I think it's just an AI-generated simplification, sucks that it made it to the front page. The subject matter is interesting, I would have loved to have read something written by an expert!
See my point above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46271980) for smoking guns. There are some pretty basic and grievous factual errors re: GPUs being used when in fact TPUs are used, and completely false claims about physical models not being huge parts of AlphaFold development and even architecture.
True, it is the style of the post that reveals obvious overuse of AI. The errors could well be made by a human, especially since a trivial visit to Wikipedia or one of the original papers will show most of what is being said here re: the actual deep models to be wrong. This is more likely the error of a human than an AI.
EDIT: Ugh, it is late. I mean, if you used e.g. ChatGPT-5.X with extended thinking and search, it would not make these grievous errors. However, ChatGPT without search and the default style, produces junk basically indistinguishable from this kind of post. So, for me, the smoking gun is that not even the most basic due diligence (reading Wikipedia or looking at the actual papers) has been done, and, given the length and style of the post, this is effectively a smoking gun for (cheap, free-version) AI use.
But, more importantly, it is indistinguishable in quality from AI slop, and so garbage regardless.
I've wondered about this too. I live in the UK and have been idly daydreaming about my next startup, and it seems like Brexit, and therefore having a small market / uncooperative EU, is such a headwind for some of the things I'd like to do. Seems like many UK startups just pretend to be based in SF.
I think rejoin is going to be politically unpopular for a while, as there's no way we could rejoin the EU on anything like as good terms as we left on.
The UK is obviously too small and poor to go it alone forever. The other option for them would be economic integration with North America. They could probably join up with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on relatively favorable terms.
That's far from obvious. The UK is 3x the population of Australia, which manages fine without deep economic integrations. The problem of Brexit is not that it is impossible to go it alone as a middle power; it's just an unnecessary handicap when you border a 450m head market but want to ignore them and act like you are an island at the arse end of the world.
Rejoin is polling far ahead of Brexit, which is beginning to be acknowledged as a mistake by everyone. Although not everyone agrees on the reasons.
The problem is the UK is an oligarchy owned and run by non-dom billionaires. It's essentially a floating labour camp. Virtually all the major industries are foreign-owned, and profits flow out of the country instead of being invested in infrastructure, R&D, and national development.
The public school/Oxbridge educational path is based on a 19th century view of the world, which has its roots in a feudal society that expanded into global piracy.
Rejoining the EU isn't just about undoing the direct, about exposing the population at all levels to a more modern culture with elements of social responsibility and rational state planning.
The EU isn't perfect. But Europe successfully rebuilt after WWII, while politically the UK is still stuck in the 1930s.
But that popularity (about 2:1 saying brexit was a mistake) isn't translating to political support, probably because both Labour and Tories supported Brexit.
And while the majority agree we should never have left the EU, and the majority agree we should rejoin, that isn't translating to political support.
Indeed the plurarity of votes is to Mr Brexit himself, who thanks to FPTP is likely to get a majority government in 2029 off 30% of the vote.
Hell 1 in 8 people that voted Farage last year think the UK never should have left Europe. Not that it wasn't the right type of brexit, but that it shouldn't. Yet they voted for Farage, decided that was a mistake, and are continuing to vote for Farage.
I get it. Some people just want the world to burn.
But a similar number think we should rejoin the EU, yet voted Farage last year.
It's no wonder support for democracy is at an all time low.
Right, it’s those with the wealth who are determining policy. Essentially politics is controlled by the upper class, even if they do fight among themselves.
And as soon as some class diving issue comes up where it is the 99.9% against the ultra wealthy it will become a non-partisan issue and get done immediately in favor of the ultra wealthy.
The few case where it doesn't are normally attributable to other problems with the spendy campaign.
In Wisconsin, the conservatives spent enormous sums of money talking about high level worldview issues like DEI and immigration. Which is all well and good if you're in a state where that's relevant maybe? But out here in opioid infested flyover country where people were worried about losing their housing the next week, those worldview kinds of things were just dumb issues to focus so much money on.
So yeah, you can win an election against a big spender. But normally that big spender is actually so dumb and detached from the voters that what's really happening is that they're beating themselves.
