I don't understand what they got basing off the Source engine. Maybe it made sense when they started 6 years ago - to allow using Hammer and such. But at this point they've made their own editor, networking, scene system... why is it still attached to a giant legacy codebase.
The main argument against it seems to be that a browser forces standards - while really the the strength of this approach is that standards will naturally evolve, rather than forced by 2-3 companies
It's amazing to me how little moderation they do for Ad content. My Instagram ads are constant crypto scams. Maybe there just isn't the same incentives to moderate companies paying to scam your users, as opposed to free users posting their political views
Yeah - there really is a opportunity now to rethink browsers as just sandboxed rendering windows using WebAssembly + WebGPU.
Could still have typical DOM rendering handled with Webassembly delivered by the web sites (ideally cached).
The challenge is though still having standards and accessibility options. That VeryGoodGraphics example allows for no text selection - and doesn't at all handle zooming.
Still though it'd be a good bottom up way for a new browser to disrupt Chrome
Blaming 'corporate greed' is a easy thing for politicians to do. It's then not their actions that are causing prices to go up.
Easy to point at things like 'record profits' of Loblaws, without looking at if their margins have changed (they haven't). If you keep the same margins and have the amount of business with inflation then of course there are 'record profits'.
Git LFS is a giant hack ontop of Git. Most game devs I know moved away from it over time (back to Perforce or SVN). It might seem okay at first - but deep into a project you'll want to rearrange/rename folders and keep history logs, and discover that Git LFS doesn't actually work like normal Git and your file history wasn't kept. Only once you start dealing with issues will you find all the weird hacks Git LFS does ontop.
I'd say Git not working well for game dev isn't a pitch that Diversion needs to make, because it's already clear to most game devs.
As a side note, it's funny to call criticism of the governments overreaching bill 'bootlicking'. If there is one boot you should be afraid of stomping on your face it's the governments
You said you 'didn't know enough about it' to defend it, not that you didn't care, and yet still can say confidently "There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this". There is such clear contradiction to that that arguing with you is definitely pointless.
By saying 'regulatory uncertainty', they are saying the uncertainty of C-18 applying to Bard. Very very clearly. It's a legal risk to them right now.
And yet you, who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it, knows for certain it wouldn't apply to Bard. Incredible
How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this - then in the same comment say you don't know enough about the law to comment on it?
If you don't understand C-18 that's fine - but then you can't confidently say that it can't apply to Bard. Seems pretty clear based on how C-18 is written that it absolutely could.
You have the ability to doublethink here to the point of arguing is likely pointless - but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill 'bootlicker's.
"if they scrape and present their content" - and you don't think this is relevant to Bard?
It's less them 'punishing' Canada, and more being uncertain how these insane linking laws will be applied to this new technology. If Bard can summarize a News article from Canada that is very relevant to C-18.
Funny to call criticism of this bill 'bootlicker sorts' - when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy
Problem with this idea is moderation - Google is not going to moderate a discussion that is happening in the side bar of your site.
What is love to see, and tried to make once, is something like this but just shows discussions about a URL from Hacker News/Reddit. Sites that are moderated and people have actual quality discussions (usually).
I tried this a long time ago (2014) with a extension project: http://www.3delement.com/?p=394
Searches for discussions and backlinks to your current URL on used. I gave the project up pretty quick but it's still something I'd love to see as a Chrome extension (though might not actually be possible now after the Reddit API changes)
This is a rule developers are just finding out now from a game getting rejected. Pretty major deal if multi-million dollar budget games like High On Life should now be banned (even worse if they don't ban it now, making the rules unclear). It should have been a public statement, with a clear change to their developer terms.
So is Valve now going to remove these games off the store? This seems like a very terrible way to handle this - they need to make clear rules and make a public statement, not just start banning apps that they sense use AI art.