If you don’t want to retain it at all — like, you just want the catharsis of typing it, and definitely want it to go into the void — then I suppose you could use a laptop with no writeable storage and a live-boot Linux distro that boots off a USB key. That never gets retained. Don’t put it on a network.

I haven’t played it, but if you can’t skip the animation, that actually highlights the issue I complained about in another comment, where the animation becomes the bottleneck. Say they do this, and it’s tuned to that hard drive. Then someone decides that they’re willing to spend more to improve performance and goes out and gets an SSD for their PS4. Now the game probably doesn’t need to spend all that time hiding the loading, but the player’s still stuck with it in the game.

I kind of took the approach of not caring about achievements in the first place.

I mean, at best, they’re an inexpensive way of adding grind of some premade categories to games. At worst, they’re another source of tracking player activity in games (though I suppose that as data-harvesting goes, this is probably one of the less-objectionable forms).

I get wanting to do challenge playthroughs to accomplish certain things, but it’s not as if the game developer needs to provide support for that. It’s maybe a quality-of-life improvement, but…shrugs It just isn’t something that matters that much to me.

I think that there’s a good argument for mods disabling achievements, if one wants the achievement to be meaningful. It’s hard to reliably determine whether a mod (or an updated version of the mod) “helps” or not. You’d likely need human review, which is subject to errors and costs something. If someone permits through a mod that helps and then later there’s a re-review and achievements gotten with that mod are revoked, that’s going to piss some players off.

All that being said, if someone does care about achievements, I think that one option might be to have two lists of achievements. One is for the vanilla game. One is for the modded game. That doesn’t require human review of mods or hard calls to be made (since all mods “taint” the achievement and move it to the “modded game” achievement list) and it still lets players who just want to track their own progress do so using achievements. It doesn’t mean that a player can enjoy some quality-of-life mod and still prove to their friends that they accomplished Achievement X in an unmodified game in terms of challenge, but that might be fine for a lot of players.

I generally agree that improving mod accessibility to the public is desirable.

I just stuck maybe a couple hundred mods into Starfield this week using Creations, including a number of paid ones. I’m fine with paid mods, but Bethesda still needs to deal with some basic issues.

1. While I had fewer problems than I had with installing mods on prior Bethesda games using third-party mod managers, the need to troubleshoot hasn’t gone away. I installed some high-resolution texture mods that crashed Starfield shortly after starting up, which made the Creations mod manager inaccessible. Bethesda doesn’t detect crashes in that scenario and offer a way to “roll back” to a “safe mode” or anything like that. I poked around a bit, and, as with their prior games, Starfield has a plugins.txt containing a list of modules loaded, and one can just remove the leading asterisk to disable them. But that’s going to be unacceptable for general use if you want all players to have access to mods. Either troubleshooting has to be pretty idiot-proof, or not be necessary at all. You definitely can’t put someone in a situation where they effectively can’t access the mod manager.

2. For more-advanced users, troubleshooting tools still aren’t great. Bethesda would benefit from something that can at least do a binary-search for a breaking mod: turn off the latter half of a problematic mod list, see if the problem goes away. If it does, the problem is in the latter half; repeat for that half. If it doesn’t, the problem is in the first half; repeat for that half. Various tools that I’ve used in the past can do this, like git bisect. Conflict Catcher on the classic MacOS had a particularly good implementation that could detect multiple extensions that conflicted with each other; I’ve never seen another tool do this.

3. Bethesda doesn’t, AFAICT, do adult mods in their own mod repository, which are popular for a number of their prior games. Nexusmods carries things that Creations doesn’t. LoversLab carries things that Nexusmods doesn’t. I appreciate if Microsoft doesn’t want to be in the business of distributing adult mods. However, I am confident that a lot of people would like to use those, as with prior Bethesda games. If one wants a lower bar to use, not requiring use of external mod managers would be desirable. I do think that extending the in-game mod manager to support external mod repositories would lower the barrier there. If Bethesda wants their game to be a platform, then that means more stuff strengthens the platform.

4. Loading time still increases as mod count rises, as with prior Bethesda games. It can easily take minutes. It should be possible, at bare minimum, to have a progress bar up showing about how long it’ll take to complete load based on prior loads, if the mod list hasn’t changed. Personally, I’d like to see the load time reduced. If they have to validate content or something or build an index, only do it the first time a mod list changes and then cache the index.

5. It’d be nice to have a “recommends” option. That is, if a mod requires another mod, when installing the first mod, ask the user if they want to install the latter mod. Nexusmods can do this. Bethesda’s Creations can’t — they will keep one from enabling an installed mod with missing dependencies, but the user basically needs to read mod descriptions and install appropriate dependency mods. That’s a barrier to use.

