Volundr

Let's review:

> You can get pulled over for no reason in the US and have drugs planted on you by a cop simply having a bad day.

The next reply in this thread:

> lol you watch too much tv.

No I'm not asserting they are "asking". They won't bother to ask. They'll either plant something and take your stuff that way, or "smell drugs" and seize your assets under "civil forfeiture".

Or just anywhere in Northern Idaho. Especially roads that connect to Oregon.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I worked as a security guard through college. Never chased a skateboarder, but I did ask them nicely to leave at least once a week.

Nope! Do I need a fleet of servers to run it? No problem! Do I need a specific release.minor.patch of FreeBSD? No problem! Do I need your proprietary kernel patches? Yeah you need to release those.

Or do you have tooling that allows your devs to run it on their machines without the server components (most online games do)? Releasing that instead is also an option.

Correct. It also used to require an upfront purchase of the game and every expansion. I'm not sure if it still does. Those who paid bought the game and should be able to continue playing it, even if Blizzard wants to shut down the servers.

> Ensuring that the multiplayer server component of your game is a standalone end-user distributable is a huge task to impose on every game that wants to have a multiplayer component.

Is it? Your hosting it somehow? No one is asking for a 1-click installer. What do you do? Let us do that.

> since I'm just rsyncing code onto a VPS.

I mean, this covers it. Put that code out, and some one else can rysnc it to a VPS. The ask here in not that it's nicely bundled up into a single click deploy. It's that a path exists at all. If I need a fleet of servers and some technical know how, that's fine. Even expected for many games.

Nah, if I pay for the game, I should get to keep it. If it's a monthly subscription only (not sure the current state, but WoW didn't us to be) then there's an argument to be made here that I was just buying access to those servers. But if I've plopped down 70 bucks and you don't feel like running your backend anymore, then the least you can do is provide the tools for others to do so.

> What if your backend is extremely complex like WoW or Fortnite?

WoW private servers have been a thing for a long time now. It's not like the initiative is asking for the ability to run the game on any set of minimum hardware. If the backend is released and a fleet of servers is needed to run it, that fulfills the ask.

Pretty much any game of this type also has some ability for the developers to run it on their own machines too, usually with some simplified backend. Releasing those developer tools would also meet the bar.

Why does it have to be a refund? Private servers have been a thing for a long time, with people even running them for MMOs like World of Warcraft or City of Heroes.

Could you? We STILL don't know the identities of everyone sent to CECOT. It's hard to make a political nightmare when no one knows where you are, or even that you were "arrested".

I see the mindset you describe and I think it also hurts the ability to get feedback. People who don't feel strongly enough to want to be a roadblock if everyone else agrees will tend to silence themselves. Multiply this by the whole team and you get proposal -> crickets -> "if there are no objections I guess we move forward?", even though the whole team actually has reservations.

If there's someone on the team who really truly vehemently disagrees with a direction, the team would be well advised to give serious consideration before overriding that veto, but for normal soft-disagrement we really should normalize the idea that we don't need unanimity to more forward.

You'll never convince me spaces are better than tabs, but I consent to using them anyway.

Message retention, audit logging, SSO to name a few off the top of my head.

Mine is in the under configuration, due to being near an AC vent that will sometimes unspool the whole roll in the over configuration.

> The arguement for this is that it would be inconsistent to do otherwise. After all, why should buying a chair from someone else be different than paying an employee to do it?

Probably exposing how little I know of accounting... If you buy a chair you have to track it and deduct it over the course of X years?! It's not just an expense the year you bought it?

Forgive the naive question, but is this different than other payrolled employees? So for normal employees you get the deduct the year it's paid, but for some reason for software developers you have to amortize it?

> What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_?

Are you under the impression that either of these things is legal, and that gunplay is your only recourse?

These are the pieces controlled solely by the executive branch. The goal is total unequivocal control, not anarchy.

At this point dropping GCL would be a breaking change. Many, many libraries rely on it.

> My surface level understanding is that GCL is a big reason why 3rd party libraries are a huge pain to use in Clojurescript.

I'm sure what "huge pain" your referring to, but I'm guessing it's dealing with name munging when externs aren't readily available. That comes from the compiler, not the library, and can be annoying. Mainly you have to make sure you reference things in ways that won't get mangled by the compiler (get x "foo") instead of (get x :foo). If you want to escape that you can always turn of advanced optimizations.

