Nothing. Most of us played OoT without any knowledge about the story. Everything is explained. As many others have said in this thread, the story is a background to excellent gameplay, and you won't get anything extra out of it by "preparing".
> ...hinges on whether AI "caps out" at an intelligence level below humans (in at least some domains/capabilities), or if it is able to surpass human intelligence at all levels.
I agree with you, just wondering your thought on how we will know the latter has come true? As I understand it, you're describing ASI, not AGI. The way I personally define AGI, we are already there.
Same here, N150, no issues. Don't think I've made any changes to the BIOS.
Fans spin a lot near-constantly though, I think it is the on board M.2 SSD that is hot, I need to get around to adding a thermal pad or something one of these days.
Why not just get your agent to write LaTeX? Use the beamer template and get a much more professional, customisable, git-commitable and transferable presentation.
I prefer to get bleeding edge LLMs to use old, time-hardened technologies. They are more stable, I trust they're not going to change out from under me, and it is more transferable. The ergonomics of the actual markup don't matter to me, since I'm not writing it, so I'd rather the more powerful, more training data option.
Just one example: Every university and academic publication in the world give LaTeX formatting templates, examples courses etc.
Ergonomics matter even for LLMs. Also, compile speed, quality of error messages, how easy it is to get something right (especially that LLMs are "blind" unless you want to burn a lots of tokens, so they sort of just reason without the visual output) absolutely matter and can turn a one-shot LLM prompt into a multi-turn agent churning wasting tokens for no good reason.
I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case here, but typst is past the very early phase and LLMs are decent at generating it. Also, many formatting templates have been converted to typst as well.
Maybe I'm a 2026 luddite but I can't bring myself to read about let alone try using products whose landing page is such a cookie cutter AI design. At least put some effort in to sand off the horrible unnecessary gloss and choose different fonts, colour schemes and layouts from every other project.
I am gradually becoming resigned to the fact that I'll have to get over this prejudice, though I'm not sure how I will.
I agree with you, but it is so funny that three years ago, a website that look like this would probably make the front page for its excellent design alone. Now, it gives off similar energy to a wix website.
Landing pages are always a proxy for quality. Quality in implementation, quality in domain knowledge, in communication…
At a time when building such a page was hard, it communicated quality in implementation. Now it fakes that, and that is deceptive and therefore met with negative reviews reaction.
Counterexample: highly skilled low level engineers would end up with a crappy front page most of the time, but still the compiler/system/kernel whatever could be high quality.
That depends on how you look at it. These front pages are made in a certain way that tells me "low level engineer".
I could make other examples: websites of online shops that have been around for a while and that are just medium-sized, local businesses, tend to look much worse than your average influencer webshop. But the medium-sized local business tends to have the much better value for money ratio, and I can tell it from their website.
Design says something. AI is trying to imitate that very thing that a specific design used to tell you, and that imitation annoys people, rightfully so. That has little to do with AI per se and everything with the immitation the human behind it does.
You are right, then again: I think three years ago someone would have commented about the gloss in the background as well (saying that it’s unhelpful, distracting and resource intensive).
Not only the design but the text. Like it says so much and so little at the same time and constantly repeats the same cliches like "the file is the app" or "the api is the x". Unmemorable, unfocused and boring is what it comes across. I know devs don't care about marketing copy but it does make a difference on how you're presenting your app to first time potential users.
We had few submissions and links in comments this week to some very "young" projects and their home pages looked like pressed from the same machine.
But if it works for people who just want to share their software and avoid working around the packaging and presentation, then I guess "it is what it is".
> I can't bring myself to read about let alone try using products whose landing page is such a cookie cutter AI design.
My issue isn't cookie-cutter, but if by gloss you mean unnecessarily animated, then yeah. But I've had this issue for over a decade. AI without direction is just mimicking popular site designs that were doing this same crap before.
> At least put some effort in to sand off the horrible unnecessary gloss and choose different fonts, colour schemes and layouts from every other project.
I knew a web dev who exclusively made WordPress websites for local small businesses. They always looked great. The themes were put together by hand with care from a designer, and the developer/end user filled them and tweaked them *purposefully*.
Sure if you have some web dev experience you start spotting them, but that never turned me off from a business in the same way that the above page does. I expected every business to have a website, but not for every business to commission a wholly bespoke design system. The themes available were numerous and of high enough quality that they were fit for purpose and didn't have this nauseating effect, at least for me.
it's a fair criticism though. learning and eventually relying on new tools is an investment. it helps to know the developer is invested too, not just moonlighting.
This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue. Assuming that Google has some basic competence, it selected locations where it's ultimately possible to build data centers while complying with all legal requirements.
My guess is that the government will eventually find that all requirements have been satisfied and let the projects move on. But because this is now a controversial issue, someone with the standing will very likely file a complaint. Then the projects will be stuck in administrative courts for a year or two.
Logging a few hundred hectares was not a problem. Google could have done that without additional permits, if their intention was to plant a new forest afterwards. Environmental impact assessment was only necessary, because they intended to replace the forest with something else.
The key question is whether Google can comply with the law after the fact. If they complete the assessment and the government finds nothing that would prevent the construction of the data centers, the project can go on. Maybe there will be some minor sanctions, as well as some delays, as they didn't do things properly the first time. And even if there is something that prevents construction, Google can still probably comply by planting a new forest.
> without completing an environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Because they didn't follow the procedure of first completing the EIA, which Google is surely familiar with, with all of their other datacenters/construction (especially ANYTHING in California, which was detrimentally bad until recently [1]).
The environmental impact assessment requirement is a national law, and the national government is responsible for approving it. But since elections are coming and the issue has become controversial, the government coalition will happily ignore it and let administrators and judges sort it out. They have bigger things to worry about.
Its a pretty egregious procedural oversight if you want to chalk it up to that.
For sure this is being politicized, for example claiming that the area was reduced to sand due to an overheated data center market. But to clear the land before doing legally required environmental impact studies is a pretty obvious mistake, and frankly I'm not sure how you'd even have landed on a plan for land clearing before doing said study if its required. How would you know what areas to clear, for example?
Companies can do that, but I don't particularly like when people assume that is what happened because they don't trust the businesses in question and assume bad faith. If you take that path, sure you get to blame the guilty, but you also end up blaming the innocent and you have committed to a course where things can only ever get worse because you refuse to allow anyone a chance to improve.
In an instance like this I am all for condemning their actions if there is evidence that they incentivised malpractice by the subcontractor, or were negligent in oversight of the contractor, or they had some reason to expect that the permits they were seeking would not be granted.
Going ahead without the required permits does require punishment, even if it was just a cock up, that is expected and reasonable.
Suggesting that this is a planned form of noncompliance is a much more serious incident, requiring a much harsher penalty, but it also requires some evidence to say it occurred.
> I hope in vain that the powers that be are able to punish them in a way they will actually feel...
they have such an obscene amount of money that no fine would ever matter to them. Jail time would do the trick though. Billionaires and trillionaires can't buy days of their life back.
Considering prime minister Orpo has already been quite vocal about supporting these data centers (when concerns were raised about electricity prices rising which he assured they won't be) citing economic growth and job increase, I doubt Google receives any kind of hard hitting sanctions for this.
Obligatory reminder that Finland is the happiest country and is in fact considered by all metrics among the least corrupt nation in the world. /s
I might be a heretic but yes, as a surface level Star Wars fan I watch them in the order they are numbered: episode I through episode IX.
However I don't think it applies to LoZ at all and there is literally no reason to care about a timeline between the games for your enjoyment of them.
reply