VoterFrog

I'm not great at giving advice so I won't but I will share my own experience. Yeah that whole "first moment changes your life" thing is either made up or exaggerated or just highly personal. My son had some minor complications during delivery and came out like Smurf blue. The color, the crying, and the wiggling after he first came out honestly gave me the feeling that he was like some kind of alien (not literally, just that it was off-putting). And I can't say that my first impression of holding him was revelatory.

We're on kid #3 (the last) but my wife will be the first to tell you that the newborn stage is her least favorite. It really is stressful and toilsome. The bad news is that it gets a little harder as they spend more time awake. The good news is you do get some time back in a couple years when they're old enough to understand not to eat literally everything they can put in their mouth. So you've got that to look forward to. The weight of the responsibility never goes away, though.

As for the feelings, I'd say that really kicked in for me once you start to see how much they change and grow. I felt a lot of pride over a lot of the "firsts" that they learned and there's a lot of those in the first year. And as for bonding with them, that also solidified more when they grew enough to start interacting more. I can't help but smile when my youngest crawls over just because he wants to sit in my lap while he drinks his bottle.

So yeah I'd say a lot of what you're feeling seems pretty normal from my perspective and for me it improved as time went on. I wish you the best. It's going to be tough, both as a father and as a husband. But if I had the chance to erase any of it from my life, I wouldn't.

Is that because the innovations are so powerful and impactful that they massively change the game state? I wonder what the designers could do to make the game more playable in a group.

It makes me think of one of my group's favorite games, Cosmic Encounter which sees you leading an alien race with a game bending special ability. Each round is a quick duel with a random player so you can't plan too much around that. The strategizing is mostly around when you decide to use the best cards in your hand, which you don't typicallyhave to worry too much about being taken from you. Also you often have to decide which player to hinder from winning or to help (perhaps opportunistically, even if you don't want them to get stronger it can pay to hitch your wagon to them for a boost).

We just like the surprising moments that can arise from the alien abilities and the cards. And the full-table engagement with most rounds.

Looks neat. I like the concept of the crazy innovation combos. But I don't think I'd ever get it out if it's only good at 2 players.

The language model isn’t teaching anything it is changing the wording of something and spitting it back out. And in some cases, not changing the wording at all, just spitting the information back out, without paying the copyright source.

You could honestly say the same about most "teaching" that a student without a real comprehension of the subject does for another student. But ultimately, that's beside the point. Because changing the wording, structure, and presentation is all that is necessary to avoid copyright violation. You cannot copyright the information. Only a specific expression of it.

There's no special exception for AI here. That's how copyright works for you, me, the student, and the AI. And if you're hoping that copyright is going to save you from the outcomes you're worried about, it won't.

Makes sense to me. Search indices tend to store large amounts of copyrighted material yet they don't violate copyright. What matters is whether or not you're redistributing illegal copies of the material.

If I understand correctly they are ruling you can by a book once, and redistribute the information to as many people you want without consequences. Aka 1 student should be able to buy a textbook and redistribute it to all other students for free. (Yet the rules only work for companies apparently, as the students would still be committing a crime)

A student can absolutely buy a text book and then teach the other students the information in it for free. That's not redistribution. Redistribution would mean making copies of the book to hand out. That's illegal for people and companies.

It seems like a lot of people misunderstand copyright so let's be clear: the answer is yes. You can absolutely digitize your books. You can rip your movies and store them on a home server and run them through compression algorithms.

Copyright exists to prevent others from redistributing your work so as long as you're doing all of that for personal use, the copyright owner has no say over what you do with it.

You even have some degree of latitude to create and distribute transformative works with a violation only occurring when you distribute something pretty damn close to a copy of the original. Some perfectly legal examples: create a word cloud of a book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet.

You can absolutely do the same kinds of things an AI does with a work as a human.

Also magenta. Actually, white and black too.

Oh look what was just posted today: https://youtu.be/Cp5oajtBbtg

TLDW: It's been proposed. Turn's out it's really hard to even do that.

I think the problem that you're going to imagine a good analogy for this is that orbital dynamics works in sort of (but not really) an unintuitive way.

An object in an elliptical orbit around earth is moving slowest at its furthest point from the earth. Like a thrown ball that slows when it reaches the top of its trajectory. That object is moving fastest at the point that it's closest to earth.

So you have this dynamic where if you decelerate it changes your orbit such that you're increasing the speed you'll be moving on opposite point of your orbit. E.g. if you decelerate at your slowest (furthest) point, it brings your closest approach point closer to earth and you'll be moving even faster when you get there.

You can decelerate at your closest approach point but eventually it brings the opposite end of your orbit closer to earth than you are, and then you'll fall and of course speed up again. There's no real way around this. You're going to be moving fast when you approach earth unless you're doing a lot of very active deceleration.

KSP player here. So, you know, ignore me.

But let's consider how you'd rendezvous two objects. You'd want your asteroid to have an orbit around the Sun that is very nearly the same orbit as Earth's. A perigee that just kisses the Earth's orbital ellipse and an apogee that's slightly further from the sun. You'd want the asteroid to approach its perigee at the same time as Earth approaches that same point in space. Then they'd have very close to 0 relative velocity, with the asteroid moving slightly faster around the Sun than the Earth. So you just bleed off some of the asteroid's velocity through whatever magical explanation you want... such that your asteroid has 0 relative velocity with Earth, giving it the exact same orbit as Earth. I.e. from Earth's perspective it's just floating there motionless in space.

Problem is that this only works for a rendezvous between two very light objects with very small gravitational effects between them. The Earth is massive enough that the effects from Earth's gravitation would overtake the Sun's as the asteroid approaches Earth. Then, yeah, the asteroid becomes a falling rock with a lot of energy so I don't think any of this works.