Four of the top five and five of the top ten games on Are We Anti-Cheat Yet's list are marked "Denied", which it defines as "Games where the developers have explicitly stated that they will not enable the anti-cheat solution to work on Linux or have denied the possibility of Linux support".
If you can not prompt an AI to give you code for a trivial problem, then you are in need for help.
And the thought never occurred to you the AI gives you code riddle with syntax errors somehow gives you the correct code. It must be my fault. Just like it was my fault that you assumed everything.
Regardless if you need it, or want it.
Regardless if I need or want help, you think I need help from you. I don't want your help. I don't need your help. You don't accept it when someone say "no" to you, do you?
An argument from authority is a strong rebuttal indeed, but allow me to retort:
It was not an argument from authority. I posted metrics about the movie. You have posted nothing but your personal opinion.
a) oscars are no mark of achievement, except perhaps in the makeup and special effects department. quite the opposite, the oscars have historically been a mark of trite, worn out themes with heavy emphasis on production budget and big names and nothing else.
The Oscars are based on a voting system of peers. In this case a peers in the motion picture industry. My point is that is their opinion. How should your opinion negate theirs other than your own personal taste of the movie?
having made money on a small budget is great, but there are scores of films that have achieved sales above $150M on a budget between 20 and 30M, so there's nothing special in that department either.
As a director, he has made the studio money. That is my point. Some directors lose money for their studios.
With that all said: Do you have any points other than your personal taste of the director's former movie that he is not credible.
And you did not clarify but ran into a wild discussion.
Do you hear yourself? I never once specified what I promoted exactly. But it is my fault you assumed.
I wanted to help you, but if you do not want help: up to you.
And that is the height of arrogance. You assumed that I needed or wanted or asked help. I neither need or want your help. End of story.
You posted a prompt in your parent post.
I have NEVER posted what was in my actual prompt. I posted GENERALLY what I asked. You assumed or imagined what I prompted.
Makes no point to discuss if you do not even know what you prompted.
So none of your criticism have any relevance if you don't know what I prompted, does it?
Point is: you were unable to talk to an AI to get a trivial result.
And you know this how? Were you there to see my actual prompt? No, you were not. But you are sure that was the problem.
So? Whos fault is that? Your's or the AI's?
And with limited information, you are sure it was me.
If you can not instruct an AI to solve something completely trivial, in your mother language, how do you want to tell a coworker what you want?
That's a lot of insults and assumptions in one place. 1) How do you know what my mother tongue is? 2) You seem to imply my coworkers to dumb to understand more than AI? 3) You still do not know EXACTLY how I phrased my prompt.
Your sentence, that is why I copy pasted it into the previous post, about calculating some totals: does not make any sense at all. How do you think an AI can read your mind and grasp what you want?
Your MAJOR assumption is that is EXACTLY what I prompted the AI and that is not GENERALLY what I prompted. I never pasted what I prompted exactly, did I. You just assumed it and went with your assumption.
AI is extremely good if you give clear specfications. You should try it..
Again you don't know what I did. You are laying assumption on top of your bias.
3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound
