In the same boat here - I played it for a while, but was (and am) sincerely super confused what people find so amazing in it. I mean, it's an ok game, and I get that some people may like it, why not; but the repeated claims of it being the best of all time, to me totally baffling. Already the respawning of the critters, and the grind to get some coins to get such a basic game feature as a map, two early aspects that I definitely don't like, and personally find somewhat disrespectful to my time.
You absolutely don't have to grind geo to buy maps, or really anything (except three very specific charms) in Hollow Knight. Just kill stuff as you go exploring. However, if you don't like the game's combat, then the game is definitely not for you.
> I played it for a while, but was (and am) sincerely super confused what people find so amazing in it.
That's very easy to explain. It's a Kickstarter effect.
Boardgamegeek is a website that, among other things, aggregates ratings of board games into a big master list of which games are the best, kind of like imdb.
The list has been corrupted by Kickstarter - it turns out that, when a game with a Kickstarter campaign comes out, everyone who reviews it is someone who backed the Kickstarter, and those people are personally invested in the idea that their game is good. You have to wait for quite a while before a Kickstarter game's rating can be usefully compared with a normal game's.
The waiting period for Silksong seems to have had a similar effect on the people who bought it right away.
Nope! Alot of people just really love the game. I'm one of them! I only heard about the game after its release, and the first time I played it was in during the end of 2017. The only expectations I had for it were that it was a difficult exploration game. What captivated me was the music, the level design, getting lost before realizing what exploration options were available to me - I could go on forever about the game.
Same here. Hollow Knight was simply wonderful - the graphics, the music, the characters, the boss fight designs, the melancholic feeling of the world. It's hard to say whether it was my best gaming experience ever because there's stiff competition, but it's definitely in the nominees. And I only heard about it way after the Kickstarter campaign.
> Nope! Alot of people just really love the game. I'm one of them! I only heard about the game after its release, and the first time I played it was in during the end of 2017.
Considering it released a couple of days ago, I don't see how this can be true.
Hm, how does this answer relate to the answer you gave to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381084 ? where, as far as I understand, you say it's possible to swap out quic for something else? asking sincerely, I'm confused here.
ah very sorry, I can see how this isn't all that clear. In the comment you've mentioned when I say "custom protocol" I mean a custom QUIC ALPNs: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7301
When we talk to mainline it's for discovery, which is separate from iroh connections, which always uses QUIC. Specifically: our fork of quinn, an implementation of QUIC in rust. Iroh is tightly coupled to quinn, and isn't swappable. Getting no_std support for us basically boils down to "can we get quinn to support no_std?". For that, see: https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn/issues/579
I had some light contact with Prolog long ago during my studies - I have a rough idea how it is used and what it can be useful for, but only on surface, not deep at all. I keep hearing about Datalog since, as some amazing thing, but I don't seem able to understand what it is - i.e. to grasp an answer to a simple question:
what is that Datalog improves over Prolog?
Just now I tried to skim the Wikipedia page of Datalog; the vague theory I'm getting from it, is that maybe Prolog has relatively poor performance, whereas Datalog dramatically improves performance (presumably allowing much bigger datasets and much more parallelized processing), at the cost of reducing expressiveness and features in some other important ways? (including making it no longer Turing-complete?) Is that what it's about, or am I completely missing the mark?
from what I know, prolog looked declarative, in a way that you just encode relations and it figures out the answers, but it really depended on the order of those rules, and some additional instructions like "cut" which not only prevented waste computations, but could affect the results.
datalog on the other hands is more or less a relation db with a different syntax.
Datalog is simpler, not turing complete , and IIRC uses forward chaining which has knock-on effects in its performance and memory characteristics. Huge search spaces that a trivial in Prolog are impossible to represent in Datalog because it eats too much memory.
Datalog is a commuter car with a CVT. Prolog is an F1 car. Basically, it's not about improvement. It's about lobotomizing Prolog into something people won't blow their legs off with. Something that's also much easier to implement and embed in another application (though Prologs can be very easy to embed.)
If you're used to Prolog, you'll mostly just find Datalog to be claustrophobic. No call/3? No term/goal expansion? Datalog is basically designed to pull out the LCD featureset of Prolog for use as an interactive database search.
