cmhe @ cmhe @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

350

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why would Disney demand that?

Why would they choose slack if they want to host, maintain and be responsible for the internal chat themselves?

They choose slack because they do it for them so that they don't have to do it themselves. That is the selling point for them.

Businesses buy cloud services, because they do not want to manage stuff themselves.

Protects against what?

What I read here is just a vague critic from him of the relation between hard- and software developer. Which will not change just because the ISA is open source. It will take some iterations until this is figured out, this is inevevable.

Soft- and hardware developers are experts in their individual fields, there are not many with enough know-how of both fields to be effective.

Linus also points out, that because of ARM before, RISC-V might have a easier time, on the software side, but mistakes will still happen.

IMO, this article doesn't go into enough depths of the RISC-V specific issues, that it warrants RISC-V in the title, it would apply to any up and coming new ISA.

Link to the mod: https://gitlab.com/falloutfans/fallouty

My point is there never will be enough people to leave. Consumer boycotts do not work.

Between thousands of different factors to consider wherever to buy a product from a certain producer or not, child labor, environmental waste, political attitude of the CEO, etc... it isn't possible to make any decision on what product to consume.

It isn't about 'unless enough people leave" it is about "unless enough people protest to the government for market regulation" and "unless enough law makers care".

The free market is not self regulating, at least not with a long term positive effect.

This is the "consumer choice" argument.

The problem is that consumers likely don't have that choice. The "free market" is really bad in incentivising good long term behavior, they favor short term gains for their stockholders. Thus they likely all switch to practices that seemingly lower cost or raise short term profits. If they can fire employees and replace them with AI, they will do so.

If they would think long term, they would prefer to hire humans instead of AI, because that way they would give their future customers money to buy their stuff. AI will not be their customer. They would pay them enough money to be a happy and good consumer.

Customer choice doesn't matter here, they either just have to buy whatever is cheapest, or die, because their employers (if they even have one) don't pay they enough for them to have choice, because short term profits.

No, it is consistent. Because it is not about the law itself, but about it being applied in a double standard. If a random person copies a product made by an industry, the law will punish them. If the industry copies work of random people, its fine and a sign of progress.

I would like a copyright to be nontransferable, bound to the individuals that created it, and limited for about 10 years or so (depending on what it is), to give the creators some way to earn a reward back, while also encouraging to create new stuff.

"Copying is theft" is the argument of corporations for ages, but if they want our data and information, to integrate into their business, then, suddenly they have the rights to it.

If copying is not theft, then we have the rights to copy their software and AI models, as well, since it is available on the open web.

They got themselves into quite a contradiction.

Check if you find anything about this in the kernel log (dmesg).

Generally, I tend to think more in the direction of that there is some misunderstanding happening, then people being stupid. Maybe that is just the optimist in me.

What exactly is meant when people say they don't know git. Do they mean the repository data format? Do they mean the network protocol? Do they mean the command line utility? Or just how to work with git as a developer, which is similar to other vcs?

I think if you use some git gui, you can get very far, without needing to understand "git", which I would argue most people, that use it daily, don't, at least not fully.

It also means that anyone can make their own instruction set extensions or just some custom modifications, which would make software much more difficult to port. You would have to patch your compiler for every individual chip, if you even figure out what those instructions are, and what they do. Backwards, forwards or sideway (to other cpus from other vendors) compatibility takes effort, and not everyone will try to have that, and instead add their own individual secret sauce to their instruction set.

IMO, I am excited about RISC-V, but if the license doesn't force adopters to open their designs under an open source license as well, I do expect even more portability issues as we already have with ARM socs.

"you" as in person with required skills, resources and access to a chip fabrication facility. For many others they can just buy something designed and produced by others, or play around a bit on FPGAs.

We will also see how much variation with RISC-V will actually happen, because if every processor is a unique piece of engineering, it is really hard to write software, that works on every one.

Even with ARM there are arguable too many designs out there, which currently take a lot of effort to integrate.

Question is: Good for who?

IMO compared to what the base game costs, the price of DLC is often inflated. And this is not limited to Paradox.

If you would split up the base game, with all its base content into separate DLCs, the base game would cost a lot more. And this is what DLC is all about. This is a bit a race to the bottom at how much content can we rip out content from the base game and sell it to the customer with inflated prices separately, without incurring too much of a public shit storm.

DLC also plays with peoples completionists desires. Many just want to have the full experience, so they buy stuff, they would like not do, if it was a separate game.

DLC also fragments the community, mods or multiplayer might not work for someone not owning specific DLC. Yet another psychological manipulation into buying them.

So good for company stockholders, but not really good for people that prefer transparent and consistent pricing and quality.

Depends a bit on what the default cloning url will be. If the domain is in control of mozilla, which forwards it to github, then fine, if most people start using the github url, then it is still a vendor lock in, because many people and projects will use it, and that is not so easy to move away.

Update: To the people down-voting my comment, I would love to hear why you either disagree with me, or find that my that my contribution to this discussion is worthless.

The upstream URL of a project or repo is important, because it will be used in other projects, like in build scripts for fetching the sources. If a projects changes that URL in the future, and the old URL is no longer available/functional, all those scripts need to be changed and the old versions of these scripts do not work anymore out of the box.

If the project owns the URL, then can add redirect rules, that might help alleviate some of these issues. I don't think github allows projects that move away from it to do that. So this is a sort of vendor lock-in. The project needs to maintain the repo on github, because they want to break the internet as little as possible.

Because this is fiction, where there is good and evil, right and wrong, the good people are rewarded and the bad people punished, successful people earned it and the poor deserve it, and complex problems have simple answers. Where every argument only has a pro and a contra.

But we are living in reality, where most things are in shades of grey, and everything is more complex than it appears. People have to make decisions based on partial knowledge, to not get stuck in indecisiveness. Where even the middle ground solution might be wrong. And with so many distractions and propaganda.

Just be kind and understanding to other people with different ideas, the real world is a complex one, and easy to get lost. Sometimes people like to flee into their simple worlds of populism, maybe through talking and listening we can help them find their way again.

Also state owned is only really useful for infrastructure, where it doesn't make sense to have multiple providers and monopolies are easily attainable. Like roads, rails, electricity, internet backbone infrastructure and providers, social media, etc. Democracy is the currently best way we know of managing monopolies.

For other stuff, you probably want employee owned democratic collectives. You would still have competition on the market, but its ordinary people that have the say. This would give more power to the people enthused about the tech and long term success, then all the short term gains.

No, publicly traded. One of the first steps to enshittyfication.

Well, the issue with that is that achievements are global over all playthroughs, so it doesn't really work as a checklist.

Sure there are some interesting achievment, like the Stanley parable ones. For instance: 'Go outside: Don't play the game for 5 years' (https://thestanleyparable.fandom.com/wiki/Achievements)

I only play single player games, but couldn't care less about achievements. It is all about exploration, story, game mechanics and modding for me.

People treat achievements as if they are a status symbol. I mean sure, if you don't know what else to do in a game, they can give you some goal, but IMO the game itself should encourage you to reach the goal, not some external badge. The experience doing the task should be the reward in of itself.

Its a bit old, but the last reports for DA:O on wine look good: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=33926