ShinTakuya

>The database doesn't sound like it'd be a factor, since the slowdowns are isolated to single nodes handling the area with players

It doesn't sound like it because you haven't been paying attention. By and large, the TiDi slowdowns are because of network IO (i.e. too many players connected to a single node), but the database causes stutters when large numbers of ships are exploded at once.

DB needs to update inventory, skills, implants, and killboards which requires multiple round trips. Moreover, while these round trips to the DB happen, the core processing threads often end up yielding waiting for the SQL Server instance to respond.

But again, I only mentioned it as part of the problem. The core of the issue is definitely Network IO. Someone activates a module or weapon, you need to send that info to 1-10k players as a packet update. That's the source of delays, not processing speed. Rust won't magically speed that up, the network layer is already written in C.

I didn't say anything about strongly typed languages being bad for prototyping. I specifically said Rust is bad for prototyping speed. Lots of high profile cases of Rust being abandoned (Witchbrook comes to mind as an example).

There have been lots of posts here about Rust being not the nirvana it's claimed to be for such projects. This one comes to mind https://loglog.games/blog/leaving-rust-gamedev/

I say this as a big fan of Rust. I use it for CLIs, microservice development and more. The borrow checker, traits, enums, etc. are amazing for maintainability, reliability and speed. Fast iteration where you'll want to completely redo a system at the drop of a hat? Rust is a royal pain in the behind.

Largely, proponents of Rust who push it for game development have their minds stuck in the solutions space and forget about the problem space. The fact that Rust was even proposed to fix Eve here is a huge example of solutions focused thinking (bad bad bad) because is misunderstands that Eve was never bottlenecked on processing speed of its physics or business logic.

Rewriting it in Rust isn't automatically faster and more importantly Eve's gameplay is constantly being iterated on and Rust has proven to be bad for that.

Moreover, most of Eve's bottleneck isn't single server speed, it's mostly network IO and database queries and latency. The big TiDi skirnishes in particular are slow due to this.

I think it's not out of bounds to expect a company to go a little further to compensate for an issue. A prorated 1 hour refund doesn't reflect the reality that maybe that hour was more important to the customer because it was their only free time in the week. A free week is way too much but a free day sounds appropriate.

Well that would explain why you wouldn't need a git history.

I'm tempted to suggest you have encountered the issue but your team mates are shielding you from the consequences (with or without their knowledge).

Yeah I never get the "we knew about it internally" excuse. I can understand if another reporter got to it on the same day and they were in the process of mitigating, but even then they should have to prove it somehow.

I'm sure someone will tell me why I'm wrong but it feels like they're just dodging payouts. Reduces trust and motivation to report it.

I don't support this idea of rewriting everything in Rust but the answer to your question should be fairly obvious. Rust that compiles will generally be stable assuming you don't do a bunch of unwraps and panics. C that compiles can seem fine until it isn't.

LLMs still aren't as good at detecting C memory management issues as an experienced developer. With Rust, that doesn't matter as much because generally the compiler will tell the LLM when it's wrong.

This is all well and good in theory, but the number of times I've seen tests that don't actually test what they say they're testing is hard to count. Yes even when you encourage the developers to ensure the test fails first and do TDD. Tests help you ship with confidence but there's usually at least a few that are just passing by pure luck.

So no, I wouldn't judge a rewrite as being equal just because it passes the tests. That said, I don't think that means you shouldn't do it. You just have to be pragmatic about it.

Except all major social media sites are also corporations with their own interests. I'd rather the business model of traditional media that rides on journalistic reputation to a recommendation feed where the only job of it is to keep you on the site, especially when said feed can easily be manipulated.

No media organisation is perfect but your description of social media as some nirvana of decentralised truth is very questionable.

For what it's worth, this is commonplace in Australia too. I feel like you're describing a general safe country thing. I've lived in Japan so I know it's probably one of the safest places in the world, but I feel like what this thread describes is more US/Canada/some Euro countries being particularly dangerous, and not Japan being uniquely safe.

I think the main reason more time might be spent thinking is because there's relatively less training data on Haskell out in the wild, meaning an agent may have to check back and forth with static analysis to figure out what's valid.

