comment section.
05/26/24 08:38:04 Blue-Maned_Hawk: This is completely unrelated to any claims that i'm making, but there apparently exists a Minecraft modpack that takes longer to complete than _The Campaign for North Africa: The Desert War, 1940-43_.
05/26/24 11:25:07 Blue-Maned_Hawk: Although during my return to faffing about with Minecraft modpacks, i think that i've found myself kinda understanding why people like 1.7.10 more than other Minecraft versions—i still don't agree with it, mind you, but i think i can kinda get the reasonings a bit more. On the other hand, i think that i'm running on somewhat of a lack of sleep, so it's entirely possible that i'm coming to nonsensical conclusions—either than, or the sleep deprivation has induced a sort of high-like state in me akin to what i've heard some say psychedelic trips can be like where i feel peace, love, compassion, and understanding for all of humanity, but i'd like to think i'm more cynical than that.
05/26/24 16:09:45 Blue-Maned_Hawk: I seriously resent the fact that despite the fact that there are no good Minecraft modpacks, there are a few that i still keep finding myself coming back to (and not in a “guilty pleasure” or “admitting it's actually good” way, but in a “reöpening the fridge for the seventh time in half an hour without having actually refilled it to see if one's standards have dropped enough to be willing to eat any of the crap that's in there”).
05/27/24 14:16:51 Blue-Maned_Hawk: So uh. this is a bit strange. I was looking around for other Minecraft modpacks, and i was specifically looking at those for 1.7.10, and i noticed something weird, in that, at least in the place i was searching, the modpacks…kinda didn't really have any descriptions at all. Like, there was some text present, and it was perfectly understandable, but usually it was just a paragraph or two, which isn't enough to sell people on something except in exceptional circumstances, which none of these were in, and even in the cases where it was something more extensive it almost never, like. _said_ anything. It was just text. It's like it wasn't even _trying_ to sell me on whatever pack it was—in particular, none of the descriptions talked about what made the packs unique at all. Even the most downloaded pack (again, this is for 1.7.10) was one of the “two flavorless paragraphs” variety.
Now, most of these packs were from a “long” time ago. So was this just, like. what things were like back then? Were people expected to just. grab the packs without thinking? without caring about what was in it? without reading the description to see if it was, like. good? Were there no descriptions of anything or any real attempts to sell people on the packs because the packmakers knew that people would just gobble down anything? I don't understand it at all.
05/28/24 05:58:49 Blue-Maned_Hawk: If a game's players need to optimize the way that they interact with the interfaces of that game, something has gone very wrong with that game.
05/28/24 07:50:53 Blue-Maned_Hawk: One of the modpacks that i tried has a large number of different ways to softlock it. Like, a whole lot of them. One might even describe it as a fuckton. They're not that hard to come across, either, so i find it really difficult to imagine that the packmakers didn't _notice_ that they existed, but i'm not sure why they would willfully ignore them except to be sadistic, especially since it's apparently a fairly lengthy pack.
05/28/24 13:49:12 Blue-Maned_Hawk: ]
05/29/24 08:36:14 Blue-Maned_Hawk: I can see the effectiveness of my feedreader by how infrequently i check on things not on it.
05/30/24 19:14:15 Blue-Maned_Hawk: It's probably not a good thing when the documentation for something all but says “Don't use this feature, even though you might need to.”.
05/31/24 11:10:29 Blue-Maned_Hawk: I remembered the existence of the game Nodecore recently, but i've also remembered that it was recommended to me by someone a while ago and i can't remember _why_ it was that they recommended it to me and it's really frustrating me because i'm certain that there was some reason for it that was more complicated than just “it's a good game”. It's not the weirdest recommendation i've ever been given, and i happen to like it fine, but nevertheless…
06/01/24 12:43:58 Blue-Maned_Hawk: It feels like there are a lot of modpacks that use the term ‘expert’ as a buzzword to try to excuse insufficient documentation.
06/01/24 13:42:00 Blue-Maned_Hawk: In one of the modpacks i tried, it turned out that i had a spectacularly shit-ass starting biome, but i didn't realize it until i was pretty far in because the documentation for the pack had absolutely no mention of this whatsoëver, meaning that what eventually killed that playthrough was that i ended up in a state where i had nothing that i could do but wait.