6. Bethesda’s Creations store just has abysmal filtering options. I get that it’s for a single game, and so it’s hard to amortize costs, but browsing through what’s there is just atrocious. You don’t have the ability to apply multiple criteria when searching for games.

7. The Creations store always re-downloads the list of Creations, instead of caching it. Exit Creations and go back in and everything gets re-downloaded again. This is obnoxious.

8. I understand that there are some technical limitations associated with the Creations mod manager. The Dark Mode for Terminals mod, for example, says that the Creations release cannot work around a bug associated with changing mod load order that the Nexus release doesn’t have a problem with.

9. One popular thing to make as mods in many games is skins or cosmetic changes, like to clothing or the like. Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 4 had “cinematic kills”, where sometimes the camera would pan away, allowing one to see one’s own character. Starfield doesn’t do this, which means that there are few opportunities to see one’s character, unless one leaves the camera in third-person (which is generally not great from a gameplay standpoint). This is an issue that I also would say applies to Cyberpunk 2077’s clothing options — lots of work went into creating many clothing options, but one so rarely actually sees oneself in the game that it has little impact. Ditto for a number of cosmetic options, like hairstyle and the like. I think that it’d be beneficial if they could work some way to see oneself more frequently into the game in terms of people reskinning things.

10. For Fallout 76, Bethesda made money by mostly selling cosmetic items used by people who want to build themed player CAMPs. I was never personally very interested in building elaborate CAMPs just for the sake of looks, though clearly there are some people who are. However, my take is that these items were generally quite expensive compared to the cost of assets in the base game, though I’ll admit that I don’t know what volume they sell at. At least for me, the idea of paying for more content and functionality, to keep expanding that aspect of the game, is interesting. Buying cosmetic clutter items isn’t terribly interesting. I’m sure that they gather statistics on what players actually get, and Starfield’s Creations seem to me to have a different focus than the Fallout 76 Creations, so that’s good so far as it goes from my standpoint. My own interest would be in, say, getting new handcrafted cities and quests and the like. Getting a new player home or a different style of couch to put in it doesn’t really interest me nearly as much.

11. I am pretty convinced that if Bethesda wants to have a low bar to extensively-modded games for the general playerbase, they’re going to have native support for something like Wabbajack. That lets one player or team assemble a curated mod collection, and then lets other users install it en masse. I’m not saying that using mods should end there, but my experience is that, years after a Bethesda game has come out, there are many different mods in similar areas (e.g. relighting mods, say). Some of those are successor mods. Some have advantages and drawbacks. Trying to evaluate what the best “current” choice is for a wide variety of mod types is a large task. Letting someone just choose from a list of “mod collections” and easily install all of the mods in a collection would, I think, greatly reduce the bar to get players able to use many mods at once.

One thing that annoys me about loading animations designed to conceal the game needing to load is that there’s no guarantee that — especially with PC games, as the game is played on faster computers — the bottleneck may become the animation completing rather than the actual loading.

Static loading screens don’t have this problem.

I kind of like Fallout 4’s approach of putting a single model up that you can rotate and look at while something is loading. It’ll add to the loading time a bit, but at least there’s something the player can fiddle with for a few seconds.

Yeah, that’s why I mentioned votes — I think that it’d make sense to be able to maybe do something like build a score aggregated from multiple lists or something.

Another thing I’ve mentioned in the past is using this as a mechanism for tagging. The NSFW flag was a hack that Reddit put in because some people wanted to browse Reddit at work and some people wanted to post stuff that wouldn’t be considered acceptable in most work contexts. There are many, many different categories that someone might want to “tag” things on. Some people are fine with nudity. Some people are fine with gore. Some people are fine with suggestive content. Some people object to specific items in the above. I think that it will never be the case that everyone will manually tag their own content in all the same areas, but it could be the case that someone could create “lists” that one could subscribe to that could permit that sort of tagging; same mechanism.

And over the past several months, the team and I have spent a great deal of time analyzing your feedback. What came through was the voice of people who care deeply about Windows and want it to be better.

Today, I’m sharing what we are doing in response. Here are some of the initial changes we will preview in builds with Windows Insiders this month and throughout April.

More taskbar customization, including vertical and top positions: Repositioning the taskbar is one of the top asks we’ve heard from you. We are introducing the ability to reposition it to the top or sides of your screen, making it easier to personalize your workspace.

I actually have seen people here complaining about the Windows 11 taskbar, and I believe I recall someone specifically raising this limitation. Like, they probably are addressing things that Windows users care about.

I didn’t know it was like that.