I think (hope) there's a limit. And if things get bad enough (sadly) then people will vote for change and their own interests over those of the ownership class. Maybe that's what happened here. But I will also point out that Elon Musk is uniquely detestable.
But in most elections the candidate with the most money wins. [1]
Similarly Mamdani in NYC is facing some truly awful candidates.
Someone also pointed out to me that it's not so much the money on a politician's side that sways them, but the threat of PACs et al spending a ton of money to unseat them if they don't "play ball". [2]
> If the same IP address is hashed using the same method, the result will always be the same, meaning it can be matched.
The way people get around this is by using an ephemeral salt, that is deleted e.g. daily. After enough time has passed, it'd be impossible to reverse the hash as the salt would be lost.
It’s irrelevant in terms of the transfer of the title, but it might affect who gets to challenge the current champion. E.g. the opportunity might go to the competitor who’s won the most matches since they last fought the champion. Or it might go to who they think would sell the most tickets to the title match, and winning your previous matches would generate that hype.
That’s one way to measure it, sure. Another way is that archers can shoot 2 tiles away.
Part of the abstraction of the game is that the map for cities and the map for units are at different scales (despite being the same map), and scales change depending on what year you’re in
> That’s one way to measure it, sure. Another way is that archers can shoot 2 tiles away.
Well, if we are talking about games where the size of a square is a coherent question, they can only do that in Civ III; Civ 1/2 units have only attack/defense, units with weapons "better range" just goes into the attack/defense abstraction, whereas in Civ IV archery units get first strike, and artillery units damage city defenses, but, like all other units that can attack at all, they can attack only adjacent units. (Even the single use missile units in Civ 4 are just units with a lot of movement that are destroyed when they attack, not ones that have a "range" capability distinct from movement.)
Range units came back with Civ V, along with the introduction of hexes and the elimination of stacks.
Both 5 and 6 were quite weak titles on launch, and they improved massively over many years. It seems like the starting point for 7 matches this trajectory.
There is some criticism that features have been removed to be re-added as DLC. I wonder if this is just that it is really really difficult to make a great strategy game, and putting out an imperfect title and iterating is the only way we know how.
> Given that the strategy game has 7 in the title, I think they've had a good few iterations at this point.
Of late (at least for 5 and 6; I haven't looked at this one yet) they've been using the new versions to make _major_ changes which would clearly break the old game, and then iterating via expansions.
Possibly in a parallel universe there's a Civ game that's just Civ 2 after 29 years of iteration (Civ 2 being the first one that really received universal acclaim), but that's not they way they've chosen to go (though arguably that's kinda what Freeciv is).
Anyone else living in the parallel universe where we are on Linux 2.6.137 (or whatever)?
Going the other way, I think Battlefield 2042 has a lot of the maps from other Battlefield games. It'd be interesting to imagine a rolling release game, with both change but continuity. In some ways... That's Destiny 2! Just... A different form factor game.
> they've had a good few iterations at this point.
They probably have some learnings about the previous iterations, but it’s not a reusable code or even a reusable requirement. This game isn’t as polished as late Civ 6, but the core is good and it’s ok to have UX and few other things catching up later.
Just one example: in Civ 7 the selection of the map is just a switch with the names of the options. In Civ 6 it evolved into a more visual component and they added more types of maps eventually.
Could they work on a better release? Maybe. Should they have done it? Absolutely unnecessary.
> there's plenty of fools eager to pre-order without seeing a single review
There are people who discover and people who follow the crowd. I often come to an empty restaurant, sit there and then people start coming. I have seen people avoiding empty restaurants as if they were plagued. Isn’t it foolish to entrust your life to reviews or others? If those who go first are fools, why their review would be important?
Interesting. I love 5 + Brave New World, I think it's my favourite Civ. I bought 6 on a sale (so it had been released for a while) and I found it awkward and clunky so I never really managed to get into it and went back to 5. Are you suggesting the game improved after that? In what way?
In 2021 they got $500M "royalties" (this is their payment from Google) with only $75k revenue from all other sources, including $7.5k donations.