I've played a little bit of Dead Cell's but it hasn't stuck with me yet.
I have to admit the game is a little overwhelming but maybe I need to stick with it a bit more.
Part of PoP's charm is that the game is very simple, yet the parry mechanic has nuance - you can buffer parry/attack/parry/attack/... sequences and the timing is just a bit faster than normal enemies, meaning you can wear them out (these fights have a very Errol Flynn Swashbuckler feel to them). Eventually your attack lands before they can begin their parry animation.
Later in the game you meet enemies that hit faster than you can respond to with a parry, so you need to change up your tactics.
Also Nine Sols. It's becoming increasingly popular as games are moving the complexity/flashiness of interactions with enemies to the enemy's side.
Rather than learn and perform complex combos like Devil May Cry, the enemies now are the ones with very flashy movesets and now you simply parry/dodge.
I think it's because you have to use your imagination.
Just like active recall (essentially guess consciously before checking the answeris) a better way to learn I think the less detail their is in the story (book, game, movie, etc) the more you have to do yourself and so it becomes your own experience rather than someone elses.
This is like how people keep claiming Zelda Ocarina of Time is just nostalgia, but I first played it in like 2014 (after playing the others) and immediately considered it the best Zelda game.
Even dumber, they've now got a disgruntled employee, and everyone around them knows they were cheated by the company.
If the policy is wrong and needs to be more specific, pay it out this time and change the policy. Don't just break your word.
The policy they think they've implemented is stupid. "Save money in someone else's department" is just going to create a ton of anger as people rush to step on each other's toes, and then those people have to constantly re-justify all the decisions they've made.
In the original DK experiment they asked students after they had taken a test that where would their score end up compared to their classmates (which they had no knowledge of). Obviously they picked scores around the middle*
Which resulted in top students 'undervaluating themselves' and bottom students 'overestimating themselves'. Or under/overvaluating a random future variable that they don't have knowledge of, at least.
The original DK paper actually shows a positive correlation between the guesses and the test results: students are generally aware how they are among their peers, and smarter students guessed higher than studetns with less time to study on their hand.
This being said, the 'DK effect' is something people talk about, and it might exist, and it might be perceived by people. It's just that the original DK paper does not support it.
* another lesser talked problem with the DK paper is that people don't actually believe the answers they give, because the question is nonsensical.
If someone just takes a test, they won't think that "I'm sure I'll end up the 24% this time". Even if they are forced to anwser this question, even then they won't believe it, because that's not how random and future work. People are generally aware of about where they will perform (with positive correlation, in fact the original DK paper shows it) but they are not aware of results of specific, random future events, and they are not claiming that they know the results of specific, random future events, or believe it in their hearts.
DK paper tries to frame them as they were actually believing this, but they are not.
Can't we just get to the pop culture version of the DK effect by deduction?
It seems reasonable to assume that for some group of intellects they are not smart enough to know how not smart they are. There is no definite boundary where this effect is either on or off, therefore there are probably some gradations to this awareness as you climb up the intelligence ladder.
Another way of putting it: if dumb people had more insight they would cease to be dumb.
Funnily enough, smart phones (and previous feature phones with their SMS) have probably gotten more people into reading and writing for leisure than any other technology since the printing press.
Granted, people are not doing any long form reading and writing on these devices, but they are reading and writing.
I disagree, people used to read newspapers and magazines. Even if you were not an intellectual or interested in politics you'd read the sports daily, or the gossip column.
For a brief period before instagrams and youtube became mainstream and tiktoks came along to decimate whatever was left.
This is an exaggeration, but I wouldn't rule out your average smartphone user reading less in an average commute than they would do just reading store signs as they pass...
I use my fingers to interact with computers, and they don't have any extra weight at all, as they are already attached to me. You need to also count the weight of the paper.
And, no, your pen and paper are not able to durably record information for thousands of years. Unless you have some really bespoke setup.
Acid-free paper and a carbon-black ink, or a modern neutral pH iron-gall ink, should last 1000 years if stored correctly. 2000 might be pushing it, but under a controlled atmosphere it should be possible.
Neither is your time writing that prompt. When people are talking about elaborate prompts, with a lot of detailed instructions, guardrails etc. I'm kind of assuming it takes time.
And economic progress for the companies. What these engineers who stay get is just a burnout and a pat on the back. I've seen it, and felt it, many times way before all this slop-coding started
You can see if Dead Cells's parrying mechanic works for you.
reply