8,245 karma · joined March 28, 2012
> Oh yeah, because people didn’t want a new game, they wanted free WoW.
That's an error; Turtle WoW isn't a free WoW. It's WoW fixed to classic, with 2 new races, extra content. It's basically their flavor of WoW.
Free WoW exists and it's called a pirate server. This isn't it chief.
I'm pretty sure Turtle WoW has its own storyline, quests, etc. The story focuses heavily on extending Vanilla.
In other words, it's not a simple copycat but a fan project.
Rather than hiring and vying for talent, Blizzard is CnD their fans away.
It also adds easy to move goalpost of notability, that only accounts for luck and age, not actual capabilities.
Rust has like 2-3 game engines and a bunch of bindings.
Google really is slow boiling Internet until everyone forgets you can have stuff without ads.
Nah, the period around 1080 was honestly the golden age, before the age of RTX ushered the pest that is AI.
> In terms of e-waste, if you look at an unfixable mini computer with core parts that on average die 2 years sooner than a full-size computer, it causes less e-waste because it's so much smaller.
I don't think any particular component in a PC has the same amount of waste as a Mac Mini. And replacing a component is part of 3R (Reuse, Reduce, Recycle).
> They can sell bigger chips that cost more money to power users, why would they not care?
Because power users have less money than large corporations and governments. By selling you an GPU for $1000 that could be sold for $10000, they are losing the $9000 on each sale.
> But even if it was just phone chips
Not just Phone chips, locked down sanitized spy garden. It's very hard to do anything remotely creative on a phone like programming or rendering. You want to use your phone as a Desktop? That's not allowed. It's called War on General Computing. Not war on Consumer Computers.
And you don't need to ship the entire web stack just to get GUI.
I remember when GPUs didn't need to wait 10 years for same chip makers worst offering to beat the top of the line.
> Motherboards are looking at the smallest price hikes of all.
For now.
And for the record I bought a bargain bin Xeon. Only to realize later the only motherboard that accepts it costs $1000. And I needed another Xeon chip. This was around 2020
> And you didn't address how your threshold for "affordable" would exclude every year before about 2019. It's too strict
Honestly. It's the last time hardware prices were close to sane.
> Listen, if I can get a whole computer for $300 then I don't need repair.
If you are willing to bear externalities of e-waste. Fine.
Also replace them with what? You think industry will care about power users? Nah. They can eat cock. Everyone gets a tightly sealed mobile phone that LARPs to be a computer.
Yes. Because only DIY allow your computer to be repaired at will. Go laptop or corporate and those get increasingly hard to fix. Not to mention if DIY market is healthy the non-DIY market is even cheaper.
> But price per performance continues to improve. A 5050
If 5050 didn't beat a 10 year old graphics card it would be an even greater waste of sand.
> Governments might want it, but that doesn't transfer to chip makers.
If governments want it, there is money to be made.
> Plus people could buy old datacenter chips for pennies on the dollar.
Sure, but no one will be able to afford all the other amenities. Buying a server CPU isn't the issue. It's buying every other part of the server rack. Namely the board, the cooler, the memory and the storage. And housing and power for it.
That DIY entry PCs can be built for 400 USD or less. Budget PC should be able to browse net and play a few games on the iGPU (so overall 1TB SSD, some iGPU and 16 GB of RAM). Ideally on current generation of RAM and processors.
> By my reckoning PCs are affordable today. If you're not trying to run games they're downright cheap.
By what reckoning? And not just games, 3D workload, compilation. Hell. Even browsing + some productivity eats 32G of RAM as if it were nothing.
> I'm not sure what issue you're referring to with bitcoin
The first permanent jump in GPU prices. After Bitcoin prices of high-end GPUs remained at +1000 USD.
> Cartels just agree not to make anything for PCs? Why would that happen?
For bigger profits. You can see most hardware manufacturers moving from selling to consumers to selling to governments, cloud, and data-centers.
Why not make anything for PCs? Because individuals can't compete with the coffers of large corporations and governments.
> The point of restricting supply to a market is to maximize profits, not to refuse forever and lose out.
You can maximize profit by leaving a market. In the same way, you can still sell SSDs but for much bigger margins to data centers and governments.
Say all but one/two manufacturers leave the consumer market. The monopoly/duopoly hikes up prices again and again until you have a few stragglers on 40k USD workstations, and everyone else is on an iOS-like platform.
Once you are in the walled-in-cloud-garden, computer is not your own, and you can be monitored perfectly. This is something most governments want and is essentially the endgame for war on general computing.
I don't think we'll see PC affordable in my lifetime. It didn't happen after Bitcoin crash, didn't happen post pandemics. New price gets normalized and the cartels just agree to not make anything for PCs.
And if you get everyone on cloud? Then you can control Internet same way you can control TV or the press.
Bold assumption. On what will you run Emacs if average PC costs $12000? Yes. Even Raspberry Pi. It's not called war on general computing for nothing.
If you say the cloud, that will be cut up and reused by the next AI crawler.
Depends on what you want to achieve with your look. Do you want to scream professionalism, authority, and completed? Use a regular UML tool.
Want to say this is a rough draft of a few ideas? Then using UML is probably THE wrong look. And Exaclidraw should be used instead.
--- Anecdote time. According to one of my professors, they showed how the prototype will look in action, and the customers were so impressed by the smoke and mirrors prototype they wanted to start using it right away.
In the end, customer walked away because they thought they were being strung along to pay for something that was already done.
It's interesting to note the discrepancy between replies to this blog here and, say, lobste.rs (which is neutral to it).
Here it's very concerned about complexity, while on lobsters it's mostly about needing this feature - yesterday.
Have you tried using RustRover. I've never seen it go above 2-3GiB of RAM, but I don't write the most complex of software in Rust.
> I hate how crates.io requires a GitHub account to publish anything.
You don't need Github account to publish iirc, you need it to authorize to crates.io. You can use any Git host, but your account is tied to GitHub.
That's why I said done properly. You need full transparency. What is recorded and why, and how is the information dealt with.
In practice most people don't care. If they did they would disable all achievements, because even achievements are a form of telemetry.
You can see what percent of people finished the game for example. What percent played mini game, etc.
Anything that reveals remote metrics, is telemetry.
If you ask people what coffee they want, they will all tell you low-sugar, very bitter black coffee. Then you see what they buy, and they keep buying sugary and creamy coffee that contains almost no caffeine.
Telemetry isn't spying. At least when done properly. How do you figure out rare OOM crashes without some telemetry data? What if the reporter doesn't know how to figure out their OS and installed software that's required for debugging?
I'm NOT saying telemetry should capture everything and sell that data to info brokers. I'm saying, done properly it give you valuable feedback. And you should be transparent about it.
That's not what I mean. Expressivity allows you to objectively test if two languages are different. The functional/objective/imperative are trying to capture some expressive features.
Using expressivity, you can finally put a Turing machine to that feeling and test it.
> The terminology there already exists and is commonplace, as far as I see.
Missing the point. Message oriented language captures the expressivity of having the ability to send and receive arbitrary methods. This is what I mean.
If OOP or MOP is just a marketing term, then it carries no value.