Fizzlebop Smith

I disagree. By an large getting a gestalt concensus from the oracles and ouji boards would be one heck on an accomplishment. Getting the AI that "assists" all the sheeple with their powers of reasoning and deduction will be much easier to accomplish. The people that gobble up horoscopes and listen to the oracles are a fractional demographic of those seeking the use of AI. You add in a ton of other marginal groups that are overwhelmed for whatever reason. The day planning was a single example in the extreme of one direction, while the majority of those interacting with the AI fall somewhere in between. The fact that schools (where I live) are having classes to teach prompting.. suggests a massive paradigm shift for *everyone* hence forth to have that additional level of reliance on something other than their own decision making processes. It is similiar to the echo chamber created on campus that prescribe to a certain ideological view. Except the chamber has been increased to include the entire bulk of school aged children that are not afforded the option of private or charter school. Being overly dismissive of those who may be seduced by these things only increases thebunderlying danger. The tool itself can absolutely produce accurate AND novel concepts. Depending on how it is used and information provided by training. Assuming that something filled up on the garbage of the collective internet will be the benchmark or standard to evaluate and judge capabilities of all AI capabilites is not a very accurate way to assess what will be done at higher levels. Material Sciences & Pharmacology have both been advanced greatly by universities working on niche fields with highly specialize AI models. The combined AI human approach can absolutely produce insightful and novel content with accuracy depending on controls established by the human element. The human element is what produce the novelty. The human element is what produces the ability for accuracy. You often run into terrible situations where a single individual is granted unilateral authority. So I think granting anything unilateral decision making authority is a bad idea and prone to some form of malfeasance.

This is the part that scares me. Properly weighting moral imperatives is very difficult. I am not knowledgeable in this field but enjoy a good dose of articles that have been properly parsed for my lay mind. Morality is weighted by 3 spheres of influence. Immediate / Secondary / Tangential If all 3 spheres of influence align, humans develope an underlying moral imperative regarding the subject. If family, friends and culture teach something... you are hard pressed to truly reach deviance without significant guilt. If you gaslight or organize a series of logic faults in conversation with a person, you get a moment of confusion. With AI you get a restructuring or moral hierarchy. I know this is a single example they were giving, for a specific goal of "hyptnotizing" various models. Giving complete authority for decision making on various level is truly terrifying. Is Sam Mcufffy want to launch a missile.. he either has order or gets permission. I saw advertisements for an AI device. You give it you required goals / tasks and it literally creates a daily itinerary that tells you exactly when to be productive... like seriously what. The (IMO) end goal is not to put AI in decision making positions of authority.. but instead to get the *average individual* to get incredibly use to listening to AI on what to do, how to do it... and accepts the answer as the definitive end all be all answer.

While it is a far cry from returning to their roots of "indie friendly" distribution platform, steam HAS made some recent changes to the way it handles Early Access in general. This is likely a feature of automation and has little to do with actual oversight... It think the warning is a good step. https://www.gamesradar.com/games/steam-now-warns-you-if-an-early-access-game-hasnt-been-updated-in-a-long-time-but-outside-obvious-abandonware-its-not-clear-what-actually-counts-as-an-update/ I wonder if this is a result of recent complaints and vocal minority complaining about various aspects of EA.

I must disgree if it means i can remove singular parts from loading at all. I use janitors close to great effect, but have a ton of parts mods. My last career save encountered some tiresome NRE that would not go away so i started again with a less robust mod pack. I have tried almost every parts mod that is not completely deprecated, plane exclusive, or rely on a long list of dependencies. Soooo many of the parts mods have a lone part that is all i realy want. It may create a complete imbalance with the batteries but nail all the truss components that many station mods are missing. This is no different than writing a patch to alter an installed mod, or modification of an existing config. Geting the 27 parts i REALY want VS the 212 that would come along with it is great. Its all about personalizing your play experience. Many of those who has spoken to me about getting into the mod scene, accomplished this through modifcation of existing authors work. Like a difference of opinion, but thought i would list my reasoning.

This was one of my biggest hang up with KSP2. The exploration and discovery feeling was replaced by an overarching goal the throttle jockey it up to the next anomaly. The vague approach was much better because it allowed the community to add to this lore through mod content. The various dialogued and meshes that have been added over the years based on community imagination is the best way to proceed (IMO) and why squad got it so right. It allowed the player to design their own wrapper for the sandbox. There are a million different origin story's for the kerbal. This thread supports that theory at least. I am not much for taking pictures, but enjoy writing and kerbals both a great deal. I have crafted a boat load of stories that no one really cares about but me and am all excited now. I'm going to comb through some of my stories and see what hints abound to answer this questions. I will be back with my post... beware. You have opened a can of krak-a-lacken.

