The current approach of the maintainers terrifies me -- de facto standards should be respected. Even if something is invalid like `description-file`, if it is present in 12k repos it should raise a warning and not break anything.
In the rationale for this that I can find [1], a maintainer says the following:
> I'm inclined to say we should do it, even though it will cause some disruption.
They also say an alternative is to "accept the status quo", which is exactily what they should be doing. I can't find maintainers giving a compelling reason not to support this status quo of `long-description` as an alias to `long_description` besides "simplifying code." Code simplification should never take precedence over massive breakage of compatibility.
It seems that the person who did this acted unilaterally, with no code review, and ignored (then disabled) broken tests while landing this (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4909). One should not be too harsh - he seems to be a student. One perhaps should be more harsh on the commerical entity sponsoring the project, though - setuptools is sponsored by Sonar via "Tidelift". According to https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-setuptools:
> The maintainers of setuptools get paid by Tidelift to
> implement industry-leading secure software development
> practices and document the practices they follow.
Well, that really doesn't seem so in this case now, does it?
I'm usually of the opinion of just removing stuff when it needs to be gone, but this is really an incosequential change to the setuptools code compared to how many problems it caused
"Needs to be gone" is the operative phrase here. An alias of `description-long` to `description_long` has no specific technical need to be removed.
The conditions that lead to having two tokens pointing to the same functionality should be prevented, but in this case it is a "de facto" alias which no amount reasonable amount of labor could fix.
From Gandhi's commentary on chapter 1 of the Bhagavad Gita:
> ... evil cannot by itself flourish in this world. It can do so only if it is allied with some good. This was the principle underlying noncooperation—that the evil system which the [British colonial] Government represents, and which has endured only because of the support it receives from good people, cannot survive if that support is withdrawn.
The entire photo is the finish line. Look at the color of the ground -- it's cream, the color of the lines on the track, while the track is blue. Each vertical line of the photo is taken in the same position on that finish line.
The first "line photo" is the right-most column of pixels on that photo. The next photo is the second-to-the-right column, etc. This way the winner can be determined as the line first photo that has the contestant's torso in it.
Also every runner in this photo is showing them at the finish line even tho they appear in the photo to be at different places. It’s why all the runners are leaning forward because they are all crossing the finish line.
I really want to sign up and share a creation, but when I do either sign up or sign in, it gives me a firebase url that just redirects me to the app store. I can't find any way to sign up.
I'll click "Sign in to Downpour", it will bring me to a "Open link in App?" page, I press "Open", and then it brings me to a "Downpour -- make a game" page and I click open again which brings me to the app store. The app is installed on my phone.
Creator here - sorry about this! I've found a few people are running into this, and I'm not sure what the cause is - going to be looking into adding password auth as a workaround, but that will obviously take a hot second.
The request looks like "https://neal.fun/api/infinite-craft/pair?first=Phoenix&secon..." so it's probably typically caching the combination of phoenix+seeds but if there is no cache entry it would use llama to make up something. If there's a lot of attention on the site the llm service might be down or overloaded. And given the exponential/factoral (?) amount of combinations this may be reached surprisingly quickly. Just a guess.
As an aside, the game is technically interesting, being a really simple example of using llm generation for game mechanics. But it is not engaging at all and feels nonsensical to me, especially when compared to little alchemy https://littlealchemy2.com/.
I'm not trying to be negative and this isn't a dig on creativity of the wonderful Neal but more points to the immaturity of llms applied to games, maybe to my overexposure to chatgpt, and maybe a prediction that human touch will always be required to make something entertaining. I'm curious how llms will fit into an engaging game experience in the future.
>As an aside, the game is technically interesting, being a really simple example of using llm generation for game mechanics. But it is not engaging at all and feels nonsensical to me
You just gotta make a game out of it.
For example challenge yourself to try to craft "pizza".
Can even try to do it in as least number of crafts as possible.
Point is, just crafting random things to see what it spits out is OK, but trying to use your own logic to combine things to get to an arbitrary solution you come up with is much more engaging, at least to me.
Challenge your friends to craft some specific "thing". Think of something you might think could be hard to craft to, and ask them to do the same and see who can get there first, or in the fewest steps.
I tried your challenge to create pizza. My goal is to get some kind of food, but combining combinations of water, plants, fire, etc are way more likely to produce dragons and universes. I eventually got to chestnut which got to bread, but it was a lot easier to get to "Toast Toast Toast" or "Chestnutzilla" or "Treasure" + "Toast" = "Pirate". I finally got "Tostzilla" which has a pizza emoji, and then "lunch", and "breakfast", and "party"+"toast"="celebration" ?? but it feels random and illogical at some point I just gave up.
So to me it feels like playing against a soulless vector database rather than something engaging and well-crafted. I think what gives me this impression is that things are commonly related to each other using words rather than their meaning -- getting from "pirate" to "captain crunch" to "serial killer" is obviously following lines of language rather than the core concepts that relate objects. This is directly opposed to the actual act of crafting which is 100% rooted in the material world and has no relationship to language.
Maybe I'm losing my imagination, but doing it like you suggest, creating challenges, is makes it more fun. I think I'm just tired of thinking in language.
I'm also seeing a lot of my favorite game creators on twitter enjoying the toy and I'll trust their taste over mine :)
That's a fairly big challenge since the game gets less coherent the longer it goes on. The early matches generally make sense, but after about 3 levels you start getting loops, and after 5 levels you start getting nonsense or outright failures from queries.
If you figure each of the things is an input parameter to a LLM this makes a lot of sense. They tend to have short memories and struggle with higher level introspection. Great for demos, but fraught with problems when using them to do real work.
Hmm, I’m not finding it to be too big of a challenge.
It’s a bit challenging yeah, but me and my friends are challenging each other to get to words and we can usually find a way to make it.
Things like “Godzilla”, “Universe”, “Vampire”, “Optimus Prime”, “Vodka”, etc are just some examples we did.
I don’t seem to be having problems going dozens of levels deep without loops and not running into many query failures. Results that are deep are still making some logical combinational sense to me at least.
Some words we haven’t been able to make, but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible. It just means we need to get more creative and sometimes think outside the box. There are so many ways you can approach getting to a certain result in my experience so far.
Doing this has been fun and challenging so far for me and my friends FWIW.
> But it is not engaging at all and feels nonsensical to me, especially when compared to little alchemy https://littlealchemy2.com/.
On the other hand, Little Alchemy doesn't have answers to the most basic combinations. Air + Earth = Dust, but Dust doesn't combine with Water. Earth + Water = Mud, but Mud doesn't combine with Air. Earth + Earth = Land, but Land doesn't combine with Fire.
It may be more sensical since it limits combinations to 0.01% of what's possible, but I don't think that makes it more interesting.
I've been thinking about making a cross-platform mobile app but don't want to think about react native, touch javascript, or fiddle with xcode any more than I have to.
Is it accurate to think that I could instead use godot to create a cross-platform app to eliminate complexity from react native while creating something that is performant/native across ios/android?
I’ve worked in both Godot and React Native. I wouldn’t say you are eliminating any complexity.... You are just trading one UI system for another. UI by its nature is complex and requires a lot of “code”. In the Godot case you might be doing less coding in the “typing letters on a keyboard” way, but you still need to figure out the UI controls and fiddle with the settings in the properties panel until you get it juuuust right. The final product is still saved as code, in tscn scene files.
reply