As long as you’re turing complete

I think you can stop there. Any computable function can be run on any Turing complete machine. You just need the right machine code. So you don’t really need to add further qualifications.

However, if you do… If you say C needs to be able to read input, write to files and devices, allocate and randomly access memory, or talk to an operating system in any way, then you’ve tied it to a particular (abstract) architecture. So, I’d say that’s a pretty low level language on the abstraction spectrum. Most other languages are higher than it. If you were to rate programming languages from 0 to 10, C would be about a 3. Maybe even 2 for kernel code. Python would be like a 7, and SQL would be like an 8.

Anyone saying a language is strictly either “high” or “low” is missing a lot of nuance, and C is definitely on the low end.

I plan to eat only rice and beans that month.

Two Steam fanboys downvoted you.

I thought all downvotes were permanent. Do they expire after a period of time if you don’t mark them as permanent?

I remember a Star Trek TNG episode where it was 60 on some planet.

I have no idea what average is. I’m sure Evan would know. The game has all kinds of telemetry. I’m curious what the average win rate is, only including people who have played for at least, I dunno… 50 hours? I’m sure tons of people try it, lose a bunch, and never play again. I wouldn’t want to include them in an average. I also think early losses from people who did stick with it should be excluded because they were still learning. So, maybe only count games after a person’s first win. That would be a good cutoff.

I have a 34% winrate (85/251), and some of that is with challenges, but I have never won a 6-challenge and gave up on it. 3-challenge was enough. Meanwhile, some players here eat 6-challenge runs for breakfast. Those people are on a different level, but I think I’m pretty ok.

Nowadays, I only play 0-challenge once in a while for fun.

I have the Mojora’s Mask version, but I stored the power adapter in the same bag as the console and went on a road trip and the whole back of the shell got terribly scuffed. 😖 Like gouged, even. The little folding plug had opened up and sat there vibrating against the shell for hours.

When you think about it, it’s not much weirder than plugging a GPU into a PC. It has a more powerful processor and requires it’s own power supply. Imagine having to plug in your SNES cartridge.

Except GPUs dont have game ROMs on them. Maybe someday they will.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. No real arguments from me. It was a mistake on my part to equate what I had in my mind with the meme above. It is really is two different things.

I just spontaneously remembered the FTL drive from the novel “Variable Star” by Spider Robinson and Robert Heinlein. The operator of the drive must hold multiple mutually contradictory thoughts in their mind at once, for hours at a time, in shifts with the other operators. Usually two at a time for redundancy. A failure to have at least one operator holding the required mental state would stall the drive and restarting it was very difficult.

It was never really explained how it works, but it’s taken totally seriously. It’s not like flying in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” where you fall and forget to hit the ground. I thought it was a clever idea. To make consciousness an explicit part of FTL travel by basically holding your mind in a superposition of thought.

Me, too. It pays homage to the source (maybe it meant “Radio Broadcast”?) while being a real name, and kind of a fun, old-timey one, too. Maybe he likes roast beef. Who am I kidding? Of course he does!

It’s RB, not Arby? Oops, I guess it is RB. I read the video description.

The food mechanic is to stop you from farming experience points before going deeper. Once you learn the game some more, you should rarely run out of food, and full exploration of each floor is perfectly doable.

Food is not meant to be a source of good healing. Like, if you spend time passing turns just to heal from food, you will definitely starve. I used to do that when I first started playing the game, and learned it was usually a mistake.

As for the demons, yeah, they can be a bitch. You’re supposed to dodge the laser eyes, not tank them. You can hear them warming up, and you get a fixed number of turns to find cover. That’s just part of the difficulty. Congrats on even getting that far! It took me quite a few tries to get to the Dwarf King, and to get past him routinely.

Nowadays, I can beat the game every try, and have even beaten it with up to 3 challenges enabled. Sure, there’s RNG to contend with, but the real skill of the game is the knowledge of what to do to get out of sticky situations. Like what spells do what, and what items you should save for crafting versus using them.

I hope you don’t completely give up on the game like you said in your other comment because it’s honestly really, really good

See: https://lemmy.world/comment/23647353

Also, don’t ask for estimates. 😂

What is that even supposed to mean? Did they make a typo?

Not exactly. At least I don’t think. Einstein didn’t believe in quantum mechanics at all, or that it was inherently random until measured. Bohr said it was, but I don’t think he necessarily equated conscious observation with measurement. Einstein believed there must be hidden variables, but if there are, they’re non-local.

it’s a moot point because it’s the sensor is the “observer”, and it’s not “being observed” that affects the outcome.

Thing is, that’s an assumption. You dont know that for sure. Just like you can’t prove the speed of light isn’t different in different directions. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be free to believe that, but you must admit it’s an assumption.

I’m not a really mystical person, but I don’t discount the possibility. That would be arrogant. Simply being conscious is rather bizarre. How does the universe even support that? What is it? Is there a consciousness field? Why does a blob of fat, protein, and sodium ions give rise to consciousness? Surely, life could have evolved and thrived without experiencing life. I can easily imagine mindless, robotic life just doing it’s thing.

Since no one can currently explain any of that, and no one can know for sure a wavefunction has collapsed until you’ve lookef at the results, I also don’t discount that consciousness might play a role. I remain agnostic about it.

imply that there’s something special, different about consciousness.

If you don’t think there’s something special and unusual about consciousness, I don’t know what to say. 😄 I don’t believe in a soul, but at least I admit that consciousness is special, and that the universe is weird because of that.

Well, if you look at the plate, then you’ve collapsed the wave function, and the data on the hard drive is then determine, and can’t contradict the result on the plate.

Damn, that’s quite the write-up! I actually haven’t watched any of her videos in over a year, but I used to watch them a lot, so I figured I’d give her credit for part of my education. Her takes did seem a little odd at times, but it was refreshing to watch a science curmudgeon sometimes. I simply got sick of her schtick after a while, and did read a little controversy about her. I had no idea about the trans stuff.

The context of what each speaker is saying matters. Words don’t have much meaning in isolation except for simple ones like “no”. You could have a degree in the Philosophy of Science and still struggle to define “theory” accurately and succinctly.

One speaker is using the word as a positive thing (accurately). After all, a theory is the best we can say about how the world works. The second speaker is using the word pejoratively. In that sense it actually doesn’t mean the same thing, and any scientist would argue that the second person doesn’t understand what they mean when scientists say “theory”.

Note: I said when scientists say theory. Words don’t have inherent meaning, so the speaker matters. The speaker can only hope their audience takes their words the way they’re intended. There’s no guarantee that they will.

The second speaker is trying to refute science by quoting scientists, yet using the word in a way that scientists don’t. That’s obviously dumb. But it is the way that most non-scientists use the word, so you could say the second speaker is just confused about what scientists have been saying when they use the word. The scientists’ goal should be to correct the second speaker’s understanding of what scientists mean when they use the word. The word itself is not actually important. You can get across the meaning without ever using the word itself.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? Neither. It’s a simple misunderstanding of how scientists uses the word when they speak. Unless, of course, the second speaker knows the scientific definition, and is pretending to not know in order to pander to an audience.

I “literally” don’t care if you use “literally” to make an obviously facetious joke like OP did.

Stop philosophizing over a joke. We are in “science memes”.