Ditto. Most of my GPUs were nVidia, except the last one, an AMD. But I’m fully aware @[email protected] is right; and also that the only reason they aren’t shitting now on desktop customers is because they can’t.

Plus the political landscape reached a point that, when reasonable to do so, I’m flat out refusing products from USA. Enough of this United-Statian mafia shit. If mainland China manufactures get something of comparable quality into the market I’ll give it priority over AMD/nVidia/Intel. That’s a matter for 10y from now, though.

What worries me isn’t why: “we got to sell to big datacentres, fuck desktop customers”.

Or the AI bubble bursting: even if generative models find some use cases, they won’t justify the investment, so nVidia’s “shovel seller in a gold rush” situation will end.

Or what nVidia will do afterwards: “fuck, we need desktop customers to buy our things as they did.”

What worries me is that, once nVidia goes through all silly dance, suckers will still go back to buying nVidia, tails waggling, almost as if saying “call me a good boi”.

AFAIK all modpacks are made for specific versions of Minecraft, so the current modpacks are completely unaffected. And even for future modpacks, the modpack creator doesn’t need to care too much about this, since it’ll affect the mods directly. (A modpack is, like the name says, just a pack of mods stitched together and glued with some configs.)

Plus popular modpacks are often for extremely old MC versions; for example a lot of people still run modpacks made for 1.16.5 (4yo), 1.12.2 (8yo), or even 1.7.10 (12yo).

“Switching from OpenGL to Vulkan will have an impact on the mods that currently use OpenGL for rendering, and we anticipate that updating from OpenGL to Vulkan will take modders more effort than the updates you undertake for each of our releases,” explains Mojang. “To start with, we recommend our modding community look at moving away from OpenGL usage.”

Question: how much does your typical content mod decide what’s going to be rendered? Is this something typically handled by Fabric/Quilt/[Neo]Forge?

Because I can quite guess OptiFine and the likes will need a lot of elbow grease, but I’m not sure about the rest.

I can’t rule out some might have “good intentions”. But more importantly, their intentions don’t really matter — it isn’t like you or me are going to know them.

Most of the people using AI to contribute are probably like the guy who got so upset his pet AI wasn’t allowed to contribute he likely promoted it to write a hit piece on the person who rejected it.

You’re talking about the guy in charge of the slopbot who wrote shaming Shambaugh, right? Even in the hypothesis the tool misbehaved and wrote that hit piece by itself, instead of him prompting it to write the hit piece, that guy should be still blamed for libelling someone else. He was the one in charge of the tool.

I apologise beforehand for the wall of text. To be frank I’m enjoying this discussion.

You know, I don’t think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” thing is true anymore. […]

I still notice a fair bit of that “we’re the best Nation! Gott mit uns [sorry, wrong Nazi country] God Bless Amurrrca! Everyone else is a bloody shitskin living in a mud hut” discourse when interacting with United-Statians online. Perhaps it isn’t as strong as before, like You said, but I don’t think it’s gone.

Then again I’ve lived in a homeless shelter and surround Myself with antirealists, so what do I know about the consciousness of white suburbia?

I live in a mostly-white suburbia but it’s in Latin America, so… take what I say about USA’s youth with a grain of salt. As in, I’m throwing in what I think, but I’m fully aware it might be wrong. Still worth saying IMO, though.

“you” as the pronoun for hypothetical people […]

Got it. I’ll do as You said and use “one”. (To be frank I used “one” for some time, mostly to distinguish between the personal and indeterminate, but plenty native speakers screeched at it, so… I kind of gave up. But it’s good to know I can use it with You, and potentially with other people who capitalise pronouns.)

I confess I don’t fully understand how increased assumptiveness should lead to an increased value placed on intentions as excuses for wrongdoing.

Let’s say intentions exist as an abstraction for a bunch of mental processes, related to planning and the predictions of the outcome of one’s own actions. For example, when someone plans to do something, the person has the “intention” of doing it. Or (reusing the example from Your blog), “author intent” as the set of experiences, thoughts, emotions etc. the author is trying to provoke on the reader. In practice that’s really close to what most use the word “intention” for.

But that’s all internal to someone’s mind. Only the person themself sometimes know their own intentions; nobody else does. At most others can guess it, based on what the person’s words or actions.

So, for one to act based on someone else’s actions, or to say something about them, one needs to either

• create multiple, mutually exclusive guesses about the other’s intentions, and carefully weight the odds of each being true; or
• act as if they knew the other’s intentions.

