1: Roblox hosts your multiplayer gameservers in its pops for free, with a generous amount of free persistent storage and memory
1.a: Roblox handles scaling and SRE work for you for free - you're not going to be able to support millions of concurrent users yourself at that price point
2: when people buy robux on their phone the app store takes 20-30% of the dollar - but the player still gets 1 robux for each penny.
2.a: your game immediately is playable on iOS, android, PC, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation, questvr, etc etc - no fees for you to get this distribution.
3: Roblox pays out creator rewards - a redistribution of revenue - to experiences that reengage dormant users or are played by paying users even if your game itself has no purchasable items.
Roblox's economic model has a redistributive nature that isn't common in other economies. If you're just looking at the devex rate and not building on the platform you wouldn't immediately appreciate it.
Roblox games are all multiplayer - you get a game server running in their POPs and a generous amount of persistent storage and memory. How is that not a developer operational cost?
Creators don't have to pay any hosting - Roblox will serve their content even if a game doesnt monetize their users for free.
The way this economical is thru the redistribution of games that do monetize their users
| then they went back and said no, you need to remove those safeguards to which Anthropic is (rightly so) saying no.
So one thing to call out here is that the assumption that DoW is working on specifically these use cases is not bullet proof. They simply may not want to share with anthropic exactly what they are working on for natsec issues. /we can't tell you/ could violate the terms.
It is also dumb that DoW accepted these terms in the first place.
What a failure as a species that parents are not trusted or believed to be capable of raising their children. Therefore let's build out the panopticon.
The actions of the government should always be publicly observable. This is what keeps it accountable. The fear that a person might be unfairly treated due to a long past indiscretion does not outweigh the public's right to observe and hold the government to account.
Alternatively consider that you are assuming the worst behavior of the public and the best behavior of the government if you support this and it should be obvious the dangerous position this creates.
The only logical end of this is that they should ban 3d printers and cnc mills to unlicensed individuals. Which, is probably the goal. Things like 3d printers, drones, GPUs, general purpose computers, vpns, encryption, talking to people in private and the like are far too dangerous for the citizenry to be allowed to do without appropriate oversight and approval.
Id agree if it were a VP of Eng (total mess) or Product (should know and be bought in on the dev process) but this is a VP of sales. Depending on the company they can be much more operational and I would just assume that they asked the individual due to familiarity or happenstance and didn't understand the level of effort to deliver.
Quickly understanding the urgency/importance of the ask while communicating the impact it is having on the deliverable is the right call. Good business people work like this all the time. Seeing the discussion is a good learning opportunity for a junior.
| My personal take is that folks involved with the change severely underestimated the societal impact that it had. The fact that proper build support is non-existent to this day shows that agents are not a priority. That's okay if it isn't a priority, but when it was communicated with Mockito I perceived it as "Mockito is holding the JVM ecosystem back by using dynamic attachment, please switch immediately and figure it out on your own".
Id like to hear the platform team's perspective on this. As it stands, it is a pretty sad state of affairs that such a prominent library in the ecosystem was made out to be the scapegoat for the adoption of a platform change. It is not a healthy thing to treat the library maintainer community like this.
J2ME was an alphabet soup of incompatible implementations stuck somewhere between Java 1.2 and 1.3. Getting code to run across device manufacturers was a huge engineering burden. In fact doing something like JetPack for that world would be technically impossible.
If Sun was offering some technically relevant foundation for the smartphone era, it would have been able to actually have some adoption. They were starting from a leading position (obviously - see blackberry or Nokia), and in the space of 3 to 4 years they completely disappeared.
| Android being Google's .NET, after Google being sued by coming up with Google's J++, Android Java dialect.
The Oracle v Google was specifically over copyright infringement concerning the Java APIs used in Android's original implementation (Dalvik/ART), not about creating a "J++" dialect.
Android never ran a JVM on mobile because it cannot be optimized for resource constrained devices a solution like DalvikVM was necessary. If you want to level critiques about creating fragmented dialects of Java I would recommend starting with J2ME. The only nice thing I can say about J2ME is at least it died.
The Android ecosystem was far too mature for Fuchsia/Dart to be successful without a very compelling interop story that was never produced.
As a technology Kotlin met Android's platform and community needs. Advocacy and politicking played a minimal, if any, role.
That ship sailed decades ago. Too much software and middleware expects GET to not have a body and who knows how itll break when you start sending one. Obviously you can do it today and it might work and then randomly break when the code between client and server changes.
Adding a new http method is the only way to support something like this safely. If something in between doesn't know what to do with QUERY it can just respond with a 501.
Fun fact - GET and HEAD are the only required methods one needs to implement to be an http server. It is a pretty low bar :)
The author of the article obviously didn't read the paper.
The paper's finding focuses on goal adjustment/flexibility being a functional response when encountering difficulty meeting a goal. Disengagement had correlations with impairment. Which probably tracks most people's life experience.
| This interpretation aligns with our finding that dispositional flex-
ibility, rather than more proximal disengagement or reengagement,
more strongly predicts functioning. Notably, we observed a positive
association between disengagement and impairment. Although this
could reflect a ‘dark side’ of disengagement—where letting go of goals
offers short-term relief but risks longer-term purposelessness and
dysfunction11—this pattern was not evident in longitudinal or experi-
mental studies. An alternative explanation is that the association is
bidirectional, with impairment potentially prompting disengagement
as a reactive strategy. Given these complexities, we advice caution in
interpreting this finding and highlight the need for further research.
Yeah you're right, Coinbase is definitely insecure as evidenced by this.
The fact that lax security has never caused them to loose billions of dollars of customer funds is just luck and paper covering passwords on a whiteboard.
Coinbase didn't halt trading or withdrawals during the Bitfinex hack.
Somehow I think Nathaniel Popper would have been able to put that fact directly in his NYT article instead of a throw away tweet if there was a material impact. Heck he wasted a paragraph quoting one of Coinbase's board of directors on the risks of unregulated exchanges like bitfinex versus Coinbase.
That's a pretty big stretch of definitions. Whatever operations Coinbase had with Bitfinex were either to support market making activity or as a service for Coinbase's institutional customers to directly access bitfinex via their platform.
As I said, they have never lost customer funds in their custody.
Not saying it is untrue, but it is definitely true that Coinbase has never lost customer funds while operating in an environment with 0 safety nets and being one of the most lucrative targets.
This leak over customer data suggests that they should treat that with as much obsession as they do with their private keys.