In my experience, it is good at simple to medium complexity regex. For the harder ones it starts being quite useless though, at best providing a decent starting point to begin debugging from.

Re LLM summaries: I’ve noticed that too. For some of my classes shortly after the ChatGPT boom we were allowed to bring along summaries. I tried to feed it input text and told it to break it down into a sentence or two. Often it would just give a short summary about that topic but not actually use the concepts described in the original text.

Also minor nitpick but be wary of the term “accuracy”. It is a terrible metric for most use cases and when a company advertises their AI having a high accuracy they’re likely hiding something. For example, let’s say we wanted to develop a model that can detect cancer on medical images. If our test set consists of 1% cancer inages and 99% normal tissue the 99% accuracy is achieved trivially easy by a model just predicting “no cancer” every time. A lot of the more interesting problems have class imbalances far worse than this one too.

AI can be good but I’d argue letting an LLM autonomously write a paper is not one of the ways. The risk of it writing factually wrong things is just too great.

To give you an example from astronomy: AI can help filter out “uninteresting” data, which encompasses a large majority of data coming in. It can also help by removing noise from imaging and by drastically speeding up lengthy physical simulations, at the cost of some accuracy.

None of those use cases use LLMs though.

I haven’t looked into this game beyond your description, but it does sound like a pretty weird model. Do you also have to pay for cards on top of that?

It’s not a card game, it’s an async autobattler. As long as all the characters are roughly balanced against each other, there’s nothing to be gained other than cosmetics (at the current state of the game).

Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

• not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
• str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
• min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
• ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
• range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
• sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
• chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))

From experience with the beta and memory, your wife (and you) will be able to choose which version to play. Either yours with a ton of DLC or hers with none. You should both be able to use the version with all DLC, but not at the same time.

It’s been a while since we tested this though so things might have changed, including my memory…

after leaving can’t join another for a year

Can you fix this? There was enough misinformation floating around about this already when this feature went into beta.

Adults can leave a family at any time, however, they will need to wait 1 year from when they joined the previous family to create or join a new family.

it should say something like: “After joining, can’t join another for a year”

Good intentions alone don’t guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.

Source

I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.

Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.

Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.

Without knowing any specifics of the TOS or the exact setup beyond what I could gather in this thread: generally speaking they could still send you a bill through email or otherwise.

After that, if you’re not paying up, they might be able to successfully get the money out of you through court regardless, depending on a few factors. What’s more likely for smaller sums is that they’ll just drop it and ban you though.

IANAL of course.

Out of curiosity, what was your original choice and why do you think it’s not a good fit anymore?

Or “watch”. That way they don’t have to make it obvious that their customers won’t own it but still don’t straight up lie.

It usually happens a lot faster in video games than 3 sessions in. If it happens later in a video game, it’s usually a very short, very temporary scene of depowerment.

I had a whole paragraph typed out on my phone but didn’t like most of it. By now many other players said most of what was in there already before I had the chance to proofread and reword it. The gist of it was though: Don’t alter player characters or take their power away without at least one of those three being true:

• The player agrees beforehand and is aware it will happen.
• The player character has done something so horrendously stupid that it could’ve easily been their death so e.g. them losing a limb and now having a pegleg is them being lucky.
• It is very temporary, I’d say max 1 in-game day/1session and the player (not necessarily the character) is aware of that.

You might argue that picking that fight that would get them sent to hell would qualify as #2. But with you planning it out ahead of time it’s less them doing something dumb and more the DM guiding them to do something dumb.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt of only 3 hour sessions and ignoring the time they planned out their characters, you let them play with their characters for around 6 hours by now and it’ll probably be another hour or two until they “die”. This might sound harsh but even with you backtracking on this, seriously entertaining this idea in the first place worries me about what else you might have in store.

Regarding the “OP staff of fire” one of your players has: Did you talk to that player about it in private? I find that usually players respond well to the DM being open about something being so overpowered it warps the entire campaign to the point where you have to design every encounter around it. I’d recommend approaching them about it in private, and not at the (virtual?) table when everyone’s eager to play already.
Maybe you could just get the player on board to trade the item in for something less disruptively powerful. Essentially nullifying their magic item by being in hell where every enemy is fire-immune while everyone else still has some useful, fun magic toy feels uncool too after all.

Edit: and a player who wouldn’t agree to “Hey, your item is so strong I have to design everything around it so you don’t just steamroll everything. Can we, for example, have you meet a merchant where your character trades it for something else?” would react HORRIBLY to having it and all levels taken by force to the point where they’ll just quit.

