Implementation seems fine to me, I’m not sure what people think is dubious?

It’s obviously a different take on the “survival” data horde. Its obviously not intended as a wasteland survival kit, it seems intended for a scenario where the power is still on but universal internet access isn’t a given.

As long as you understand the limitations, AI is just a vastly more efficient way to find information in large knowledge bases. For a topic that you know nothing about a chatbot gives you the ability to work through the information in a conversational manner, honing in on the specific bits you’re trying to understand and filling in the “things that I don’t know I don’t know” holes, and then you can go to the source material and verify the details.

Yeah its a shield.

I find it funny that they’re pretending that they won’t end up strapping explosives to these things.

You’re incoherent.

Don’t feed the trolls.

Good lord! O_O

What is that shirt, bro?

This is an article by a person who doesn’t understand SOLID principles, talking about programmers who don’t understand SOLID principles.

Why tf is that so funny.

Maybe there’s even a bit of us vs. them, because market saturation has made the fight for an active playerbase so cutthroat, people don’t want to see a competing title risk siphoning players away from their preferred game.

This is a really good point, I’ve definitely felt this way over the years.

You’re not wrong about the state of live service games, but this definitely isn’t why they are getting review bombed. That’s happening because the gamer mob are a pack of fickle mush-heads that will randomly get outraged by total non-issues with no regard for the facts.

I mean, the mechanics of Highguard are unique, as far as I’m aware. They’re a mashup of a lot of other games but done in an interesting and new way.

Like, I have no idea whether it’s good or not, but they are trying to do something different.

Your evidence is utterly compelling.

The single paper that is linked as their research in this article itself states that the anomalies they are investigating have a reasonable likelihood of being contamination to the images. A comment on that paper points out other artifacts on the images that point to almost certainly being contamination.

They are also a further refutation of the common, yet unfortunate, critique that all transients are merely photographic or optical defects. That critique continues to circulate, despite being ruled out by our findings.

Their own papers, literally the one they link to in this article, state that this is a possible explanation.

Looking at a couple of the other papers they’ve published (I had to go to their main site to track them down) they also state that their findings can be explained by known phenomena of various types.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this ain’t it.

That’s totally fine, but don’t comment on the content of it in that case.

You literally engaged by commenting.

lot of people voting and commenting that didn’t read the article.

You didn’t read the article.