HybridCurve

Beneath this comment is hidden a truth that there is AI which can be used beneficially, AI which can be used detrimentally, AI which can be weaponized in warfare, and AI which can be used defensively in warfare. Discussions about policy and regulation should differentiate these, but also consider implications of how this technology is developed and for what purpose it could be employed.

We should definitely be developing AI to combat AI as it will most certainly be weaponized against us with greater frequency in the near future.

Developers can invest a significant amount of time and resources building tools, supporting systems and workflows around these engines that aren't necessarily portable to other engines. There is also a significant time investment in learning the API, engine internals, and nuances of operation. Disrupting revenue streams so aggressively for the licensees is only going to result in breaking trust between Unity and their customers, driving them away permanently. They can also forget about taking on any new customers as few will be willing to move to a platform which tries to aggressively limit their choice of income model.

While Unity has filled a niche in it's usefulness, there are much better offerings (either higher or lower on the spectrum of capabilities) for other proprietary engines and a few under-featured free engines. They are not irreplaceable.

I do feel bad though for all the Unity developers that are having to deal with this but at the same time I think that many might have anticipated something like this would happen for some time.

There was a time when I would buy books without being able to review all of the content. That stopped several years ago after buying two textbooks (one from McGraw Hill, another Pearson) that were so awful I returned them. They were both full of absolutely horrid page layouts with huge margins full of irrelevant information, just absolute garbage. I don't think they are losing money because their content is being distributed for free, but rather it just has little to no value and is not worth investment.

We know the healthcare system in Britain has been suffering from neglect for some time and AFAIK doctors often either work for the NHS or are independently contracted by them. Also, while Buc-ees technically a convenience store, it also a gas station (they held the record as the world largest with 120 gas pumps)with a large deli, tons of groceries, and the cleanest bathrooms you will ever find off the highway. They do a lot of business and have a large team of of very busy workers. Their income is well earned. That said, healthcare workers are very underpaid in Britain and have been for some time, but it's not fair to compare the incomes while trying to diminutize Buc-ees by simply labelling it as "convenience store".

Leadership in the military works different than in other institutions. It is one of the only systems that I know of where authority is bound with responsibility. As a leader you are held to account for your actions and the actions of your subordinates because of your authority over them(IMO police should be held to at least this standard if not higher as they are granted permission to assault, detain or use lethal force against anyone as they see fit). It is common for NCOs to be reprimanded for the failings of the subordinates because it is often characterized that the leader failed them because they did not train or oversee them properly. There is some fault tolerance built in (with leaders spot checking leaders below them by checking their subordinates) but the system will break down if you have multiple levels of failed leaders within the chain of command.

The truth in the military though, is that this authority is mostly an illusion. There are many terrible leaders that do not understand this. They believe once you attain a position you are entitled to give whatever orders you like and that people cannot refuse them. This is true in civilian life as well as military. However, a good leader knows that their subordinates grant them authority over them. Understanding that, this is where much of the military leadership philosophy comes into play: lead by example, taking care of your team, morale, etc. These things are of much more critical importance in military roles because of the levels of risk, tension, and stress are often very high.

My biggest gripe overall (since it could be fixed easily) is the compile_commands.json. It's used by a number of tools and is generally awkward, cumbersome, and has a handful of shortcomings. To fix these issues, I used the intercept-build system provided with LLVM to generate a more succinct build file in JSON format that abstracts certain options (like paths) and groups options commonly found together. The reason for this is that sometimes you might be generating llvm bitcode, building clang AST, running clang-analyze, or translating the build options to work with either compiling or linking with GCC or Clang. For many of these it helps to be able to alter options easily, which you cannot do with the compile_commands.json file alone.

There are a number of areas like this where clang would benefit greatly, without demanding an enormous amount of effort.

https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/17/tpc_factual_update_10-29-202...

Bottom of page 7 it explains the mechanism. Essentially butadiene peroxides react with the butadiene to form the polymer 'seed'. The polymer is not stable and expands, increasing in volume.

If anything, the synopsis was toned down a bit.

Helicopters fly this low all the time.

I mean, it's bad that in our country we have to consider boycotting companies that donate to or support politicians/legislation which work to undermine democracy and such. This is plainly indicative of a broken system, where participating at the ballot box is insufficient to overcome corporate interests.

As a car person I am a bit envious and long for the day when cars could be smaller, cheaper, lighter, and more simple.