> Some emerging research suggests Earth’s magnetism matters, as well. Being barefoot on the ground versus 30 stories high in a downtown skyscraper puts you in a completely different magnetic environment.
Really? My instinctive reaction to this statement is that it's quackery. Would be very interested to see headlines appear about this if it's true.
It's definitely quackery. There's way more "natural" magnetic variation between two different cities than between a ground floor apartment and a 30th floor apartment (see magnetic declination maps), and that's even before you get into the way-more-powerful magnetic fields generated or present in a home.
This is called "grounding" or "earthing" and Wikipedia doesn't pull punches in dismissing it [0]. You can buy grounding wires for your mattress or copper rivets for your shoes.
From my tissue engineering class in undergrad my 2 cents is this is maybe 95% supplements quackery and 5% genuine mystery. You can find papers that claim EM fields have cellular interactions [1]. I don't think serious scientists will touch conventional earthing, though.
People already live in different altitudes, ie with vastly different amounts of rock between themselves and the bits of the earth that produce her magnetic field.
So colour me skeptical of this claim as well.
And while I like going barefoot for other reasons, I don't think it makes much of a difference to the magnetic fields.
> People already live in different altitudes, ie with vastly different amounts of rock between themselves and the bits of the earth that produce her magnetic field.
It's not really the same thing. Construction and especially the high content of charged metal (whether it's power conduits or plain old frame) may make a considerable difference.
Do many people sleep in such tall buildings? Obviously they exist, but I can't think of any over-20 story residential building I've ever been in. Office space, sure, but not residential.
I would not jump to such conclusions, I would assume is not fully known and needs to be further understood.
on the other side, do you know we have polarized and non-polarized cells? do you know they can be affected by electromagnetism?
this two things already establish the existence of a relationship and effects between them. If we then consider that cells mechanism work based on differential of electrical or chemical potentials, and that they continuously use that for their functions, reactions or environmental compensations well...
I just think they are related and we need to understand better.
Fascinating, but polarization is a red herring. Magnetism is famously the wildly-unreactive half of electromagnetism; copper is REALLY sensitive to electricity and REALLY insensitive to magnetism.
The methane will eventually break down and be part of new plants, but in the meantime it will heat the planet much more than if it hadn't been there. Think of it this way: industrial scale cattle farming essentially makes and feeds biochemical reactors that turn hydrocarbons into a gaseous form that maximizes their global heating effect. Consider the counterfactual where we don't stuff billions of fart machines full of corn.
> The methane will eventually break down and be part of new plants
To be exact, excess methane go in the high troposphere, where it is broken down in CO2+H2O (the half life is very short, I don't remember which is which but it's either 5 or 20 years). So in any case, it accelerate climate change.
Are you implying that's a bad thing? Doing things for social status has been an integral part of society for millennia. It's a legitimate motivation that can benefit both the recipient of the status and the rest of society. In this specific case, if you assume that the author makes content that is useful to you only because of the social status reward, taking away that reward means the author will stop making content that is useful to you.
What do you get out of that? The utility of having the end product (a generated game for an obsolete console) seems pretty small, and personally I would think the fun is in learning about the inner workings of the time capsule that is 90s hardware. Would you mind explaining?
It's just not the same. I made games for the PSP and Vita and it's "different" than making games for Windows or Playstation/Xbox. There's something about seeing your creation on a tiny handheld. I guess maybe nowadays we got desensitized to it because our phones are actual supercomputers which can run Fortnite without breaking a sweat, but making a device with 2MB of ram play your game as you imagined it is just hyper cool and (for me personally) is incredibly satisfying.
I'm not trying to be dismissive here - I am the type to be into the nitty gritty nerdy stuff that using Claude skips, BUT I have exactly zero experience developing anything for a legacy hardware platform in any capacity (with or without Claude) so genuinely curious to learn varying perspectives here.
