It's less featured and has limited 3D support, but Defold is great for making smaller games aimed at the web or mobile. It has a much smaller binary size and it's generally more stable, especially in terms of physics. If you take a look at the showcase it's mostly webgames and a few smaller indies.
Thank you, I started Godot recently and I'll take a look at Defold as this is the exact thing I am doing - and Godot seems a little unstable with the APIs. Every tutorial I find is for Godot 3, and Godot 4 seems quite changed.
The version 3 to 4 transition was used to make breaking improvements to many things. The API is intended to remain stable within major versions. The docs also cover the major API changes from 3 to 4 and comprehensive docs exists for both version and you can still use Godot 3 if you want to.
What I do to deal with general noise but specifically disruptive low frequency noise from my surroundings is to mask it, in particular with longform (often an hour long) dub techno tracks. CV313 is good for this. It's the only good way to counteract the subsonic energy coming through my walls and ceiling.
We experience sub frequencies with our whole body, certainly I seem to have a high sensitivity to the 5-30Hz stuff. So no amount of ear plugging will be really that effective.
I've been getting into the early stages of developing a game concept, from the position of a near complete novice. My idea is very vague but I know enough of the elements to be able to break it down into numerous atomised technical challenges to be overcome, little things like making something move and emit a sound.
So far this approach seems to be working really well, I'm not getting overwhelmed or bogged down by trying to 'vertical slice' anything, and keeping the end goal very loosely defined means I can easily adopt new gameplay ideas as I come across them in the process of tinkering with the available tools and their interactions.
Once I've figured out all the individual challenges I can begin in earnest to craft the whole.
I generally take disinformation to entail some nefarious intent on the part of the source and those who amplify it. Misinformation is more akin to just noise, irrelevant or confusing details that obfuscate the truth.
The problems of course are determining when and where exactly someone has ill intent, and when information is unhelpful noise. This seems likely to remain a qualitative endeavour.
> "Likewise we cannot generalise very easily from what information is given to us by the press or on twitter or on social media. We can generalise [pretty good] with some training, but we are not natually good at it.
So you will have a deficit in our understanding of reality, and that's what disinformation plays on"
I agree that this article perhaps veers a little too far into the kind of 'objective' territory that you mention, it's something I see and dislike often in similar pieces, though to be fair I think it's probably quite hard to avoid while remaining personally relatable to many people.
My strategy in general for taking in ideas is to simply pick and choose the bits that seem interesting and productive, and internally reinterpret those parts to remove the author's biases and excessions that don't seem relevant.
This tends to cause issues when I share things like this article though, people often seem to prefer to interpret the tone of the piece as a whole, and that overall or initial reading colours their view of the individual ideas that were espoused, making it harder for me and them to have a productive discussion about it.