It's easier to write fast Datalog code but the ceiling is also way lower. Prolog can be written in a way to allow for concurrency, but that's an intermediate level task that requires understanding of your implementation. Guarded Horn Clauses and their derived languages[2] were developed to formalize some of that, but Japanese advancements over Prolog are extremely esoteric. Prolog performance really depends on the programmer and the implementation being used and where it's being used. Prolog, like a Lisp, can be used to generate native machine code from a DSL at compile-time.
If you understand how the underlying implementation of your Prolog works, and how to write code with the grain of your implementation, it's absolutely "fast enough". Unfortunately, that requires years of writing Prolog code with a single implementation. There's a lot of work on optimizing[3][4] prolog compilers out there, as well as some proprietary examples[5].
By the way, I just wanted to also say I love big chunks of this whole comments section; so much pure positivity and human beauty in one place, so soothing, uplifting, and inspiring to me. Thanks hereby to everyone sharing around here how they're consciously recognizing and acting in various amazing ways on the good they received.
There's also a kind of super-cheap Bluetooth "Chinese" thermal receipt printers, also known as "kitty printer" or "cat printer". There's plenty of reverse-engineered software for printing to them in a number of languages; one I use is: https://print.unseen-site.fun/ The disadvantage is they don't cut automatically, and their "cutter teeth" are super crappy. But cheap!
I have a version without cutter teeth at all, what I did was take a piece of the cutter thing from an aluminum foil roll and attach it to the printer. Works perfectly. Looks a little menacing though.
Even though bisphenol-A is banned in EU, I believe bisphenol-B is still allowed. I suspect - though I don't know how to research whether it's true or false - that everyone just switched to bisphenol-B, which is said to be either similarly, or more toxic than BPA... :(
Even assuming that "BPA-free" paper I'd buy is really so, and not just BPA-covered one imported from China and said/labeled to be "BPA-free" by someone somewhere in the pipeline...
If the labeling can be trusted it isnt hard to find phenol-free receipt paper on amazon.
However, none of them say what their actual 'active ingredient' is and I am curious if these are necessarily known to be better. Most of them describe themselves as 'plastic coated'.
No more physical support for the hand than what's seen in the vid. You can check more info in the github repo (https://github.com/akavel/clawtype) and on printables (https://www.printables.com/model/1231156-clawtype). The strap and the plate under the wrist seem enough that I'm not looking to improve on that at the moment; but I still need to test this version on some longer usage sessions. Interestingly, the original inventor and patent owner (https://web.archive.org/web/20220201061603/http://chordite.c...) has a design that doesn't even use a strap, but I didn't explore this direction yet (and honestly not yet even sure how to crack it). I know of another designer who's trying to iterate in that space: http://blog.russnelson.com/chordite
As to resistance, there's a balance to be adjusted between having the buttons too easy or to hard. This seems in main part to need to be adjusted by their positioning though. If too easy, you'll press combinations/chords accidentally too often. If too hard, it gets tiresome and annoying. Maybe there's some better placement possible, haven't found it yet. The switches currently used are Alps; they have dimensions which make them a good fit for this particular design; Cherry MX are a tiny bit too big and would require some rethinking.
As to 2 hands, the whole point for me is to have my main (right) hand available for other use, like drinking water, or otherwise supporting myself in the physical environment around. So I'm not currently interested in two-handed.
As to the number of keys - the four fingers seem busy enough; on the other hand, if you could fit smaller switches around (as in the DataHand design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataHand - see also 3d-printed clones on the internet - _edit:_ e.g. the https://svalboard.com, as mentioned by someone else, and lalboard https://hackaday.io/project/178232-lalboard-ergonomic-keyboa... as respectfully linked from therein), maybe you could try working with that. The obvious extra possibility is the thumb as you mention - it does feel like something could be added there, though it also sometimes helps a bit in holding the device. The original Chordite designer managed to somehow do it without a strap, but his reasons to not use the thumb are somewhat confusing to me.
I doubt there was a direct inspiration in either direction beside contributing to overall pool of ideas around wearable input devices. Only commonality I see is that they are both handheld/glove like computer input devices. Nerds and sci-fi authors have been dreaming about stuff like that since the beginning of personal computers in ~1970s-1980s if not earlier. There are plenty of other examples which could have been inspiration. Even the 2000 patent, references dozen older patents for handheld or glove like input devices some of which are much closer to the 2006 movie.
Looking at the history of wearable electronics can't forget about Steve Mann and all his crazy prototypes long before 2000.
Most well known movie examples are probably Minority report(2002) and The Wizard(1989) which showed Nintendo power glove.
