline and "gamer culture" in quotes in the second sentence of her article because she was specifically calling out the negative stereotype of "gamers" that people external to the industry often have. Of 12-18 year-olds on Xbox Live calling people "faggot" and "nigger" and sexually harassing name or voice that's vaguely feminine that crosses their path within the game. The article was about how the audience had already become so diverse that continuing to pander to the adolescent male power fantasy that most popular games are built around was probably no longer necessary to sell products.
You're the one choosing to lump yourself in with those degenerates by claiming you think she was talking about you. I consider myself a gamer because I play games. Not because of some trumped up cultural identity that I feel the need to latch myself onto like a high school kid trying to choose between hanging out with the goths or the skaters or the jocks.
SC2 is only about timed pushes and static strategies at the lower to middle levels. At higher levels, there is a lot of thinking on your feet and directly reacting to what information you can obtain from your opponent, and actively denying them information about your strategy or even purposefully feeding them disinformation (although that gamble is usually considered dangerous/expensive).
You can get to Diamond with a static timed strategy, but (unless there's a specific cheese or imbalance in your favor during that patch) you will never get any higher than that until you branch out into more complex strategies and learn to actively read and respond to your opponent.