If you go to:

https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list

And then click on the “Active Users” column to sort by that column and look for instances with 0 or 1 “Active Users”, then look for instances with “Signups” set to “false” (i.e. new users can’t get accounts on those instances), that’ll probably give a feel for about how many “private” instances used by a single user there are out there.

but not individual instances.

You can. If you’re using a Lemmy home instance, as you are currently (lemmy.world), in the Web UI, go to your user menu in the upper-right corner, click “Settings”, click the “Blocks” tab, and then you can choose instances to block in a panel there.

If what you want is “I don’t want auth-left stuff”, avoiding hexbear.net, lemmygrad.ml, and lemmy.ml can help. You aren’t going to get some kind of ironclad avoidance, but that’ll avoid the great bulk of it. Your home instance is lemmy.world. lemmy.world is defederated with lemmygrad.ml and hexbear.net for exactly the reason you mention (in fact, I see people who don’t like lemmy.world because they consider it liberal, which they don’t like) so you already won’t be seeing stuff from the first two instances.

I don’t think I’ve personally seen fascist material on the Threadiverse (though there are some people with quite broad definitions of the term), though there are or were some far-right instances out there, based on defederation lists. Most of what little I’ve seen on the Fediverse seems to me to be on Pleroma, though I haven’t spent much time on non-Threadiverse Fediverse stuff.

moderate conservative

The home instance that I use, lemmy.today, has one user (@DonaldJMusk@lemmy.today) that posts a bunch of Trump stuff and a conservative community, !conservative@lemmy.today. I don’t know if your definition of conservative and his match up, but maybe you’d find it to your taste; it’s probably the closest to mainstream US, Republican material that I’ve seen with much activity on the Threadiverse. The instance isn’t going to be just moderate conservative and moderate liberal users though. But, if that’s the kind of community that you might be participating in, I’d imagine that he’d like to have more users.

EDIT: My own personal take is that the long term solution to having people with disparate positions on what content they want to see, above-and-beyond use of moderated communities and admin activity on instances, is to have “curator lists”, where people can basically “share” lists of blocks/subscribes/votes or something like that, and other users can subscribe to them. Then you have a list that — for example — excludes or includes content on various grounds without requiring effort on a per-user-who-wants-curated-content basis. I think that Usenet pretty much established that killfiles don’t really scale well in combating spam and stuff like that, because there was never a mechanism to share killfiles among users. Anyway, today, there isn’t support for something like that on the Threadiverse. I understand that BlueSky has something along those lines.

I don’t think I have anything to offer the online world in creating an instance.

I mean, people create single-user instances for their own use. You don’t have to let anyone else use it. I’m just saying that if you’re interested in doing stuff like “give me a list of all users that only downvote”, that’d probably be a reasonable way to do it. Take time to set up the instance, sure, but then you can get more-definitive answers to questions like that and run analyses on voting or whatever.

He could probably run an NFS server that isn’t a closed box, and have that just use the Synology box as storage for that server. That’d give whatever options Linux and/or the NFS server you want to run have for giving fair prioritization to writes, or increasing cache size (like, say he has bursty load and blows through the cache on the Synology NAS, but a Linux NFS server with more write cache available could potentially just slurp up writes quickly and then more-slowly hand them off to the NAS).

Honestly, though, I think that a preferable option, if one doesn’t want to mess with client global VM options (which wouldn’t be my first choice, but it sounds like OP is okay with it) is just to crank up the timeout options on the NFS clients, as I mention in my other comment, if he just doesn’t want timeout errors to percolate up and doesn’t mind the NAS taking a while to finish whatever it’s doing in some situations. It’s possible that he tried that, but I didn’t see it in his post.

NFSv4 has leases, and — I haven’t tested it, but it’s plausible to me from a protocol standpoint — it might be possible that it can be set up such that as long as a lease can be renewed, it doesn’t time out outstanding file operations, even if they’re taking a long time. The Synology NAS might be able to avoid taking too long to renew leases and causing clients to time out on that as long as it’s reachable, even if it’s doing a lot of writing. That’d still let you know if you had your NFS server wedge or lost connectivity to it, because your leases would go away within a bounded amount of time, but might not time out on time to complete other operations. No guarantee, just it’s something that I might go look into if I were hitting this myself.

That’s a global VM setting, which is also going to affect your other filesystems mounted by that Linux system, which may or may not be a concern.

If that is an issue, you might also consider — I’m not testing these, but would expect that it should work:

• Passing the sync mount option on the client for the NFS mount. That will use no writeback caching for that filesystem, which may impact performance more than you want.

• Increasing the NFS mount options on the client for timeo= or retrans=. These will avoid having the client time out and decide that the NFS server is taking excessively long (though an operation may still take longer to complete if the NFS server is taking a while to respond).