Your typical person won’t do the former. But they’ll do the later — and the later is what we call “to assume”, it’s to take what one doesn’t know as if one did.

So there’s where assumptiveness kicks in; for most people, it’s what even enables them to talk about intentions. Without assumptiveness, the value of intentions is the same of a ghost, it’s zero.

Granted, someone’s guesses might be more or less accurate depending on how much the person guessing knows the person they’re guessing the intentions off. But when you’re dealing with vulture capitalists across the globe, one knows as much about the person as one knows future lotteries, practically nothing. They’re a stranger, but they’re still talking carefully crafted words about their own intentions, and what they talk about their intentions is the only actual piece of info you have to guide your guess them. With the wrongdoings becoming more of a “no, I didn’t have the intention! My intentions was another!”

The result is that you have a bunch of bourgeois people likely bullshitting about their intentions, and people eating it for breakfast.

Pronouns fixed! (I hope. Let me know if I fucked it up. Also, just to be sure: You’re okay with indeterminate “you” being still in minuscules, right? As in, only capitalising it for the personal pronoun?)

I don’t have data to decide between my hypothesis (biological phenomenon) versus Yours (meme). And it’s possible it’s both things at the same time. So I think I’ll roll with the idea of it being a meme.

Perhaps what the bourgeoisie is selecting for isn’t intentionalism itself, but “assumptiveness”? I’ve been noticing people are becoming increasingly eager to voice certainty based on little to nothing; “what’s inside someone else’s head” is just a consequence of that. For the bourgeoisie, this would be useful for a lot more things, for example it makes people more vulnerable against advertisement.

On USA, another factor is false consciousness. (I know You aren’t Marxist, but I think the concept is useful to Anarchists too.) The United-Statian population sees itself as part of the “ruling caste”, as opposed to “the brown people” (…like me), and in the process they subject themselves even more to the actual ruling elites there.

There’s a lot in Your article I agree with. A lot. I could nitpick some of the middle layers, but the conclusion is the same — we should simply disregard intentions, when judging the morality of the actions of someone (incl. ourselves).

Specially the 7th layer — what You said there is something that has been living in my mind for a long time, but I was never able to phrase it properly.

About the 8th layer: the bourgeoisie does love to exploit this problem when it helps them to get less blame, since it’s impossible to prove someone doesn’t have good intentions. But I don’t think they created it, I think the problem is older even than our own species, and it comes from developing a theory of mind.

Thank You for sharing it!

When the topic of AI submissions flooding open source projects pops up, my immediate reaction is to think "see, this is why you disregard intentions". Because I genuinely believe a lot of the people submitting this slop are trying to help the project, even if in reality they’re harming it, by wasting the maintainers’ time with their crap.They cause harm and deserve to be treated as a source of harm, simple as.

And while most projects could/should use more money, I don’t think that’s the solution; it allows the devs to handle more workload, sure, but the goal should be to reduce it. I think this will be eventually done through pre-sorting contributors: a cathedral for the outsiders, but a bazaar for the insiders.

I had to dig through their annual report to find it:

Server products and cloud services revenue growth

Revenue from Server products and cloud services, including Azure and other cloud services; SQL Server, Windows Server, Visual Studio, System Center, and related Client Access Licenses (“CALs”); and Nuance and GitHub

So it includes Windows Server, but it’s way more than just that.

Hot takes are good when they’re like a campfire: other people gather around and start talking. This, though, is more like lighting a pile of used toilet paper on fire.

With the shit in the TP being false equivalence. It compares two situations (AI usage vs. the usage of other tools) as if they were the same for the sake of artistic credibility, when they obviously are not.

I saw in a recent Youtube video that between web services and AI, Windows licencing is only about 10% of Microslop’s business.

That’s correct. Here’s some data on Microsoft’s revenue:

40%     Server Products and Cloud Services
22%     Office Products and Cloud Services
10%     Windows
 9%     Gaming
 7%     LinkedIn
 5%     Search and News Advertising

IDK if that number is true, but it sure would explain how much they’ve put into user experience.

It does but it’s really short-sighted from MS’s part. Sure, Windows might be only 10% of its business, but the other 90% heavily rely on it. Or rather on Windows being a monopoly on desktop OSes; without that people Windows servers, Office and MS “cloud services” (basically: we shit on your computer so much you need to use ours) wouldn’t see the light of the day.

