I keep mine in an ever growing wishlist, which I never get back to, but it stops me from feeling like I forgot anything.

I’ve given up. I’m going to just keep adding to wishlist and nibble on a new one every now and then.

No, it’s another company, but I know nothing about them.

This is fine. I don’t mind a diversity of opinion here. I agree that Proton is a stop-gap solution, and that most older games are going to need it, and newer AAA games are not going to support Linux all of a sudden.

However, I do think that we should continue to encourage developers to create native builds when they can. Indie devs tend to do this and it’s a pretty great experience. Not only that, it often enables playing on unusual devices such as SBCs. For example, UFO 50 was made in Gamemaker, which offers native Linux builds, and it’s already on Portmaster. You basically can’t do that with Proton.

My problem is calling people who want Linux native games misguided or wrong. I really don’t think that’s helpful.

I wish he wouldn’t repeat the idea that Proton is acceptable to game devs and Linux users shouldn’t demand native games. I’m much closer to Nick’s (from Linux Experiment) idea: That these games work as long as a company like Valve pays for Proton. The day Valve stops is the day these Proton games start to rot. For archival, for our own history, and for actual games on Linux, we should want Linux native games.

The thing is, the “no tux no bucks” crowd doesn’t advocate for other people to say the same. The proton crowd is actively telling the “no tux no bucks” people to shut up, and it’s not very nice. We need a multitude of views to succeed in the long term as a community.

Oh wow this is Bevy and Rust?! RIP to everyone saying no “real” games are made in Rust.

Bespoke

Yet another reason PC is superior.

Bit of both. Actually I think ARM the ISA overall is in good (even great!) shape, but it’s the GPU and other SoC functions which cause the most headaches.

Qualcomm had an exclusivity deal with Microsoft which has expired. I think that’s what is causing them to put relevant code in mainline.

Snapdragon hasn’t had mainline kernel support and has always been a pain to set up, enough so that nobody does it. This is using a snapdragon processor. Those are also fairly powerful.

Err that name sounds a bit unfortunate.

Man these guys should try putting more effort into making the game rather than harrassing their employees.

My main issue with it is that everyone is using it to push their own narrative about why the game failed. People doing the “It’s a woke game, so it went broke”, or “it’s a saturated market”, or whatever. These are just reactions, not data driven analyses.

Where were you for Theranos mate?

10 deadliest animals to humans

Was watching a YT video against this idea. Basically the occupancy is quite low per dollar, and generally there’s not much expertise in building them. This means the city/state is tied to one company which can ream them price-wise. If you need the occupancy, get a train.

There’s no evidence that self driving can be better. It’s purely faith.

Drivers are not horrible, rather horrible drivers can get a license. Treating cars as a right makes that worse. Self driving makes that worse.

I conflated two points. Driver hits something due to sudden braking = they are liable.

Driver hit from behind at high speed = dangerous for occupants. Either way no one asked the driver.

I think it’s worth thinking about this in a technical sense, not just in a political or capitalist sense: Yes, car companies want self driving cars, but self driving cars are immensely dangerous, and there’s no evidence that self driving cars will make roads safer. As such, legislation should be pushing very hard to stop self driving cars.

Also, the same technology used for self driving is used for AEB. This actually makes self-driving more likely, in that the car companies have to pay for all that equipment anyway, they may as well try and shoehorn in self driving. On top of this, I have no confidence that the odds of an error in the system (eg: a dirty sensor, software getting confused) is not higher than the odds of a system correctly braking when it needs to.

This means someone can get into a situation where they are:

• in a car, on a road, nothing of interest in front of them
• the software determines that there is an imminent crash
• Car brakes hard (even at 90mph), perhaps losing traction depending on road conditions
• may be hit from behind or may hit an object
• Driver is liable even though they never actually pressed the brakes.

This is unacceptable on its face. Yes, cars are dangerous, yes we need to make them safer, but we should use better policies like slower speeds, safer roads, and transitioning to smaller lighter weight cars, not this AI automation bullshit.