Compact syntax is generally only a good thing for LLMs because it saves context windows and tokens.

Plenty of valid reasons to pick C, memory safety isn't a reason to trade off all other possible benefits. One big reason is portability, you can't compile Rust for example for certain targets.

Do you need a reliable edge or just a slightly better than average edge?

I mean, supply chain attacks are a thing that could have happened even in the earlier days. Linux almost got backdoored in 2003.

Also with the number of remote code execution exploits that have occurred in Web browsers over the years it's hard to know for sure if what you installed hasn't been hijacked unless you spent all your time on gnu.org

No, there was a big internal project (which they communicated publicly about - search for the blogs relating to it) to address it that involved roughly a year of effort from a big chunk of the developers.

Rovo is backed by the typical LLM providers in general, Atlassian isn't training its own models.

If you're experiencing this you're either a very junior dev or you're not as senior as your title might suggest...

You're assuming performance has been the core priority, or even a priority at all, and I think this is a bad assumption to make. I would estimate a much smaller number of people-months of work if I were you.

Dev users assume the only problem a product can solve is performance, when there is a lot more than that in reality.

Or, you know, most steam deck users aren't using them constantly and so they don't get picked up in the survey.

The average Linux gamer is likely to have a very different setup to the average Linux user in general. It's a subset of a subset.

As far as I'm aware it keeps a history of the frequency you visit each directory so yes it will select the one you've visited more often (assuming you don't always start at the base one and work your way down).

There's nothing inherent about C++ that makes it more suited than Rust for game engines though, Rust supports careful management of memory too. Of course, nothing besides inertia (i.e. Libs, existing code, etc.). And that of course is more than big enough of a reason to stick with it.

There are. The count is gotten by extrapolating from randomly selected areas of sky. This is more like another detailed picture of a small patch of sky.

I can't reply further to this thread without this devolving into a flame war so I'll just observe that you've moved the goal posts claiming you were just joking, and refuse to engage further until you acknowledge you're either getting defensive for no reason or arguing in bad faith.

While I agree they shouldn't be putting their money towards political causes, the scrutiny of the budget is also political in nature. Of the $400 million in expenses, only around $15 million went to executives, and around $1 million went to the DEI stuff. The rest was split evenly between developing and marketing Firefox, which is basically what you were criticising them on not doing.

If they got rid of all the executives and DEI, they could increase the other budgets by 2%. There is 0 chance that the 2% extra budget could help the market share and development in any significant way.

And if you don't pay executives enough, you get worse executives who make worse decisions because the good ones will go to other companies. So you'll be complaining even more if the $15 million executive pay got dropped.

So in short: I agree Mozilla shouldn't get involved in politics. Despite this, no reasonable person could look at the numbers and conclude it's having a material effect on the destiny of Firefox.

Is it that surprising that Edge is surpassing Firefox given Firefox doesn't have the onboarding ramp of Microsoft and Google? Microsoft shoves Edge in your face every chance it gets, as does Google. What can Mozilla do to compete against that? Unfair to use market share as an argument.

Can I inquire as to why you feel so negatively about Firefox?

Keep in mind that my own knowledge of physics is very rusty, so some of this is definitely making bad assumptions.

The density in the singularity (centre) of the black hole is in theory infinite. But the event horizon (the part where light no longer escapes) is not the singularity, it's simply where the gravity becomes so strong that light can't escape.

Think of it as the sun vs the planets - we're not in the sun, but we still feel its effects. The density of the solar system isn't the same as the density of the sun. This is bad analogy because the same mathematics/physics doesn't apply, but it should help you get the general picture based on your original assumption.

In general, the heavier the black hole, the less dense it is when measured from the event horizon. So in theory, it's possible to have a black hole so heavy that the event horizon contains the entire universe. In fact, the known universe is heavy enough to be a black hole 3 times the known radius of the universe. But as we know from stars that turn into black holes, just because something is heavy enough to be a black hole, doesn't mean it is one yet.

Black holes need not be dense. The black hole at the centre of galaxy M87 has the density of air in our atmosphere. The larger the black hole, the less dense it is. So that alone doesn't preclude us existing inside of one.