At this rate I’m calling dibs on your nickname 🤣

Fuck! I misread you. Yes, you’re right, Tim Sweeney is supporting CSAM.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, undeserved crankiness, and defensiveness; I thought you were claiming I was the one doing it. That was my bad. (In my own defence, someone already did it.)

Now, giving you a proper answer: yeah, Epic is better sent down the forgetting hole. And I hope Sweeney gets haunted by his own words for years and years to come.

Nobody here is supporting CSAM. Learn to read, dammit.

Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite

No, it does not. Stop being a liar.

Or, even better: do yourself a favour and go offline. Permanently. There’s already enough muppets like you: assumptive pieces of shit lacking basic reading comprehension, but still eager to screech at others — not because of what the others actually said, but because of what they assumed over it. You’re dead weight in any serious discussion, probably in some unserious ones too, and odds are you know it.

Also, I’m not wasting my time further with you, go be functionally illiterate elsewhere.

I wish I was as composed as you. You’re still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth:

• first they lie I was saying there were no victims;
• then they backpedal and say “It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal.”;
• then they backpedal again and say what boils down to “talking about morals bad! Also I’ll talk about MY morals. I don’t see moral difference when people are harmed and when they’re not” (inb4 I’m abridging it)

All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.

The Switch is definitely the last of their console I buy for the foreseeable future.

I’m glad the last Nintendo console I had was the SNES. Everything else was emulated.

But good news for Nintendo, I stopped pirating their games, they’re mostly junk nowadays. (I pirated PalWorld and I’m considering to buy it.)

Tim EpicFail.

That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.

Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content.

There ARE victims, lots of them.

You’re only rewording what I said in the third paragraph, while implying I said the opposite. And bullshitting/assuming/lying I didn’t read the text. (I did.)

Learn to read dammit. I’m saying this shit Grok is doing is harmful, and that people ITT arguing “is this CSAM?” are missing the bloody point.

Is this clear now?

IMO commenters here discussing the definition of CSAM are missing the point. Definitions are working tools; it’s fine to change them as you need. The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.

Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted, because it violates the person’s rights over their own body — including its image. Plus it’s ripe material for harassment.

This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated, and the sexual acts being depicted did not happen. Like the sort of thing Grok is able to generate. This is what Timothy Sweeney (as usual, completely detached from reality) is missing.

And it applies to children and adults. The only difference is that adults can still consent to have their image shared as porn; children cannot. As such, porn depicting children will be always non-consensual, thus always victimising the children in question.

Now, someone else mentioned Bart’s dick appears in the Simpsons movie. The key difference is that Bart is not a child, it is not even a person to begin with, it is a fictional character. There’s no victim.

EDIT: I’m going to abridge what I said above, in a way that even my dog would understand:

What Grok is doing is harmful, there are victims of that, regardless of some “ackshyually this is not CSAM lol lmao”. And yet you guys keep babbling about definitions?

Everything else I said here was contextualising and detailing the above.

Is this clear now? Or will I get yet another lying piece of shit (like @[email protected]) going out of their way to misinterpret what I said?

(I don’t even have a dog.)

When “the right thing to do” enters in conflict with “what maximises profits”, businesses almost always pick the later.

What makes this decision particularly stark is the response from other tech giants. The same censorship notice was sent to Apple and Google, as the game has been available on their Russian mobile stores since 2020. Both companies reportedly ignored the request, leaving Flick Solitaire available for download.

It’s a matter of relative power.

I did because my older computer was a potato, so it was kind of obvious the game took a bit too long to install.

From the top of my mind, Europa Universalis 4. Even the base game takes ages to install, and I don’t think it’s just the Linux version.

Incidentally, I checked it in FitGirl’s site, found EU5 instead, and she’s complaining about the exact same thing:

Installation takes 5-12 minutes (depending on your system, mostly on your drive speed – the game has more than 49000 small files, Paradox never learn from their mistakes)

Bingo. And this means they’re effectively choosing who their games are for. And then complaining the ones they didn’t choose decided to pirate it.

So you’re saying that all games should install like this?

Given other people addressed the same point, but unlike you they aren’t disingenuously assuming words into my mouth, I think it’s pretty safe to block you as dead weight.

I’m aware that compression rates are a trade-off between space and processing time, and that there’s some balance to be had. However, I don’t see this balance from plenty commercial games; what I see instead is disregard.

Here’s a made up example. Suppose you have a choice between compressing a game:

• to 10 GiB, and it takes 2min to unpack it in a certain machine
• to 3 GiB, and it takes 8min to unpack it in a certain machine

FitGirl will consistently pick the later option. And it would be fine if devs picked the former, or a middle ground… but they don’t. Instead, often you get a 10 GiB file that takes 10 min to unpack, the worst of both worlds.

