jeppester

Xbox is ahead of Sony on this path. Their studios often, if not most of the time, release physical games that require a full download to play.

I doubt that they will go back to where Sony are now.

I don't disagree that this device is very likely too expensive to sell well.

But! The price is not insulting. You can built a slightly faster PC for a little less, but that PC would be ~10 times larger, it would be louder, it would lack features like HDMI-CEC and good wifi/bluetooth. It really wouldn't compare for living room usage.

In order to get anywhere near the size of the Steam Machine, you'd have to exceed its costs.

Yesterday Claude wanted to add a position column to what is a slightly extended many-many relation table. It did this to "make ordering stable".

An average enterprise developer would never add bloat like that up-front, unless if the ability to change the order was a requirement.

Obviously a stable order can be easily derived from the ID or a creation time (if available).

Setting a position however requires extra steps to ensure the integrity of the sequence.

I see things like that all the time, and it's always stuff that grows the code base and adds unnecessary complexity.

I'm sure there are at least two in the world

Watching movies on OLED (or at least on this particular OLED) looks crap, because if you turn motion interpolation OFF, the image looks stuttery, apparently due to OLEDs ultra-low response time, which produces zero fading between adjacent frames. (By the way, why didn't this happen with 35mm movie projectors? They couldn't blend adjacent frames either, because they are just shining light through individual pictures on a sheet of celluloid, yet I don't remember seeing this kind of stutter in movie theatres back in the day!) And turning motion interpolation up a notch already produces the well-known soap opera effect. No, thanks.

My guess would be that it's not so much a difference between projectors and OLEDs as it is a difference between old movies and new movies.

Personally I think that slow pixels is the wrong way to "fix" poor motion blur in movies.

How are the rules broken? How does Temu fix then?

We have rules that should prevent companies from selling broken and dangerous crap. Should I not be upset that Temu ignores those rules deliberately and floods the EU with exactly that?

If it was that simple, surely someone would undercut all the retailers that follow the rules - while also following the rules.

Temu is just deliberately ignoring any rules.

The rules that make someone responsible for when a product is dangerous or broken.

How does that not add any value?

Temu is free to take the same responsibility, but they don't.

That's the thing with these fines. 19/20 times they make a lot of sense. But even so, there will be people saying "but why not this other org" to which the answer is "Yes! Hand out more fines", not "it's unfair, so just let everyone break the law".

If you played a boardgame, wouldn't you be upset if someone won the game easily, because they decided to just break all the rules?

This leaves out the part where you ask the original developer: "Why does this thing do that?"

What we call “consciousness” is merely a product of evolution, and also a tool shaped by evolution

When such a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it inevitably generates the concept of “I” as a way to simplify the processing of overwhelming information.

I don't see how this is different from someone saying that a concoction of random ingredients will turn into a magic potion.

The big question is how a group of cells (or potentially something else) becomes sentient. Accepting "because it would be useful" as valid explanation would be the same as accepting Darwinism as a religion rather than science.

That is something we'll need to figure out. Just because it requires some work to figure out where to draw the line, it doesn't make it wrong to draw one.

Banks are generally required to check that their customers are not laundering money. In a lot of countries it's illegal to buy or sell goods that you know are very likely stolen.

It don't think it's outrageous to expect more action from Cloudflare when they must know that their service is used for protecting criminal sites.

Relatedly I'd want the betting companies whose ads are shown on these illegal pages to have some amount of responsibility for where their ads are shown, and the same goes for well-renowned websites that show clearly deceiving ads.

Why though? Why is it unreasonable to expect a company to have some level of responsibility for serving clients that are using their platform for illegal activity?

It the same thing with social media and moderation. We don't have to let them off the hook just because doing the right thing would make them unprofitable.

I use it a lot with Claude Code.

It lacks a lot of features, but IMO feels less "busy" than the terminal version, which I like.

Very recently Zed also gained support for parallel sessions, which is nice. In general it's very obvious that a lot of effort goes into improving it, and it gets better with every release.

I love the search in zed. If it was up to me it would open a new tab on every search rather than reusing the same tab, so that I didn't have to redo past searches.

The multibuffer result is so nice for "hands-on" search and replace.

A more logical explanation would be that there are different opinions and those who complain are usually louder.

With the battery no longer a concern, more people will opt to buy used phones rather than cheap new phones.

Som even if most people change phone before the battery gets really bad (I doubt that this is really the case), the end result will still be that fewer new phones will be purchased.

Now we just need a law that requires hardware makers unlock their devices when they stop providing updates.

