It’s nice to see a break from unreasonable norms (where signaling competence becoming more important than actual competence or simply willingness to work). I like to think of this as an example of a company which is down-to-earth enough not to fall victim to Goodhart’s law. But this is actually the natural way of thinking, it’s the modern, western world which is odd.
I imagine that it helps to hire somebody who has been rejected a lot. It’s like being kind to a lonely person, they’re going to appreciate it a lot more than a popular person would.
The general takes on Palworld are a mystery to me, other peoples mental models seem to miss the mark.
I’m sure that none of the people involved with Palworld are geniuses, but they don’t have to be.
Is the design really bad if people like it? Is enjoyment not the most important metric?
I’m fairly sure AI can’t generate 3D meshes. If it’s AI, the only issue would be that Pokemon might be in the training set, making the reference material more like Pokemon than other, more general pools of data.
“Fantasy creatures” is not exactly something that Pokemon did first, and the idea of throwing spheres rather than nets or tranquilizer darts doesn’t look like copyright infringement to me. If anything, I’m saddened that people are starting to side with companies when they’re being unreasonable with patents.
Public opinion completely misses the mark on countless issues. They’re “not even wrong”. Simply addressing, entertaining or referencing or dismissing common takes makes my comment worse, it distracts from correct thinking. I think it only helps my argument that people are surprised by Palworlds success, for there’s really nothing to be surprised about. It doesn’t matter if they can keep players long-term either (another common discussion), they already did well.
It’s nice to see a break from unreasonable norms (where signaling competence becoming more important than actual competence or simply willingness to work). I like to think of this as an example of a company which is down-to-earth enough not to fall victim to Goodhart’s law. But this is actually the natural way of thinking, it’s the modern, western world which is odd.
I imagine that it helps to hire somebody who has been rejected a lot. It’s like being kind to a lonely person, they’re going to appreciate it a lot more than a popular person would.
The general takes on Palworld are a mystery to me, other peoples mental models seem to miss the mark.
I’m sure that none of the people involved with Palworld are geniuses, but they don’t have to be.
Is the design really bad if people like it? Is enjoyment not the most important metric?
I’m fairly sure AI can’t generate 3D meshes. If it’s AI, the only issue would be that Pokemon might be in the training set, making the reference material more like Pokemon than other, more general pools of data.
“Fantasy creatures” is not exactly something that Pokemon did first, and the idea of throwing spheres rather than nets or tranquilizer darts doesn’t look like copyright infringement to me. If anything, I’m saddened that people are starting to side with companies when they’re being unreasonable with patents.
Public opinion completely misses the mark on countless issues. They’re “not even wrong”. Simply addressing, entertaining or referencing or dismissing common takes makes my comment worse, it distracts from correct thinking. I think it only helps my argument that people are surprised by Palworlds success, for there’s really nothing to be surprised about. It doesn’t matter if they can keep players long-term either (another common discussion), they already did well.