Is it about the idea of the platform having limited capabilities (e.g. akin to Game Bub or MiSTer) or about tactile aesthetics (e.g. possibly vaguely comparable - though not really - to r36t or play.date) or something different entirely.
Honestly I think part of it is just that it's cool to see software running on this platform. I remember coding some trash apps on the 3DS back in the day simply because I could. It was great seeing code running somewhere it isn't strictly "supposed to"
If you enjoy this sort of thing I’d highly recommend pico-8 and tic-80. Both have pretty full featured dev environments and have a set of restrictions that make developing for them fun.
If your game fits in the bounds of N64 hardware it makes perfect sense IMO. You basically get virtually all modern platforms for free. Much easier than wrestling with all the modern API that are "platform independent" but not really.
While I agree with you, I think it's interesting that LLMs have progressed enough to be able to write working code even for niche and heavily-constrained platforms like the N64. I'm sure it helps that modern toolchains make that easier (I don't expect very many LLMs to be able to put up with the old Windows 9x or IRIX toolchains, to say the least!).
I mean, there is plenty of people out there who enjoy the process of making a game(they have a really clear idea of gameplay mechanics they think would be fun when put together) but they really don't enjoy programming at all. I guess it's kinda the same - I Want to see my game happen, I don't want to code it. Which isn't that different from where all the other tools are leading us anyway. Nowadays you can make a video game by just downloading an engine and building everything using the included scripting language most of the time - no need to understand rendering, IO, input or anything else.
> Nowadays you can make a video game by just downloading an engine and building everything using the included scripting language most of the time - no need to understand rendering, IO, input or anything else.
I don't disagree, but I don't see it as a positive, looking at the current game releases and their performance being shockingly unoptimised, there is a lot of lost real world value in knowing the lower level details, it's like anything really, sometimes you have to do the hard/unappealing work to create your best work.
Hmmm look, I can offer you my perspective on this.
I've been a low level engine programmer in video games all my working life. I worked on a few AAA games that sold 20M+ copies, I'm not saying this to boast, I'm saying this to say I know how the sausage is made. My literal day to day job is fixing issues like "The RHI thread on the Switch takes 0.5ms longer than it should" and optimizing things as much as possible.
I think if you asked me few years ago, I would have also taken the same stance you did - that these tools make it "too easy" and we get unoptimized crap out there.
But you know what, nowadays I feel like I mellowed out a lot. A lot of these so called "friendslop" games are horrible in terms of technical work. And you know what? They still bring joy to people. They still make people laugh and have a great time with the people they like. One of my favourite memories from a game I worked on was reading comments from people who said they were looking forward to just playing the game after work in the evening with their friends. Was optimizing the IO performance on PS4 essential to make the game happen? Sure. But what mattered more was that the game was actually fun to play.
Nowadays I see the improvement in tooling as nothing but a positive. There will always be hardcore engine programmers who know how to do this stuff, I have zero doubt about it. But allowing people to just download an engine and make the thing is absolutely fantastic. To say that it's bad - to me personally - that's gatekeeping. Saying you can't make a game unless you know how to write a renderer or a physics system is so offputting to people who want to make a game but just don't know how - we should be encouraging them, not chastising them for it. Little Big Planet did it well as one of the first games of that kind, if you recall that - just saying, here's a sandbox, make a thing that brings joy to other people. Isn't that what gaming is about?
And on a more serious, business side - it's kinda crazy that Epic lets you use UE for FREE until you start making serious money on the game that you made. You can start a company, hire people, and just start making the game you want to make without paying anything for the tooling. Very few other companies in the world let you do this.
You know thats completely fair. I'm not in the game industry but I see some friends and what they do and I do have to admit, I wouldn't be able for it so it's not really fair for me to critisise.
> it's kinda crazy that Epic lets you use UE for FREE until you start making serious money on the game that you made.
Thinking about how powerfull UE is, it is kind of insane.
The Netherlands physically moved 27 tons of gold from the US and Canada (mostly New York) to the Netherlands this year.