Just a dorky trans woman on the internet.
My other presences on the fediverse:
• @copygirl@fedi.anarchy.moe
• @copygirl@vt.social
Taming animals so you can ride them, or let them pull carriages? Building roads for vehicles? Train tracks with functional trains? Cool airships? All made obsolete with this one-kills-all glider feature! Don’t let good game design get in the way of convenience! /s
A lot of contributors of FOSS projects make small changes that aren’t copyrightable.
The real question is not what the algorithm pushes to you, but whether their moderation actually bans bigots and removes their posts. Any other instance would lose their “right” to federate with a queer-friendly instance if they didn’t do that, so why would Threads get an exception?
Isn’t “queer friendly” and “federates with Threads” an oxymoron?
ECS already makes it a hundred times easier for me to conceptualize game mechanics, modify and extend them. Giving AI the ability the ability to create data separate from systems that use them will make it much easier for it to build a game. I don’t believe for a second it will be able to write functioning object-oriented game code for example. It will likely be best if it avoided coding via a text-based language altogether, and use visual scripting or another system based on chaining logic blocks together. But that still counts as the “system” part of ECS.
There is a possibility something like this will be possible in the future, but it’s not going to be an achievement of AI, it’s largely going to be the achievement of regular developers creating a general-purpose game engine that can be used to put together a game block by block, which can be utilized by both human game designers and AI. (Likely to better effect by the former.) I can imagine Entity Component Systems will play a big part of that.
One of the biggest blockers for AI making games is going to be testing it to select for better performance. With text it’s relatively easy to see if some text an AI produced is plausible. Images are also plentiful, but that’s a lot more subjective. With both of these it would also not take a massive amount of time to add a human element. It’s quick to check if a paragraph or image looks like it is a good response to the input promt. A game, however? How long do you need to play it to see if it’s fun? At best, perhaps, you can write an AI to control a bot character to see if it’s technically playable.
I don’t want to even think about the electricity that wlll be wasted training such models.
Both banned by your instance: https://lemmy.world/instances
Indeed, it’s a neat way to visualize gravity, but that’s it. It lacks any sort of explanation of why masses appear to be pulled towards one another. (I will point to the other person in this thread saying it “explains gravity with gravity”.) This is why I think the metaphor you mentioned detracts from the original video.
I think that explains the “how” more than the “why”.
I don’t think that’s how it works and it would likely not be legal. By explicitly blocking Threads, you make a big statement about not wanting your instance’s posts to show up there. Also from a technical standpoint, I don’t think a “middle-man” instance will push posts from another instance to a third one. You’d have to explicitly scrape data that’s not available via the API. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Could you please provide some sources for that? I’d like to know more.
First of all though, there is no such thing as a “hostile fork”. Being able to fork a project, for any reason, is the entire point of open source. And to be fair, not wanting to continue working for a for-profit company for free is a very good reason.
And yeah, when you suddenly turn a FOSS project that’s been developed with the help of a bunch of contributors, into a for-profit company, without making a big fuss about it beforehand and allow the contributors and community to weigh in, then yeah, that’s a hostile takeover of sorts, at least in my opinion. Developers gotta make money, but they could’ve done that by creating a new brand instead of taking over that of a previously completely FOSS project. Forgejo is preventing that exact thing from happening by joining Codeberg (a non-profit).
There’s been a hostile takeover at Gitea and it’s now run / owned by a for-profit company. The developers forked the project under the name Forgejo and are continuing the work under a non-profit. See also: Their introduction post and a page comparing the two projects. Feel free to look up more, since I haven’t familiarized myself with the incident all that much myself. Either way though, maybe consider using Forgejo instead of Gitea.
I did decide to delete all my comments and posts on Reddit. Sure, maybe I’ve posted some helpful comments, but why support Reddit with their continued existence? Remove content, and people might move to other sites to get their information.
I also decided to keep my account. Turns out some content stayed around, because I could not see and therefore delete it in locked subreddits. So when they came back, the comments came back too, and I was able to delete them, still.
I don’t know how many years it’s been, but I also have been driving Arch for a while. I might not recommend it to absolute beginners, because you do need some patience and experience (such as how to effectively google), but honestly besides some mostly self-inflicted issues, I felt like I had it all around easier than users of other distros (and Windows, of course).
When you say “trans woman” you affirm that they are women, and trans is just an adjective. When you say “transwoman” it can imply that they are something different altogether, and TERFs have certainly used it as such. Like, I dunno, a carpark isn’t a park? That’s the first example that came to mind, anyway.
Something else to consider in place of or in addition to a build number could also be using the git commit hash of what you’re building. Though I would only use that for non-stable releases.
For example, stable versions of Zig look like 0.12.1 and then there’s in-development releases like 0.13.0-dev.351+64ef45eb0. It uses semantic versioning where the “pre-release” is dev.351, which includes an incrementing build number, and the “build metadata” is 64ef45eb0, the commit hash it was built from. The latter allows a user to quickly look up the exact commit easily and thus know exactly what they’re using.
What I’m saying is that Microsoft is, in fact, being hostile by limiting OSS builds such as Codium in the ways I’ve mentioned above. I guess that’s how they try to get people to keep using their proprietary build instead.
Version 5 of a software, device, vehicle or such isn’t necessarily better than version 4, and no official definition of the word “version” require this, either. If I may make another anology: You may pick one of 5 different versions of an outfit to wear, and even though they were labeled in the order they were made, from 1 to 5, none are inherently, objectively better than any other. In the case of UUIDs there are versions that are meant to supercede others, but also simply alternatives for different use-cases. Anyone with access to some up-to-date information can learn what each version’s purpose is.
except for visual studio code
But also:
Though I’ve been very happy about the direction .NET and C# have been going, especially the licensing.
The lenses don’t have to both be at the same distance to be fair.