The guesswork lies in the "how to poke the black box in the right way", not in the code itself.

I always hated SEO because it was not an exact science - like programming was.

Too bad we've now managed to turn programming into the same annoying guesswork.

I totally agree, except for the last part where you attack a straw man.

I'm not talking about the view from my front porch, I'm talking about solar panels in nearly every direction, like a sort of barrier, choking the town.

As mentioned we do have solar panels in some directions, we just don't want them everywhere.

Also there's no dichotomy here, it's not a choice between choking small towns and saving the planet vs. the opposite.

I'm arguing that we should first and foremost place solar panels where people already do not want to live for various reasons. The incentives we've created so far have not been good at that.

Update: I realise that I misread the first part of your comment. The agriculture that the panels are replacing is probably what you would call monoculture. It would however seem that the monoculture you picture looks very different from what we have in Denmark. If you think about endless "field deserts" that's not what it is. That is also why people like to live here.

The fields that the solar farms are replacing were generating food for everyone, including those who live in the cities.

1-2 days per year the whole town has a smell of manure.

That's is an externality we accepted when we moved here, so we do not complain that the fields need to produce food.

Also, you are implying that we have not accepted any solar panels, which is wrong. We have plenty in the near area. We just don't want all the fields surrounding the town to be plastered with panels.

It seems as though you are antagonizing a certain imaginary group of people that I do not belong to, just because I chose to live in the country side.

There was a reason I used the phrasing "green surroundings", I'm well aware that it's not "nature" in the sense of being untouched by humans. There are hardly any such places in Denmark.

Nevertheless people live here because they like these surroundings, it doesn't make any sense that they should "pay" for living here by having those surroundings taken away.

Whether or not it's feasible to have people living in the country side is a whole other discussion, which I do not think can be boiled down to city = good, countryside = bad.

Another related discussion is what is the natural habitat for a human being, at this point in time a slight majority of humans might live in larger cities, but that is historically a new development. I don't have the answer here, but my guess would be that a small town in the country side is more similar to the environments humans have historically lived and evolved in.

Thank you for bringing this up. It's not something I've thought of as a problem before.

It does in fact - based on my 5 minutes of research - seem that it can be an important factor, especially if the panels are placed within "splash range" of the road.

When I mention solar panels near motorways I'm not picturing them right next to the road, I'm thinking of larger strips, perhaps 30-100 meters from the road and in areas that have already become unattractive due to noise pollution. There are many such areas.

I think the main issue with using them is that there are many land owners involved. It's easier to get fewer land owners to commit larger fields, than many land owners to commit small strips. But that is IMO a solvable problem, not a good reason for placing the panels next to where people like to live.

I live in a small Danish town that would have very likely been surrounded by solar panels by now if we had not put up a fight.

The problem is that these projects are pitched to land owners, to be placed in areas they can't see from their own windows. Those who live nearby are not involved until the approval is a formality (or presented as such). Often times the investors will also pay certain house owners for their silence, making the locals suspicious of each other.

They do this because obviously no one likes someone from the outside to take away the green* surroundings that are a big part of why people live there - and in the process lowering the value of everyone's houses.

I can't comprehend why someone would think that this was a good way of rolling out solar.

I agree that we are going to need solar as part of the mix. It would just be much better to start with the locations where people do NOT want to live, for instance next to motorways.

Luckily I think we are slowly moving in that direction due to all the resistance.

*I'm well aware that fields are heavy industry, but they are plants and rarely 2,5 meters tall.

It's a distribution of Wine with some extra stuff added, importantly DXVK (directx => vulkan layer) and a lot of game specific workarounds.

At this rate it will be a matter of time before a "Github is up" parody site reaches the top of HN

I have a tuxedo machine myself for that reason.

The problem is that I can't get one in a store. It's a product that is only available to those in the know.

In the ideal situation a lay-person would be in a store, and there would be two versions of the same machine, one with ads on the lock screen, one without.

The only way this get better is if the user gets to choose between an OS with ads, lock-in, telemetry etc. and then one with none of that.

As it is now, buying a laptop in a store is a "pick your poison" situation.

Okay? How will this actually change anything?

It's my understanding that lots of parents use these numbers as guidance. I will make my own decisions about what my child can play, but the ratings and all the labels makes it much much easier to make an informed decision.

For the parents that are not into gaming, being able to just go by these numbers is much better than having no such guidance.

Does anyone do outside of fundamentalist parents who wouldn't let kids play most video games anyways?

Yes. In fact I believe they help breaking down the fundamentalism by making it so clear that gaming is not inherently bad or good for your child. It all depends on the content.