06/03/24 04:30:11 kerbs: I like ur website :>
06/15/24 07:18:09 Blue-Maned_Hawk: This webpage was down for a bit. What happened?
06/15/24 07:19:17 Blue-Maned_Hawk: Web_\*site_, not webpage, wops.
06/17/24 10:29:05 Blue-Maned_Hawk: As this wwwpage perhaps incidentally operates in part as a partial conduit to greater apiospace, here's something that is likely to induce interest to a significant portion of its audience: for all the flak that modern versions of Minecraft get, one thing that a slew of potentially quite severely cherry-picked evidence suggests they got right compared to previous attempts done through other means is bees.
06/19/24 15:47:43 Blue-Maned_Hawk: I had an idea a while ago for a programmable calculator that uses a 7-segment display instead of a dot-matrix display, but then i learned that that had already been done.
06/19/24 16:33:15 Blue-Maned_Hawk: It might just be that i've experienced it through a shitty modpack (though it was of the mod to provide a generic experience supposed to), but it seems that in addition to being dogmatic and propagandic, the Botania mod is also just, like. bad, from a game design perspective.
06/19/24 16:40:30 Blue-Maned_Hawk: Apparently WG14 is considering removing imaginary types from the C language standard: <https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3274.pdf>.
I'd be tempted to intentionally create a program that uses the types just to spite them if it weren't for the fact that (and this is part of the reason they're slated for removal) there aren't any implementations of them.
06/19/24 16:46:24 Blue-Maned_Hawk: There's apparently also a proposal to allow if-statements to have a declaration like for-statements: <https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3267.htm>. I'd quite honestly be more in favor of them removing the ability for for-statements to have an expression if it weren't for the fact that that would unsolvably break a very large amount of extremely useful macros.
06/19/24 16:53:20 Blue-Maned_Hawk: This one:
<https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3250.pdf>
starts with the line
Strings are a fundamental part of every modern programming language and ecosystem.
which instantly makes me want to throw the entire paper out.
I would like to give the paper the benefit of the doubt, but (a) it doesn't have a PDF table of contents and is therefore difficult to navigate, and ② it is factually incorrect about asprintf and vasprintf.
06/19/24 16:58:03 Blue-Maned_Hawk: On the other hand, this one is one that i don't see any immediate issues with and which i think almost everybody would quite easily let go through: <https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3244.pdf>.
06/19/24 17:02:15 Blue-Maned_Hawk: I don't really have much to say about this one except that i don't like the quadratic explosion of literal suffices: <https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3241.htm>
06/19/24 18:26:40 Blue-Maned_Hawk: Of all the papers i can see on the WG14 website that catch my interest, this is the one that i think is the worst: <https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3190.htm>. It's not the worst idea, but it's the worst one compared to the chance it has to actually make it into the standard. I really don't think that anyone wants any more compiler magic in the standard—the most that i'd accept is the suggestions for more things like __DATE__ and __FILE__. I really can't see why a lot of the predefined argumentative macros this paper suggests can't be done as part of a standardized header file of macros instead. It really kinda feels like a paper that was slapped together based on what “feels right” instead of based on solutions to actual problems.
06/20/24 08:36:28 Blue-Maned_Hawk: I have what might be a bad idea: bad emulation of GNUC's labels-as-values extension in nonGNUC C dialects, e.g. Plan 9 C, through macros that expand to appropriate statements dependent on things that would be in <setjmp.h> if this were a standard C system instead of a Plan 9 C system. I'd boot into my 9front partition to test this if it weren't for the fact that my headphones are halfbroken.
06/20/24 08:44:20 Blue-Maned_Hawk: …Oh.
I seem to have somehow caused a page of these comments to be almost entirely my own entries.
…
What happened to this place?
Where is everybody?
Is this place dormant or dead?
Was it ever anything but those?
I was under the impression that this place was a part of something bigger. Is it not? Is it an isolated place in the internet, with no connections to anywhere?
What is this place anymore?
submit a comment.