In Roguelikes and Roguelike-adjenct games there are also a few games that get close. (I’d even argue some totally eclipse SV/Terraria in that regard, but that depends on your definition.) Some, but not all, of them are even completely free and open source.

Off the top of my head, a few examples would include Dwarf Fortress, UnReal World and Nethack. Maybe some Space Station 13 servers if you count that too.

Overtake and MFGhost are both good if you are into racing.

Funny you say this. I’ve only kept up with Overtake but I liked everything except the actual races. Lucky for me it seems to be a character drama centered around racing as opposed to a racing anime with some drama. Especially episode 4 really won me over and from what I remember nobody did any kind of racing in that episode.

Same. This episode probably saved the anime for me. I wasn’t super feeling it after the first three episodes, but after this episode I’m back to being excited to see where it goes.

This all turned out a bit rambly, gonna send it anyway. I hope you can get some positives out of it if you do decide to read it. The last three (real) paragraphs are more structured, so if you’re only gonna read part of it, make it that part.

I have noticed that playing on Foundry (or roll20 or any other VTT software) often leads to more video-gamey/war-gamey campaigns. VTTs assist the DM and players with a lot of the gamey aspects, but offer much less assistance, if any, for the other aspects of ttrpgs. This leads to a lot of the potential issues you described. In my experience, having virtual battle-map after battle-map (or a single large one) thrown at you leads to reduced creativity, especially in newer players who do have experience playing computer games.

It takes both time and conscious effort to realize that what’s in front of you is not the actual game being played but just a projection. This counts for both sides of the DM screen. Some people will never clear that hurdle or even realize it’s there. That is fine for some people who do love the video-gamey aspects but not for others who want the opposite, or at least more of a balance.

For example, personally I also DM a Pathfinder campaign on Foundry and I constantly have to remind some of my players that they don’t need to click on all the relevant buttons the system already has programmed in. They can just say what they’re doing and do a naked roll if finding the button takes more than a second.

In regards to your last paragraph. You did get an in-game reason from your DM, although they were a bit indirect with it. Your DM telling you you might have to roll up a new character also means your in-game reason is: “I feel like I might die if I try this.” My advice in that specific situation would be to lead by example and roleplay your character going through those thoughts/emotions. I know it can be awkward, might even get a giggle or two from the other people around if nobody else has done any roleplaying yet this session or campaign, but someone has to make the first step.

Also don’t forget that the players have a lot of power in shaping the game. You do not have to explore a huge cave. You can walk out at any time, go to a town and talk to people instead. It’s kind of a dick move though if you let your DM prepare this cave for days, letting them believe that’s what you were interested in, only to then not engage with it. Of course that requires all the players (or at least a good number of them) to be on board. To find out what you all want to get out of this game together, communication outside the game is required.

I’m gonna be devil’s advocate for the last three paragraphs of my rambling response:

Do you actually KNOW that the enemies you’re fighting are arbitrary? Do you know there is no explanation for the mimic and the gelatinous cube? No explanation for the moths and larvae? No explanation for the Morlocks? Is it possible that your characters just haven’t found those explanations? I’ve placed enemies in my games before and the players never found out WHY they were there (the characters never even bothered thinking about it in some cases) but there was always a in-universe reason. And even if your DM didn’t initially have a reason, I would assume they will be able to come up with one on the spot.

For example, Mimics are described as: “A mimic can remain in its alternate form for an extremely long period of time, sometimes remaining disguised in a dungeon chamber for decades. Regardless of how long it waits, the mimic remains vigilant and alert, ready to strike at any moment.” They do seek to ambush adventurers so hiding in a cave that would be attractive to adventurers is the #1 thing they’d do. It could’ve wandered in 10, 20, 30 years ago, biding its time. Saying something like “I investigate the area around where the mimic was, trying to find any hints whether it has moved recently” after combat could lead to you learning more context about how the mimic got there. Same with the moths and larvae, you could try finding out if they’ve been born and died in this cave? If something made them flee their previous homes (especially “easy” if you have anything to converse with animals), etc. I don’t think it’s the DMs responsibility to give you context unprompted. It’s their responsibility to give you context once you’re looking for context, and even then, you still might need to pass certain rolls to get context. In the end, most of the time, the DM shouldn’t and wouldn’t give you any info your characters wouldn’t have.

This also extends to other areas you complained about. If you want more information but your DM doesn’t immediately provide it, prod them for it through character actions. “What is this Morlock I’m fighting wearing?” “What’s the color of the stones here?” “How high is the ceiling?” “Can I hear anything at all?”

I think you’re on the right track with your Update though. Best of luck!

I think it would be fine as an official extension. Shipping it built-in feels weird to me.