kbenson

That's the "someone builds hardware with lots of capabilities because of the hardware it includes" aspect. The patent isn't on including a camera and lidar, it's how they're combined and used, and that's often software, or can be emulated at a cost in software. As a manufacturer you can't be sued for including non-patented hardware components that have other uses. Foveated rendering uses inside cameras too. Lidar sensors are useful for better hand and spatial tracking overall. Combining them with software that performs a specific purpose utilizing them is what seems to be patented here.

I interpreted that as indicating something was swearing without actually swearing. So, identifying something as swearing that isn't actually swearing.

Maybe more like p**p, as in "that cunt p**ped in my yard"?

I'll admit, it never once occurred to me that people might be using censored characters to provide more emphasis that a word is a swear, but I guess it does indeed do that, at least to the writer. Whether that comes across to the reader, and whether the writer cares that their intention was understood... I'm not so sure.

Step 1: Someone builds hardware with lots of capabilities because of the hardware it includes, even if they aren't capitalized on by the manufacturer or the software provider. Importantly, it's easy to run your own hardware on it.

Step 2: Open source projects implement whatever they want. Preferably, they provide a framework that allows high extensibility, if the software provider didn't already.

Step 3: People download and install open source plugins that violate stupid patents. It's still a patent violation, but as long as the people providing it aren't profiting monetarily, the ability to recoup damages from lost profits or royalties is very hard.

There's some nuance there, and different ways it could (and should) be done to avoid most consequences, but not so long ago (maybe still?) people commonly combined codecs and software from different parties for ffmpeg, which to get around some issues with distribution refused to compile the source and provide a binary, because that would make them a target, but just the source didn't (to a greater or lesser degree).

Where there's a will there's a way, and if a company is going to obtain stupidly simple patents which they often claim is to keep other companies at bay, we can put that to the test. If they go after individuals for usage, pressure them.

If we're lucky, what we're seeing is an ebb and flow between open source and the companies that capitalize on it, and we're in the ebb. I'm hoping for the flow.

Is that a Steam problem or a developer not caring to provide a good experience for the platform problem?

If farms would choose to do solar instead of crops, I would assume that's because they can get more $/acre, but that could cause food prices to rise. At the same time, energy prices would drop if there was a surplus, so I wonder where it would level out. Lower energy cost could have a small affect in reducing the price of processed foods, but I imagine it would be very small (but I don't really know the energy cost of most processed foods).

What are you referring to?

Title is not misleading, you're just misinterpreting what they mean by command line. It's not a terminal game (in that you don't play it on your terminal and it's not limited to ASCII), it's a game where all the actions are carried out by typing out the commands for what actions you want to happen in a simulated terminal in the game.

I have another comment on this post which goes into more detail about what those commands look like if that's interesting to you at all.

I found the original game to be quite fun. It's mostly about solving logical puzzled about how to safely navigate the wrecks, and given you have very limited signals about what's going on, can be stressful and engrossing.

It's been a while since I played, but I've picked it back up a few times, let's see how well I can explain it.

Duskers is at its core a puzzle game. It could be executed just as well with an ASCII rogue/nethack style UI.

At its core, you have a few different drones that have some basic capabilities, and you can outfit them with a few additional capabilities (modules) each if you find components. You choose derelict space hulks to salvage, and once you enter them, some rooms/doors will be locked, or unpowered. You have to choose what rooms to go to to unlock and power other rooms. Some rooms may have unknown in them, which may attack you at some point when you're in the room, or if you leave the door open move to other rooms. Some drones can detect movement, some can't (IIRC). Sometimes you need to herd those lifeforms between rooms by remotely opening and closing different doors. The drones look for scrap in rooms to gather, which is used to build modules.

The rooms are all numbered, the doors are all numbered the drones are all numbered. You control the drones and parts of the ship you have access to through command line options, which have shorthand equivalents. e.g. (the below is mostly from google/gemini since I didn't want to go look them all up to remember)

navigate 1 r2 — Moves drone 1 to room 2.

navigate all r1 — Sends all active drones back to room 1 (the docking bay).

move 3 r4 — Uses the shorthand move instead of typing out navigate.

d12 — Toggles (opens or closes) door 12.

a2 — Toggles airlock 2.

close d1 d2 — Explicitly closes doors 1 and 2.

close all — Closes every single powered door on the ship immediately.

close r3 — Closes all doors attached to room 3.

gather — Tells the active drone to harvest nearby scrap metal.

gather all — Orders the drone to systematically harvest all scrap in its current room.

generator — Connects a drone to a power inlet to restore power to a room's grid.

interface — Connects a drone to a powered terminal to extract ship logs or systems.

tow 2 — Forces drone 2 to attach to or detach from a salvageable object (like an upgrade or broken drone).

stealth — Actives the stealth utility to move through rooms undetected by infestations.

