shooly
Seems like a generic platformer priced at €30, but don't worry! You can also buy skins for a couple extra €.
--
Looking at another one: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2252143/The_Mageseeker_A_...
An action RPG where you can buy extra spells for your character as a DLC...
--
Hmm, no idea how their business model didn't work out.
One thing that naysayers have going on for them is the fact that those companies indeed aren't making profit right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikm5lP0zsi0
Yeah... no. Not at all. It's just classic AI slop.
If your company managed to find an executive to pay for your trash - fine, this literally happens all the time, every day and happened before AI too - B2B software is widely known to be lowest quality software available. Your and your colleagues' job is to produce as much code as possible, in the shortest timeframe possible for the lowest possible price. In that context it's no wonder you all happily use AI, you work on slop, so a machine allowing you to produce even more slop even faster is a godsend.
It's much more difficult to get people to use your software if they don't have an idiot manager above them forcing them to use it or when there's real market competition.
There is no reason why gamers should be OK with use of AI to make games - AI doesn't solve any problems currently haunting the industry, it only exacerbates existing problems. If people were suddenly OK with AI in games, games won't get better - they will get even worse.
> significantly lower effort than AAA games
I think you meant lower budget.
Toxic positivity is what's abusive and ignorant.
If you're not even familiar with how LLMs work, perhaps you should restrain yourself from confidently talking about this topic until you educate yourself. You're only spreading misinformation.
> AGI is defined by the practical outcomes, not by the way the outcomes are achieved
That for sure would be a very convenient definition, especially for all those AI labs trying to convince investors that they achieved AGI. Unfortunately everyone knows, that knowing the right answer isn't the same as knowing where that answer came from.
We do know, that the ceiling is below AGI. And it's not a matter of opinion - LLMs can not achieve AGI due to their design. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.
And it doesn't matter how many or how severe bugs they can find, because it's not about what they produce, but how they produce it.
It literally can (https://openai.com/our-structure/):
"Through special voting and governance rights held solely by the OpenAI Foundation, the OpenAI Foundation appoints all members of the board of directors of OpenAI Group and can replace directors at any time."
--
> Mozilla Corp is fully owned by Mozilla Foundation
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2021/a...
~85% of Mozilla Corp's revenue comes from "search partnerships, subscriptions and advertising revenue" a.k.a. from Google - not from Mozilla's own products.
Mozilla Corp is in practice owned by Google.
--
> Mozilla Corp answers to Mozilla Foundation only
In 2020 Mozilla laid off 250 employees[0] and then gave its CEO a $2.5 million USD pay increase[1]. Next year the CEO got another pay increase of $1.3 million USD[2].
They sure sound like a very nice Foundation to answer to - not very bothered by laying people off to give the CEO a pay increase or by losing market share for 10 years straight. Again, how are they different from other companies?
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21363424/mozilla-layoffs-...
[1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-990...
[2] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990...
--
> Edge people, Chrome people have been living in a fairytale
Someone's living in a fairytale, but I don't think it's Chrome users.
Firefox is also free.
It is so annoying to see this idiotic mantra being repeated every single time a thread like this pops up. It's simply not true. There is no conspiracy, people aren't being manipulated by Big Tech to like Chromium-based browsers more. Those browsers are simply better and that's it. That's really all there is to it.
But at least with Brave, the initial funding information was made public, so there's already more information available to users in comparison with Mozilla. Mozilla just said: "there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners" - that could mean literally anyone.
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
... but that's what you said about Windows:
> Windows found itself in a downturn the last few years
> I live in Windows Town, it's not perfect, no city is
> [...] avoid the "neighborhoods" that suck
Really the original comment just reads like you wanted to rant about Apple users and MacOS and that's it. You didn't really give any strong arguments for why Windows is better than MacOS - and "it's not perfect" is not an argument when in the same post you say the exact same about your preferred OS.
It's impossible for every idea to be a hit. Liquid Glass was a miss and they backtracked on some changes and fixed some issues that people were vocal about.
According to Wikipedia[1] the history of string formatting goes back to 1950s. Also, basically every major programming language these days implements it in some form.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printf
> senior python developers > great for gatekeeping and job security
Ah, okay, it's just a troll.
Also, why is text selection disabled?
Also, please don't hijack the scroll to make it "smooth", I know it's not smooth on Macs by default, that's why lots of people use e.g. `Mos`, so now it's double smoothed.
https://github.com/hober/tangler/blob/main/index.html
Does this look like it was written by a person who has "vastly more expertise"? This was made by the Chair of HTML Working Group and President of ECMA. It's an awful, unreadable mess. How is that person supposed to lead and shape the future of the Web?
The myth that people at W3C and ECMA are somehow god-tier engineers and designers is just not true at all and it's been proven many, many times. They are completely disconnected from reality and don't build modern apps at all, how are they supposed to know how to do it well? It's why we have TypeScript, why SASS/SCSS was popular, why we need component libraries to add basic fucking features to HTML or why half of browser APIs are abstracted away into JavaScript libraries by people who got frustrated one too many times.
> already cover almost every use-case one can think of
They literally don't, if they did we wouldn't have to build extra stuff on top - no one wants to do all this abstraction work, but there isn't any other way.
If you wanted to build a stupid autocomplete dropdown in native HTML, you literally just can't. You HAVE to use JavaScript. This is a pattern used on MANY websites today, understood and liked by users and it's still impossible to implement natively.
Also competing business interests from Apple, Google and Mozilla make it so even if something IS a standard, it's not actually implemented the same way in all browsers or is not implemented at all.
That's not the case for 99.9% of users.
> if one allows its JS to run
JS is enabled by default in every major browser. It's the _standard_, _typical_ way to browse the web.
> The typical React app also will use some "components" thingy, instead of standard HTML form elements
Components only exist in JS, not in the DOM. In DOM, they show up as regular HTML input elements.
> It is just too tempting for them to use some component "someone else already made"
HTML is also something "someone else already made".
Slow connections are not a problem, because React is ~40KB and Preact is ~3KB. If downloading 3KB is too much for your network, it's not the fault of React, JavaScript or any web developer that you're gonna miss out. Also, server-rendered HTML would NOT be smaller than 3kB - in fact it would require MUCH more bandwidth since server-rendered HTML can't be cached as easily, so every page will re-transfer the exact same HTML for shared things like navigation bars, footers, etc.!
Accessibility isn't any issue either, this is a ridiculous argument to even try to make, accessibility tools use HTML and are fully aware of the existence of JavaScript - React doesn't magically bypass HTML to display something on the page.
> everyone has JavaScript disabled whilst your JavaScript is downloading
Everyone has HTML disabled whilst your HTML is downloading.
That's why most client-side routing libraries support lazy loading. You don't have to load the entire application at once, only the parts you need.
> So you need to download the app, maybe have that app perform some fetch requests
That's... completely unrelated to React, though? Parent comment claimed that React is slow and HTMX fast - does HTMX make fetches magically faster or what?