Hey fellow Kerbonauts! This thread is dedicated to discussing, troubleshooting, and sharing ideas for Contract Configurator. While the official Contract Configurator thread focuses on mod updates and development news, this space is for players and modders who need help writing custom contracts, debugging issues, or brainstorming new mission ideas. Whether you're stuck on a parameter, confused by how to link biomes, or just want to share your clever contract setup, this is the place for you. Topics You Can Discuss Here: Writing Custom Contracts: Need help setting up dynamic parameters or nested conditions? Post your configs here! Troubleshooting: Struggling with syntax errors or unexpected contract behavior? We’ll help you debug. Contract Ideas & Feedback: Got a new contract idea or looking for feedback? Share your concepts! Integration with Tech Trees: Tips and tricks for making contracts compatible with custom tech trees. Helpful Resources: Contract Configurator GitHub Wiki – The official documentation is packed with examples and explanations to get you started. ------------ I have become recently inspired by a couple newer contract packs. This has prompted me to seek help. While I discover the thread It is more aligned with module manager in general. How to create wonderful mods using MM functionality. There are also the wiki associated with both of these wonderful mods. If this does not belong here, I ask the moderators that be to please relocate. If this thread is unnecessary dues to a feat od redundancy, please direct me there. Sometimes Google misses the esoteric links of our dear labyrinthine kerbal collective.

I want to eventually make a contract pack that is inspired by this mod * Σκοπός * The Author has a novel idea regarding relay contracts. Instead of placing a relay at a specific orbit / LAN and Altitude, You are given an altitude range and a requirement that you must be connect to a certain number of other relays. I did not try this mod (not a huge fan of Satellite missions), but it did inspire me. The goal here was to create parachute mission that give the user more freedom and fun when choosing a parts test. Sometimes the speed windows are hard to hit in a rocket because of altitude. I know many say this is part of the challenge of mission completion. I always find it tedious to balance the speed and try to control climb and fuel to maintain a certain vertical speed... etc. So.. I bring you Flexible Parachute Testing If this is the only mod in my contract pack folder and i turn off all stock contracts, will it ensure i can test to see if it works properly?

I encountered an NRE related to Lowaltimeterscan Eve. Some progression of events led to a mission spawning before i had discovered Eve. I could ignore it, but it appeared every time i loaded up and bothered me. I had not encountered the issue before and had only added research bodies , two small parts mods and QOL patches unrelated since the last play. It could be coincidence, but seemed that Pf2bodies of ScanSat was failing to populate properly. I was unable to definitively determine why, but was leaning toward the addition of this. ]

I am wanting to do some contracts that afford more freedom in the way that they are performed. The recent mod that is in Cyrillic is what has inspired me to try. I thought it was such a wonderful and novel idea. I do not want to have to hit this narrow window when testing a parachute. Sometimes the speeds require orbital insertion or deploying while on the way up. Though this does sound very kerbal in nature it is sometimes frustrating to run several attempts.... just to match the right speed in your narrow altitude window. I have messed around with some other games, but am very unfamiliar with functions and syntax of module manager. Given this I am trying to keep things rather simple and not get overly creative. I want to create more open ended mission profiles, where you get more autonomy over some contract types. Parts Testing being one. Can someone please review this and see if i am on the right track.

This one of the known bugs on Github. Despite there being "no known issues" .. there are a few. I really wanna use this mod but haven't found a SCANSat compatibility patch.

I do not know how it was inferred that I was even considering deleting the DLL from my post. Though I lack the terminology and nomenclature I thought it was pretty easy to Parse. I assume the DLL attached the part file to the mesh in some manner. I thought jiggering with parts files would be akin to breaking a shortcut by moving the original file location. I am very grateful for this knowledge though. -- Side note. I am pretty decent at writing configs for some games. Make some pretty decent automated systems in minedustry and loved the way pixel starship handles logic drive combat. I no longer consider myself capable of modding anything. The games where I would modify .ini, .cfg, .json or even writing simple batch files for cooperation between picky systems did nothing to prepare me for attempting to navigate development software and compiling code. After being unable to successfully set up the IDE a few times I realized I my brain is not cut out for it.

I have wondered this before but was afraid to try.. I assumed anything with a DLL would be referencing the various parts meshes and would possible through errors if I attempted... there are literally several parts mods I REALLY want for a single part... All hail the Gravimoli . This makes my day

I would rather not risk breaking ever older mod that still works but is unsupported. *My* primary draw to KSP1 is the manner in the MM and contract packs alter the gameplay loop of career. The second draw is the highly customizable nature of KSP1. Giving me the ability to alter the original sandbox scope into a streamline and focused gameplay preference. Having to trouble shoot 50+ odd mods would not desirable. Furthermore, I do not trust PD to alter the game in a way that will appeal to the majority of community. They do not have a history of considering consumer feedback, utilizing poles. Granted this is a new parent company and handler of the IP, but we still have month of silence after acquisition. If KSP2 has taught me anything, people have different opinion on what is fun. KSP removed many of the aspects I grew to enjoy about KSP1.

This one is way better than the one that i have booked marked. It is more manageable in scope. Thank you (Edit Ungodly long day, my brain was fried and initial response"s" we with little juice left and a ton of window open)

I agree. I tend to only revert when the results are beyond a threshold of inconvenience. I prefer to memorialize the fallen comrades through naming the successive mission profiles / various bases after them. I completely agree with you that "always" reverting created a sense of sameness that became difficult to overcome. This new playstyle with some of the enhance sound effects has led me to renewed interest in the game.