> Obviously if you reallocate funding from trial A to trial B, trial A loses its funding

If this is happening, what organization are they relocating funding to?

Can you speak more about which ones and how that happened? The main one that comes to my mind is the British monarchy (to the extent that they don't really have much power), and my general impression (not a historian) is that that's a bit of a fluke. Looking at the French and American Revolutions, they sort of realized that their necks might stay better attached if they gave some ground. I'm not sure the monarchy being a participant in it's own reform is really applicable.

> After pressuring it, it would answer with the correct building and height.

And if you bully it enough on something nonsensical it'll give you a wrong answer.

You press it, and it takes a guess even though you told it not to, and gets it right, then you go "see it knew!". There's no database hanging out in ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini's weights with a list of cities and the tallest buildings. There's a whole bunch of opaque stats derived from the content it's been trained on that means that most of the time it'll come up with the same guess. But there's no difference in process between that highly consistent response to you asking the tallest building in New York and the one where it hallucinates a Python method that doesn't exist, or suggests glue to keep the cheese on your pizza. It's all the same process to the LLM.

> You're saying knowledge is knowledge because it's correct, where guessing is guessing because it's a guess.

Knowledge is knowledge because the knower knows it to be correct. I know I'm typing this into my phone, because it's right here in my hand. I'm guessing you typed your reply into some electronic device. I'm guessing this is true for all your comments. Am I 100% accurate? You'll have to answer that for me. I don't know it to be true, it's a highly informed guess.

Being wrong sometimes is not what makes a guess a guess. It's the different between pulling something from your memory banks, be they biological or mechanical, vs inferring it from some combination of your knowledge (what's in those memory banks), statistics, intuition, and whatever other fairy dust you sprinkle on.

> What is the practical difference you're imagining between "consistently correct guess" and "knowledge"?

Knowing it's correct. You've just instructed it not to guess remember? With practice people can get really good at guessing all sorts of things.

I think people have a serious misunderstanding about how these things work. They don't have their training set sitting around for reference. They are usually guessing. Most of the time with enough consistency that it seems like they "know'. Then when they get it wrong we call it "hallucinations". But instructing then not to guess means suddenly they can't answer much. There no guessing vs not with an LLM, it's all the same statistical process, the difference is just if it gives the right answer or not.

> Many attempts at making them refuse to answer what they don't know caused them to refuse to answer things they did in fact know.

Are we sure they know these things as opposed to being able to consistently guess correctly? With LLMs I'm not sure we even have a clear definition of what it means for it to "know" something.

Not who your replying too, but since I've expressed similar sentiment:

Sonnet 3.7 with thinking is my go-to.

Deepseek R1

Gemini 2.5 pro (I've heard it said Gemini is outperforming Sonnet, but I find Sonnet more consistent)

O1-mini

Depending on what I'm doing it's generally either via Cody or Aider.

FWIW this is my experience too. I use LLMs pretty regularly for coding but to get decent code you really have to supervise the hell out of them and often it's not worth the effort to push them into doing the right thing.

Maybe I'm just bad at getting it to do things, but I think your question about "letting go" is the real story. I think there are a lot of people not paying close enough attention to what's coming out of the LLM, and the tech debt building up is going to come back to bite them when it builds to a point the LLM can no longer make progress and they have to untangle the mess.

100%, and yet I don't think I can rationally act differently. It's not like if I just keep on like everything is normal that'll save the economy. It'll just put me in a worse spot if what I'm expecting does indeed come to pass.

I have a number of home improvement projects that I had planned on tackling this year, but I've decided I prefer those funds liquid. Same with getting a newer car. While nothings harmed my economic situation yet my confidence in pretty much everything, the stability of the job market, the economy, the country itself it at an all time low.

Even here in red state territory that seems to be the general vibe.

> To pass the deadlift event with 60 points, women 17 to 21 years old previously had to deadlift 120 pounds, but under the new standard, they would have to lift 140 pounds.

Maybe my powerlifting background is coloring my thought process but this doesn't seem crazy to me? Assuming a small ~100lb woman that's 1.4x bodyweight and that's the extreme end. I imagine for most it's closer to 1x.

I have no military and definitely no combat background so in this area I don't feel like I have the context to form much of an opinion.