I told you it depends. There are AAA games for console and gaming computers and there are casual mobile games for example. Very different markets.
9,787 karma · joined March 7, 2016
Why spend the effort, if everyone is already carrying their smartphones around with them?
By now there are already lots of fields in IT that are quite standardized, but others not so much.
For example, what is the fastest way to draw lots of shapes on a canvas on the web?
There is no definite and fixed answer, as the field is still evolving and to find out the fastest way for your use case, you have to do research and experiments.
It is currently also creating lots of pressure for people to also buy an IPhone to not be cut out of circles. And once they have an IPhone, they can integrate it better with other Apple devices and once you are inside the walled garden, you will likely stay there, if you can afford it.
I don't see Apple opening up on their own anytime soon.
I suppose you do not have a family or other ties? When you are young and unbound, the possibilities are a big bigger, than when you are settled down and don't want to uproot everyone to get a new job.
Well, those who do, are unfortunately often those who do it, so they don't catch Corona via the 5G waves ...
But my point was more that right now, it is still an acceptible excuse (in some areas) to not be reachable, to say you just had no reception. That is going away soon - and then it seems I will have to defend every time I turn off my phone and someone wanted to reach me with something "important". So yes, the problem is not the technology in my eyes, but the social expection. The result is still the same.
No, but there are still consequences.
"and catching up on work emails"
If everyone is doing this, there will be a expectation of you to do it. And if you don't - you will have to really shine somewhere else, to not get serious disadvantages.
Also I already had various big drama in my life for not being reachable (I still have a phone where I can put out the battery) - so yes, I know how to disconnect and I do. But there is an increasing pressure to be always reachable and when you don't live totally on your own - it is a real struggle to get away from it.
If something becomes the norm, it creates social pressure to do the same. Sometimes you can opt out, but not always and usually with a cost.
Well, I actually only know about the situation in the EU and there surely is and was also fraud - but overall it is working. Organic farmland is way more diverse and alive compared to the conventional counterparts.
I was not speaking about Minnesota, but the isolated claim denying that "buying organic produce is somehow healthy for the ecosystem".
Buying organic rises demand for organic farming - and organic farming is better for diversity (do you need papers about this?) - but obviously only where the farms are located and not in the supermarket. And if the land you mean has no organic farming yet still increases wildlife, well, there are of course also many things conventional farming can do different (just using a different or less of herbicide/pesticide can have drastic effects).
Yes it is. Not using industrial pesticides and herbicides is already a huge deal. And not using them actually requires a different approach to mono-crop farming. E.g. planting shrubs to attract birds, who will then help control pests. And in general, smaller fields and more diverse.
That is todays Mantra it seems. But there is no second chance to correct a first impression, if your rushed prototype was too rushed and no one gets the value beneath the flaws. It really depends on your product and market.
Only when we are talking about marxist communism. Anarcho communism is (in theory) fine with alternatives by design.
What law exactly?
"What if an open source project is used directly by consumers, and causes them harm? The public policy is clear: they must be compensated. Does it matter if they signed a license or didn’t pay someone? Their business is bankrupt, their files are in a hacker’s hands, or their own customers are suing them. Someone should be strictly liable. But who?
The EU is grappling with that very question, and it culminates in whether “open source” is exempt from liability in a law designed to protect consumers. So far the answer is “probably not?” Exemption means consumers bear the cost – exactly what the law is trying to change. Perhaps if the open source in question remains an academic or research tool, versus reaching consumers, we’re okay? The proof may come when the first consumer demands compensation, and the courts step in. But lawmakers know enough to realize that much of the open source out there – by definition – belongs to no one, or many someones, or really nobody that can be named and made liable. So waiting on a court case might provide clarity but no compensation and no one to even argue the case. Not the clarity a law is designed to provide."
But I rather think that no, the law just talks about products where you pay money for. And when I pay money for something, I do expect liablity in some way and this is allright. But it is not allright to mix them both up for politicial support (or whatever the motivation here is).
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Firefox-Chrome-109-Benchmarks
And sadly it can be worse, with my quite complex app, that I absolutely did not tailor for chrome, but gone out of my way to also support FF - the result is that chrome is just 3x faster.
I regulary ran across something that does not work or has a broken style. And I know how to turn UO off.
And why should that be a surprise? FF has way less manpower than Chrome. (And even fired lots of engineers, to raise the CEO bonus)
Chrome leads the way and probably the vast majority developes for chrome and with chrome dev tools. So most of the time FF works, but not always. And performance is just worse, but not noticable on a desktop and on mobile it is offset by the working adblock. Meaning perceived performance is usually better, because ads are blocked, unlike in chrome mobile.
Traditionally: slaves and loot. Or new land to settle.
Today it is somewhat more complicated, but there are still winners in war. It usually just ain't those, who are fighting in it. And obviously not those, who just get bombed to death.
And I mean literal and globally, not people who say this in the context of being in a sunny desert.
I think I never, ever heard or read anyone saying this, and I think I follow/participate in the debates, before it was cool and everywhere.
Renewable people rather sound like this:
"Employing a variety of power generation methods will give you the most stable power grid."
Where of course quite many "green" people don't want nuclear at all in the mix. Rather more of long distance energy transport (HVDC). And otherwise any option that works and does not pollute, or pollutes less.
(And personally I am not antinuclear as long as the alternative are fossil fuels, so they should be used as a transition technology and long term rather reserved for other application, like powering things in space and remote important sites)
With the electricity equivalent.
Makes sense when all is powered by green energy, but it does not makes sense to switch all that and power it with electricity from coal. Then the CO2 costs are higher.
Legal problems? Update TOS like usual(did they already?). Some might leave, most will stay.
What if "instinct" is also just (pretrained) model weight?
The human brain is very complex and far from understood and definitely does NOT work like a LLM. But it likely shares some core concepts. Neuronal networks were inspired by brain synapses after all.