You mean you multi-boot, run one at a time?

No.

Honestly, if you care enough, you should be able to spin up an instance and then run SQL queries on the PostgreSQL/MySQL database backing the Lemmy instance, which is what lemvotes.org does.

Sounds like pretty much quantum computing research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Brassard

Brassard is best known for his fundamental work in quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, quantum entanglement distillation, quantum pseudo-telepathy, and the classical simulation of quantum entanglement.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

EDIT: When someone asks what you do and you get to say “I work on the bleeding edge of quantum pseudo-telepathy.”

At least in the US, from past reading, I believe that there’s no legal requirement for a signature to actually be your name written in cursive.

If you get past the cazadors, then there are deathclaws on that route.

I don’t know where the best options are for sure, but one perk of a (sail) yacht is that, unless port facilities are specifically a problem, even if some place other than a yacht is the best place to be, the yacht is probably one of the better places to get at least near the place in question.

One downside: I don’t know how much maintenance a sail yacht requires. Like, I don’t know long long one could last without access to spare parts. The ocean puts physical stress on boats, and saltwater is corrosive. Boats aren’t usually designed for long-term operations away from land.

Another perk is that if the fuel production and distribution system breaks down, if what you have is a sail yacht, you probably have one of the present-day sailing vessels available, and I’d imagine that some level of sail-based trade could show up again; it was historically an important way to move goods around. You’re probably comparatively-well suited to an “apocalypse economy” where transportation and distribution is degraded.

From a security standpoint, if we’re just talking zombies and assuming that the zombies can’t climb, maybe a pre-cannon-era castle or similar fortification. I think that most of the things that obsoleted historic fortifications wouldn’t really apply to zombies.

I don’t mean one of the castle-themed buildings, like a folly. But something where you don’t have any ground-level windows aside from slits, and probably has walls around it.

You may have defense-in-depth (multiple layers of walls or building structure, with the building and walls designed to permit a retreat to an inner area if an outer area is compromised).

Cisterns for freshwater storage are likely already present (though I’ve no idea what condition they might be in) so you don’t need to get ahold of more storage.

Ample room for storage.

I guess the major issue might be the degree to which any fortifications might have been converted for public-access use. I don’t know how many gates and porticullises might have been removed or disabled over the years because they aren’t really necessary if the fortification is essentially a museum.

I get the concept, but:

• Will you have the security benefits that I think are being assumed? If your threat is human, then, yeah, being on an island is a big deal. But…if zombies don’t need to breathe, can they just walk under the sea to an island?

• Setting aside the direct issue of, say, being chomped by a zombie, one of the larger, immediate problems you face in a situation where you have infrastructure break down — which I imagine a zombie apocalypse might cause — is loss of potable water. Islands may not be the best place to go to get fresh water (though you could get salt water, and I imagine that one could use, oh, solar stills or whatever to desalinate).

  There was a point in time where US military war planners did up a zombie apocalypse plan — to have a fun theme, but the problems that a zombie apocalypse would pose aren’t terribly far off the same kind of problems that you have to solve when doing war planning. Drinking water access played a prominent role.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONOP_8888

  CONPLAN 8888, also known as Counter-Zombie Dominance, is a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Command CONOP document that describes a plan for the United States and its military to defend against zombies in a fictional military training scenario.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

  https://www.stratcom.mil/Portals/8/Documents/FOIA/CONPLAN_8888-11.pdf

  ii . (U) The following environmental factors apply to humans in this plan:

  I. (U) Rain will be vitally important to human survival. If civil water supplies are cut off, humans will have to rely on other means to obtain water. Ground water from streams and rivers will be unreliable since it will be difficult to determine if ground water is a vector for zombie infection.

  b. (U) Operational COG #2: Potable water sources (PWS)

  i. (U) Zombies do not drink water, but humans do. Humans typically cannot survive longer than 10 days without fresh water. Zombies will likely be drawn to potable water sources by the presence of human food sources that zombies prey on . Zombies can be expected to contaminate potable water sources with various contaminants during these attacks further limiting the supply of available potable water for humans.

  iv. (U) CR #4-Safe food, water, and fuel distribution network: Ultimately, healthy human populations and the forces protecting them will require the means to acquire, purify, and distribute foodstuffs , water and fuels for heat and machine operations. Failure to maintain security supporting the distribution networks and nodes for food, water and fuel will compromise the longevity of healthy humans; decrease the amount of time that humans can remain sheltered in place or barricaded from zombie threats and could cause competition for resources that will undermine law and order. If compromised, the capabilities in this CR could undermine all the CCs in this plan.