wilg

America has world-class wines, cheeses, and olive oils.

I've tried very hard to use Git (with LFS) in both Unity and Unreal and its just been a total disaster of problems for me and the team. Hopefully this can help.

Working on making my first video game (unannounced, https://gamedepartment.com). We're also spinning out some of our internal playtesting tools into a playtesting service that I think is going to be really cool.

I think "brain" is a shorthand here so your point isn't really illuminating much.

More or less stuck AI in all the obvious spots, which will probably be fine I guess. Not super exciting!

Good luck finding pure and true land that never changed hands from war or conquest.

Where else?

Is there evidence this is actually true? When I’ve looked I’ve found the historical reliability is overstated and also ignores cost, availability, and environmental impact of manufacturing and using newer appliances and devices. Lots of older things were heavy, resource intensive, and overbuilt. Quality items are still available today for all of this stuff, probably cheaper than in the past in most cases.

It should be legal to make and sell proprietary software with whatever server entanglements you want as long as they are clearly disclosed.

If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.

WIW: nothing

You're suspicious that the person doing academic research on how AI applies to law has a job related to research on law and AI?

Who's gonna determine that? A bunch of law professors?

What criteria would you use for judging legal arguments?

> In a blind evaluation of nearly 3,000 anonymized comparisons, professors rated AI responses significantly higher than answers written by other professors, with AI winning 75% of head-to-head matchups.

75% win rate seems pretty good!

Paper link: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/salinas_...

Because I think it's good for software developers and consumers for people to have the flexibility to sell something that depends on online services which may become unavailable at some point in the future. This is more valuable than requiring indefinite support, public pluggable backends, or required open sourcing or backend redistribution, which imposes onerous technical or business limitations for an extremely minor consumer benefit all things considered.

This would be a much preferable law to the one actually proposed.

I think it should be legal to sell something with a pointless online verification component.

I remain happy with GitHub!

This is fair for some reasonable time window after purchase. But I think it's okay for things to have a lifespan even if they cost money.

Yes you should!

Well, they're not selling you the game. They're licensing you the ability to play their game.

And yes, I think it should be legal for a hardware product (like Spotify's "Car Thing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Thing) to stop working because they don't want to support the online component. It's fine to get mad at the company, but I think it should be legal to do.

Why would you be entitled to infinite support? For a game with an online component? Why does the game's purchase price extend to infinity instead of "for as long as the developer supports the game"?

Except shutting down a game is not fraud.

This is such a terrible solution to a literal non-problem.

You should be able to make software that has a limited lifespan if you want. I just think that's fine. Games should not be special.

No it will make everything a live service game

"Auto" in Claude and "Auto-review" in Codex are the only way to do agentic coding.

Can you please fix the issue where like 99.99999% of the time Claude tries to launch a subagent on its own accord it gets "Prompt is too long" and tries several more times, then gives up and does it without the subagent. Big waste of time and tokens and not getting almost any subagent advantages. Not kidding that this happens about 100 times a day.

Still seeing it in new threads with Claude 1.9659.1 (193bcb) 2026-05-28T16:22:15.000Z

I tried creating a workflow in Claude 1.9255.2 (1dc8f7) 2026-05-27T01:57:20.000Z

and got

API Error: 400 messages.3.content.11: `thinking` or `redacted_thinking` blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified. These blocks must remain as they were in the original response.

Tried again in

Claude 1.9659.1 (193bcb) 2026-05-28T16:22:15.000Z also but may need a new chat

You're misunderstanding your own argument.