And it isn’t just a matter of the compression algorithm. The developers also have the freedom to choose how they split files; but they often create 9001 files the size of an ant, that is going to hurt decompression times. (Paradox Interactive, I’m looking at you.)

Tagging @[email protected], as it addresses what they said too.

Fair point. I guess it would be more accurate to say “development studios” (you know, the organisation… including the bloody boss) instead of “game devs”.

You’re missing the point. The other user is highlighting why your typical player would go with those repacks. And, well, your typical player doesn’t use Linux (…yet - Microsoft is fixing this real fast.)

(I typically use johncena141, but I don’t recall having problems with FitGirl.)

Note plenty FitGirl repacks are lossless; as in, she isn’t taking less important files out of the game, she’s compressing it better. 90GB→35GB seems accurate; you often see ~1/3 of the original size, like this. And it shows plenty game devs

1. do an extremely bad job at basic tasks like compression.
2. give no flying fucks about players, who might have really slow connections.

And then those same developers get amazed at the fact FitGirl is so popular. “Maybe we’re doing something wrong? …nah.”

It’s possible. For example, the quality assurance department finds 9001 critical bugs, but whoever is in charge says “ship it lol” regardless of those bugs. In fact I think this might be the problem with CS2, I wouldn’t be surprised if Paradox was the one doing the QA for Colossal Order.

Still a bad QA matter, though. And it’ll get worse.

Relevant to note the publisher (Paradox Interactive) is also known for extremely poor in-house QA. Both game and DLC releases are known to be extremely buggy.

[Hallikainen] We’re confident that the franchise will continue to thrive under Paradox’s leadership

That’s corpo speech for “we lost the franchise, PI has it under its direct control now”. Note Iceflake Studios is “part of Paradox Interactive”.

The series is dead. Nothing to see here. Move on, gentle folks.

Yup, that’s part of the deal: cat shit is preferable over elephant shit. The other part is that cat shit is still shit, and it’s still undesirable.

Now look at the discussion in this thread. Gabe Newell is cat shit; some comments are trying to defend him as not shit, some trying to pretend his behaviour is exactly as bad as elephant shit (your typical billionaire). Between a billionaire like Newell spending money on a research yacht versus one like Musk fuelling some random dictatorship, Newell is preferable. And he’s still undesirable as any of those money-hoarding psychopaths.

Elephant shit for you then :)
(just kidding.)

Most comments ITT boil down to two things:

• “cat shit is shit, so it’s the same as elephant shit”
• “cat shit is not the same as elephant shit, so it’s not shit”

TL;DW: execs assume monopoly from market dominance, without taking into account other stores could contest said market dominance.

I’m not the only one, either. I think the only people left are those who see Nintendo as video-game iPhones and autopilot into a purchase, and the diehards who have dedicated Amiibo rooms.

And even those might suffer some causalities, depending on how things go:

• the ones treating games like luxury goods are a bit too susceptible towards popular attitude. If Nintendo goes from “wow, you got a Nintendo!” to “you got a Nintendo? Cringe. Even Twilight is a better love story.”, they’ll be quick to ditch it too.
• diehard fans tolerate more abuse than reasonable fans, but that amount if not infinite. And Nintendo has been rather abusive when it comes to the Switch 2, including remote bricking it for spurious reasons.

I’m checking the steam reviews, apparently it wasn’t the only factor; players are complaining even the so-called 1.0 version still feels like a beta.

If mods aren’t games, then gravity doesn’t work on Fridays. Dumb arbitrary restrictions being pulled out of nowhere.

Some things never end. For example, CEOs’ propensity towards dishonesty / idiocy / disingenuousness. Or my disdain towards straw men, I hope it outlives me, like a meme.

EDIT: my point is, that those CEOs are consistently distorting what SKG is about: from “don’t design games to be unplayable once support ends” (fairly reasonable) into “u think gaems shuld live 4ever lol but ackshyually nuffin does lmao XD”. This is a fucking straw man; it’s the bottom of the barrel when it comes to irrationality.

And they’re doing it to discourage people from supporting SKG. And in this specific case what the article is calling “vibing” is just part of a diversion tactic - to avoid having people calling him out for his dishonesty / idiocy / disingenuousness. Say something filthy, then distract the audience with mental masturbation, it works!