You can string multiple commands together sequentially by separating them with a semicolon (;). Each drone operates its queue in parallel.

navigate 1 r3; gather all; navigate 1 r1 — Drone 1 goes to room 3, sucks up all the scrap, and drives back to safety.

navigate 2 r4; tow 2; navigate 2 r1 — Tells drone 2 to go to room 4, hook up a towable item, and pull it back to the airlock.

Given that datacenters seem to much more manpower efficient, that seems like a poor trade, to the point it might not be worth viewing them similarly. I'm seeing info reporting about 1 job per 5000 square feet of a datacenter after completion, and 1 job per 800-1500 square feet for a factory, depending on type.

More jobs is good, but if we're going to look at this through the lens of industry returning, it's a lousy return, even before factoring in that we probably lost a lot more factories than we're gaining datacenters.

Ah, I see. The increment is so they can manually handle the included feature of the other cases, which number of the iteration you're on. Nice that it will automatically loop across a collection, annoying that they couldn't go the whole way and you need to deal with it manually.

So, it's just a while loop in a for loop's clothing? That's not going to be confusing for people at all...

They look like stock Powerpoint slide templates to me, which if that is a common way for AI to show items, is likely because it was already a common visual technique and AI learned it that way.

> Ok, so 100 people can all drive to the store, or one delivery truck can drive to everyone's house.

Whether you see that statement and read it as "obviously the delivery truck is better" or "obviously, going myself is better" is going to be primarily based on how far away from Costco you live, and how much you buy when you go.

I live a bit more than a mile away from Costco. I often buy 25-60 items, for each of the about weekly trips. There's enough large items that a normal delivery truck that could safely navigate and stop often in residential areas would have no change of fitting 100 people's purchases into it in a way to be easily offloaded (just the toilet paper and paper toweling would take up significant space). It's much less wasteful on almost all metrics for me to go to Costco. That's before we get into the fact that most of what I'm buying is produce and other food stuffs I wouldn't want shipped for worry they would spend longer than I wanted out of refrigeration.

If I lived an hour away that calculation turns out entirely differently, at least as long as there's enough people close by with purchases to gain efficiencies of travel.

The lower g is, the lower the profit margin for s is, so so the fewer resources they will put into it. Unless there's unlikely to be more releases later or g are not cost sensitive and want it at a premium, this neatly scales to lower numbers.

Groo was always a favorite of mine as a child. The amazing art of Sergio Aragones and the sarcasm and double speak that pervade the comic always connected better with me. That came across in the Aragones panels in Mad much of the time as well.

Doesn't tailscale require those all be administered and approved by one account?

> there is one giant "network" of all your nodes

From what I understand they're saying, the point is that you get easy connections to things that aren't "your" nodes, sort of like allowing me to connect one of my tailscale nodes ad-hoc to one of your tailscale nodes, when our accounts are not related in any way prior to us doing that, and without me having to allow your node onto my network or you allow one of mine onto your network and have to deal with the specialized ACLs for that, since it's just a direct connection between two nodes.

But relevant to what? Some things are relevant directly to the outcome by nature of what you're trying to express, while some other things are essentially incantations you need to repeat the same every time. Bad build systems and what you have to do to make them work are definitely relevant towards building a working program when you're using them, but at the same time the specific details are often somewhat irrelevant for your goal.

Also, many stupid or nonsensical statements can often yield wisdom if you meditate on them enough. Indeed, many (most?) zen koans are so simplistic that to get any usefulness out of them you have to insert you own assumptions and try to determine how it might apply.

Almost everything is a choice. The difference is that sometimes you're making a rational one and sometimes you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect it obviously wasn't the best choice, or event a good choice.

There are two aspects to the type of question that was asked. How do you prevent people from ha I g to make choices which are rational and good for their options but still really bad overall, and how do you convinve/educate people about available options they weren't aware of so they don't make outright bad choices when better ones are available that they are unaware of.

There are many possible answers to "why did you take off to the west and ride trains and sleep in parks and steak to feed yourself", but most of them aren't "well I just felt like leaving my entirely stable, loving and supportive friends and family." What to an outsider seems like a poor choice to a specific person imight seem like the decision that saved their life, even in retrospect.

