doesn't zstd cap out at compression level 19?

From the man page:

    --ultra: unlocks high compression levels 20+ (maximum 22), using a lot more memory.

Regardless, this reproduces with random other files and with '-9' as the compression level. I made a mastodon post about it here: https://floss.social/@mort/115940378643840495

they need too much hand holding still imho

seems like the least efficient way to make claude play minecraft, especially given there exists solutions that already lets llms play minecraft that are much more integrated

Minecraft has sold like 350 million copies which is more than second and third place combined IIRC if you look at the top best selling games

wouldn't the simplest solution, just be to use transparent instead of black? or in this case #0000 instead of #000

No, because the black needs to cover up other shapes (up until the final step of rendering).

the examples don't really looks like it should be necessary depending on how you go around creating the shapes

Factorio can save without stopping the game on Linux, which it can't do on Windows, since they just fork the process and do it in the fork IIRC, which makes the saving something you basically don't think about on Linux, but bugs you when ever auto save runs on Windows last I checked

Doesn't this make the game use double the memory for a while?

technically you can easily bypass it by using two accounts and use family sharing with the extra account

if you haven't enabled the checkbox starting explorer in a new process which isn't super easy to find, it will basically be one process running most of the windows ui, which means when they write shoddy code, the ui tends to hang

you can do this on surprisingly many websites, where they include the price in the url they redirect you to, when going to the payment provider, and even then often it is only protected by an md5 hash if it is verified

well once you "need" that swap, it will be writing pages across the network due to the storage being external to the physical server, so the latency is terrible

Latency of swap is always terrible in comparison to RAM. RAM vs disk is already something ~1000x right? I've never characterized EBS vs trad ssd, but I would be surprised if it's more than 10x.

I don't think using swap as "emergency RAM" makes a lot of sense in 2025. The arguments in favor of swap which I find convincing are about allowing the system to evict low use pages which otherwise would not be evictable.

Put swap on the “instance store” disk, not EBS.