Saledovil

joined 2 years ago
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

They're the ones selling shovels in this gold rush, though.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Or a Bethesda style creation club is coming.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

Cyberpunk 2077, overheard two NPCs sharing a joke:

What does a corpo say before he offs himself?

spoilerGuys, please don't shoot.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Reviews are mixed: not a great start

More than not a great start: Only people who have bought the game are allowed to review it, so reviewers are already biased towards liking the game, because only somebody who thinks they would enjoy the game would spend money on it. It's basically impossible to get a strong negative score by just being run of the mill awful. So "mixed" means that about 50% of people who though they would enjoy the game, didn't, which is quite damning.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Depends on how resourceful you are. You don't automatically die once you run out of money. Also, no amount of money grants immortality.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 98 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Thing about wishlist is, I treat it more as a "Games I found vaguely interesting at first glance" rather than a "Games I want to play" list. I assume I'm not alone in this matter. Of 214 games on my wishlist, there's like 3 I'd play right now if they were gifted to me. 2 that I'd buy. So, assuming 1% of people who wishlisted a game will buy it on launch, that would have been 1368 sales (rounding up). Assuming the game cost 20$ at launch (it currently costs ~14$), that would be 27360$ from launch day sales. Nice payday, but not if you have to work 10 years to get it (also taxes and steam's cut, so that number would actually be much lower)

Thing is, just because you worked hard on something doesn't guarantee that it will be good and/or popular.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

What if we're not smart enough to build something like that?

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

Language simply changes over time.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Problem with Starlink is that the satellites need to be replaced every 5 years or so.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but my point was that our current economic system can't deal with, not that we can't deal with it in general. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power, which they won't do willingly, even as the walls are closing in. (In fact, when it comes to global warming, the walls are closing in).

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

So, why are declining birth rates not a problem?

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

It's not shrinking yet, the birth rate is declining, and the world population is projected to start declining 2050.

 

Hello, as stated in the title, I used to be able to generate a batch of 4 images, but when I try to do this now, I get the following error: CUDA out of memory. Tried to allocate 4.50 GiB. GPU 0 has a total capacity of 7.78 GiB of which 780.00 MiB is free. Including non-PyTorch memory, this process has 6.57 GiB memory in use. Of the allocated memory 6.37 GiB is allocated by PyTorch, and 56.09 MiB is reserved by PyTorch but unallocated. If reserved but unallocated memory is large try setting PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=expandable_segments:True to avoid fragmentation. See documentation for Memory Management

This started happening right after I updated SD.Next to the most recent version. I don't know which version I was using beforehand, since I don't update it frequently. I assume it installed it sometime around April this year.

I'm using a NVIDIA Geforce RTX 2070.

Does anybody have any idea what I could try?

view more: next ›