Thumbnail looks like a horny cacodemon.

Nonprofit gacha. That’s a new one.

Still no.

Most soaps wish they could be as melodramatic as the rugby baby scene.

Nothing inside a video game should cost real money.

The difference between this abusive horseshit and any cheaper example is quantitative - not qualitative.

See also “ancient stone tool.”

The entire business model is criminal.

Holy shit, Pete Stacker was having a day.

Frankie Boyle has opinions.

Its reach exceeded its grasp. It’s waggly single-armed grasp.

That card launched the same year as Trespasser.

That said, apparently the technique was one of those comically early 1970s innovations, introduced by James Blinn himself. Shows what I know.

Corporations need their shit slapped straight, on the topic of media ownership. If you want control over something - don’t sell it to ten million strangers.

One of the worst words in the English language is “intermittent.”

C is dangerous like your uncle who drinks and smokes. Y’wanna make a weedwhacker-powered skateboard? Bitchin’! Nail that fucker on there good, she’ll be right. Get a bunch of C folks together and they’ll avoid all the stupid easy ways to kill somebody, in service to building something properly dangerous. They’ll raise the stakes from “accident” to “disaster.” Whether or not it works, it’s gonna blow people away.

C++ is dangerous like a quiet librarian who knows exactly which forbidden tomes you’re looking for. He and his… associates… will gladly share all the dark magic you know how to ask about. They’ll assure you, oh no no no, the power cosmic would never turn someone inside-out, without sufficient warning. They don’t question why a loving god would allow the powers you crave. They will show you which runes to carve, and then, they will hand you the knife.

The lack of game-feel is shocking, considering the Romero-less Quake 2 nailed a lot what’s missing. Q2’s peppy little shotgun and beeftank super shotgun made up for how spongy all the enemies got. The chaingun both let you obliterate scarce foes and quickly ran dry for very Aliens sentry-gun moments. The blaster was both gun and flashlight, and would’ve cast all kinds of sweeping shadows. The machinegun fucked with your aim in a way that was chaotic but controllable, instead of that inexcusable way enemies slap control out of your hands and tank your framerate with double-vision.

As a weird point of comparison - Jurassic Park: Trespasser had very early bump-mapping. I’m not sure the name was settled yet. But it did the effect in software, so it was slow, even on 3D-accelerated machines… and it only existed on physics-puzzle boxes and enemies trying to eat you. So the framerate was guaranteed to suck during precisely the times you needed it to not suck.

That kind of “oh come on” detail permeates Doom 3.

Some places suck.

Some places suck, by design.

Reducing criticism of systemic problems to “just because you disagree” is dishonest… and indicative.

So say that and its damn name.

Please stop using headlines like this, even if the site itself uses headlines like this.

Incidentally I wonder if any games with ragtag themed gangs have ever consulted sincere anarchists. At the very least they’d have answered Ross Scott’s post-apocalypse razor: “Where do you farm?” It’d be interesting to see more hints of verisimilitude for post-collapse rivalries and group conflicts, even if it’s inevitably reduced to window-dressing for dudes with flaming axes rushing toward your crosshairs.

I have to admit - my initial outrage over Copilot training on open-source code has vanished.

Now that these networks are trained on literally anything they can grab, including extremely copyrighted movies… we’ve seen that they’re either thoroughly transformative soup, or else the worst compression and search tools you’ve ever seen. There’s not really a middle ground. The image models where people have teased out lookalike frames for Dune or whatever aren’t good at much else. The language models that try to answer questions as more than dream-sequence autocomplete poetry will confidently regurgitate dangerous nonsense because they’re immune to sarcasm.

The comparisons to a human learning from code by reading it are half-right. There are systems that discern relevant information without copying specific examples. They’re just utterly terrible at applying that information. Frankly, so are the ones copying specific examples. Once again, we’ve advanced the state of “AI,” and the A went a lot further than the I.

And I cannot get offended on Warner Brothers’ behalf if a bunch of their DVDs were sluiced into a model that can draw Superman. I don’t even care when people copy their movies wholesale. Extracting the essence of an iconic character from those movies is obviously a transformative use. If some program will emit “slow motion zoom on Superman slapping Elon Musk,” just from typing that, that’s cool as hell and I refuse to pretend otherwise. It’s far more interesting than whatever legal fictions both criminalized 1700s bootlegging and encouraged Walt Disney’s corpse to keep drawing.

So consider the inverse:

Someone trains a Copilot clone on a dataset including the leaked Windows source code.

Do you expect these corporations to suddenly claim their thing is being infringed upon, in front of any judge with two working eyes?

More importantly - do you think that stupid robot would be any help what-so-ever to Wine developers? I don’t. These networks are good at patterns, not specifics. Good is being generous. If I wanted that illicit network to shamelessly clone Windows code, I expect the brace style would definitely match, the syntax might parse, and the actual program would do approximately dick.

Neural networks feel like magic when hideously complex inputs have sparse approximate outputs. A zillion images could satisfy the request, “draw a cube.” Deep networks given a thousand human examples will discern some abstract concept of cube-ness… and also the fact you handed those thousand humans a blue pen. It’s simply not a good match for coding. Software development is largely about hideously complex outputs that satisfy sparse inputs in a very specific way. One line, one character, can screw things up in ways that feel incomprehensible. People have sneered about automation taking over coding since the punched-tape era, and there’s damn good reasons it keeps taking their jobs instead of ours. We’re not doing it on purpose. We’re always trying to make our work take less work. We simply do not know how to tell the machine to do what we do with machines. And apparently - neither do the machines.

Big thanks to Microsoft for their efforts to advertise Linux.