This is how a chunk of people function anyway. There are plenty of people that choose to not install "point zero" release for software of a certain importance, assuming with any major changes there are often bugs that come along with it.

In this case, since the number of cool down days is configurable, even if everyone was using it we would still likely see a somewhat smooth curve for adoption, since not everyone will choose the same delay and the delay time will likely map closely to how people want to habdke risk.

It's all a trade off, just like it's always been. This just makes it simpler to act on what you want your risk/comfort level to be.

To be absolutely clear, since on reading this later it may come across as me masquerading as part of the OpenBSD project, I am not affiliated with them. My "We don't" was in response to "If we have a chance to change rsync defaults" which we, as the general public and users (and very likely also any reimplementors) don't have that chance, because rsync has a solid UI that people and tools have integrated for over a decade, and that's not something you can just change.

To keep with the analogy, isn't that sort of like testing two cars by having them both drive the same few hundred foot stretch of new road at the posted speed limit of 35 MPH? You will test some things doing that, but not particularly well, and hardly all the things people find interesting and useful for comparing the performance of cars.

To bring ng this back to the discussion at hand (and to be redundant, as it's been mentioned here already), there are many aspects of using an LLM that are not purely about the output from a single or few well formed prompts. Additionally, if the end results are very similar, these othrr aspects will have an outsized influence on people's perspective of the tools, as they're the only differences worth choosing one model over another.

We don't, since we're not implementing a UI from scratch, we're matching something else.

Of the two possible worlds where in one this reimplementation matches what some see as annoyances in the interface or in another they mostly match the interface except for a few cases where the purposefully diverge (for no good technical reason), IMO the latter is far worse and causes more enexpected behavior.

At most, add a special flag to opt into different default behavior so nobody is surprised by running the same command on different systems and getting different behavior.

Even if this law just caused companies to put into their sales contracts that they will support the servers to a certain date X years in the future and then handling of the online services would pass to a third party that might charge a nominal fee to administer the service, that would be an enormous win for the free market (in that it makes obvious what was ambiguous about a good) and for people both better knowing how a good will function in the future and what future costs there might be. In a way, this could just force companies to provide the equivalent of a warranty for the functioning of the online aspects of the software.

People far too often forget the absolutely vital aspect information plays in the free market, and anything that increases information (for example, how long a good should be expected to continue to function) is a net good, when compared to a complete lack of information about that.

> Just releasing code to users would be a pretty serious abrogation of creditor rights.

Would it, if legally required at the point of sale of the good the source code is based on and utilizes? I doubt creditors claiming ignorance of state law works well as a defense.

If they did that, people would notice, it would be talked about, and it would be factored into (some) people's decisions on whether the game was worth the price. That's the market figuring out how to appropriately price a good based on information about it, which I think would be good. Even if that's the only thing this legislation changes I think it would be a good change, by forcing what was an ambiguous aspect of the good you purchased into a well understood and legally enforced aspect.

Of which year? GTA6 has been in development so long they could miss that period slightly in a year and decide to wait for the next year and polish it up and they likely wouldn't run out of things to fix or make better.

> So, the company makes the promise "we'll have ready by November". They make this promise in April.

Make smaller promises but make them more often, and shit changes more often. Be clear about features 3-6 releases out, and when and why features get bumped. Companies delivering software are already doing this because they often can't deliver in 6 months and telling the customer it will be in the nest release a year from now does, as you note, make them stop doing business with you, so instead now you can tell them it's just delayed by a few months which they can maybe deal with.

Games don't really work like this, but games also don't seem to really work the same way at all and have different incentives.

Definitely flying too close to Poe's law for some.

I think maybe how you are conceptualizing design and how the GP meant it are not in agreement, and if you came to agreement on what it meant you wouldn't really disagree about the point either.

For example, I think design, as they mean it, could be described as "how to get that thing we care about". The correct amount of design depends on how exacting the outcome and outputs needs to be across different dimensions (how fast, how accurate, how easy to interpret, how easy to utilize as an input for some other system). For generalized things where there's not exacting standards for that, AI works well. For systems with exacting standards along one or more of those aspects, the process of design allows for the needed control and accuracy as the person or people doing the work are in a constant feedback loop and can dial in to what's needed. If you give up control of the inside of that loop, you lose the fine grained control required for even knowing how far you are away from theoretical maximums for those aspects.