I know Amazon tried. I haven't heard of Google trying. Sure they started Stadia but they had no internal game dev teams that I know of.
I have hard of MS's issues. The biggest issue is a game dev team is generally lead by a game-director. It's not a "design by committee, come to consensus" type of thing like software dev is at Amazon, Google, Microsoft. The way work happens is not the same. They might look superficially similar but as a simple example, at typical game dev team is 70% artists, 20% game designers, 10% software engineers (+/-) where as a typical team at Amazon, Google, MS is 95% software engineers.
Yeah, GDC talks from Google even nowadays, seem mostly marketing and telemetry related, I keep wondering if they ever bothered to have folks with actual game development culture.
Depends on the depth. “Pizza box” generally referred to the smaller rack mounted stuff that could fit in the 24 inch depth racks. They were called pizza boxes because 19 inch width and that depth made them nearly square.
A typical 1U full sized server is 40+ inches though. Those are really annoying to put at a desk.
Not sure what you mean, but nobody I know of referred to the 4ft long servers as pizza boxes. Because the name sort of implied it was something small enough to throw on a desk and stack stuff on.
I moved back to the USA, SF in June 2021. I stayed with a friend and parnter for 5 days. In those 5 days they ordered via doordash for ~8 meals (lunch and dinner).
'21 is hardly representative, depending on where you were. If it was one of the bigger cities in blue states, they were paranoid about COVID until the early '22.
Did you turn off updates on your phone as well? Because 99.999% of people have app auto-updates and every update could include an exploit.
I'm not saying you're wrong not to trust package managers and extensions but you're life is likely full of the same thing. The majority of apps are made from 3rd party libraries which are made of 3rd party libraries, etc.... At least on phones they update constantly, and every update is a chance to install more exploits.
The same is true for any devices that get updates like a Smart TV, router, printer, etc.... I mostly trust Apple, Microsoft, and Google to check their 3rd party dependencies, (mostly), but don't trust any other company - and yet I can't worry about it. Don't update and I don't get security vulnerabilities fixed. Do update and I take the chance that this latest update has a 3rd party exploit buried in a 3rd party library.
I don't trust apps. I trust Apple (enough) that they engineered iOS to have a secure enough sandbox that a random calculator app can't just compromise my phone.
Most developer packages have much higher permission levels because they integrate it with your code without a clear separation of boundaries. This is why attackers now like to attack GitHub Actions because if you get access to secrets you can do a lot of damage.
Not in the EU myself but I don't think so. There's a specific entitlement that has to be granted and last time I looked nobody has ever done it.
I learned one interesting tidbit from the latest Ladybird progress report: apparently, in order for an engine to actually be eligible to get this entitlement, it actually has to have a higher than 90% WPT pass rate. I think it is absolutely fascinating that this is part of the criteria. The differences between the era of more-or-less free distribution on desktop platforms couldn't be more different than the totalitarian control of iOS and the slightly less restrictive control of Android. It almost feels like what happened with home computers was an accident, a circumstance that was only temporary and that once it is finally taken away we'll never get it back.
It's weird to think about. The evolving nature of computer security has definitely created some serious challenges for having a more open distribution model, but by and large nobody wants to try to solve that, and there's not much of an incentive to. The problem is, though, that closing down distribution doesn't just magically solve the problem of trust, it centralizes it to a single entity, with all of the many problems that comes with.
People, of course, seem to defend this practice tooth and nail. Like, it's not enough to just have the option of curated walled gardens: it's important to be forced to use them, because your agency could be used against you by other massive corporations, by coercing you to sidestep security measures. (Nevermind the fact that the existence of said abusive mega corporations is, in and of itself, a problem that should be dealt with directly...)
Meanwhile, I'm just blown away. I have an iPad with an M1 processor. It has virtualization capabilities. It could run VMs, if Apple would let it. Volunteers have gone great lengths despite JIT restrictions and sandboxing to make decent virtualization software for iOS, entirely free of charge. But instead, they updated iPadOS to explicitly remove the hypervisor framework in a major OS upgrade, and of course, it being an iPad, you can't even choose to downgrade it. Now I'm not saying running a desktop OS in a VM is an ideal experience for a tablet, but the damn thing has a keyboard cover and all manner of connectivity, it would be extremely useful to allow this, especially given how relatively powerful the device is. Yet, you can't.
And sure. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I largely don't buy Apple products anymore, but I have a few for various reasons. They're very nice pieces of hardware. But the thing is, the market isn't incentivized to offer alternatives to Apple. What Apple has accomplished with the App Store is absolutely unparalleled: 30% of all revenue. Everywhere, in every app. Perpetually. Forever. Holy Shit. And sure, there are technically exceptions, but let's face it: they play fast and loose with their own rules. When even Patreon is forced to pay 30% you know they are just going to push anyone with enough revenue into it with some rationale. So I personally struggle to believe that there will be alternatives if nothing is done. It's not a matter of people not being willing to buy viable alternatives, it's more a matter of nobody being able to sell them, because doing the arguably unfair thing profits hand-over-fist and nobody can fucking compete with that.
So we're here, bargaining with the richest company in the world, for the ability to be able to download a web browser that isn't Safari in a trenchcoat.
I don't like all EU regulation, but it's kind of unreal to watch this unfold and see how people actually defend this status quo. I still struggle to reconcile how people who consider themselves hackers or at least adjacent to hacker culture can see all of this and not feel dead inside.
> It almost feels like what happened with home computers was an accident, a circumstance that was only temporary and that once it is finally taken away we'll never get it back.
Home computers gave full control to the owners because there was no other choice. There was no internet, no way to push updates or hoover up data. Anything that happened on those machines had to be initiated by the user. They have been working on pulling all that back ever since always-on internet has become something that can basically be taken for granted.
And thankfully a lot of people realize that’s utter bullshit and are taking measures to fight off further enshittification. I’m not a nationalist but things like the GDPR and DMA make me proud to be European.
Ad blockers still run in Chrome - just not ublock origin. Google's ads are still blocked by those blockers. If they really were motivated to stop ad blocking wouldn't they have blocked all ad blockers?
Note: I'm upset too that ublock origin stopped working. I switched to ublock origin lite and it's mostly working, though there are some ads sneaking through. I'm not sure if that just means
(1) it needs an update
(2) I should look for another blocker (IIUC ublock origin lite is not maintained much?)
(3) It's impossible in V3 to block these few things that are currently not blocked.
What ads are not blocked by other ad blockers though? I'm upset too that ublock origin is no longer usable. I tried ublock origin lite and it seems to be blocking most ads so it's still blocking google's ads and that's not banned. It seems kind of hard to argue that it's just about banning ads given plenty of ad blockers still block Google's ads.
Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
Is it the lack of sugar or is that people who don't put sugar in their coffee have a bunch of other things they do? Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are less likely to eat donuts. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more likely to workout. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more like to have better genes for T2D and that same collection of genes makes the predisposed to not put sugar in their coffee.
I'm not saying sugar isn't bad. It is! (I don't put sugar in my coffee) But, 1 teaspoon a cup doesn't sound like enough to have a measurable impact without knowing that everything else about the people is the same.
I agree with you that dietary studies, particularly radically new findings, should be considered with appropriate skepticism.
But it sounds like you're dismissing all science out of hand! What are we left with then - truthiness?
Is there any indication that this study is a poor one? It seems to have a lot of positive indicators. It also generally agrees with what we already "know" about both coffee and about sugar.
Regardless of how valid the study is, it is most likely useless.
These kinds of studies have been done for decades and type 2 diabetes rates have only gone up.
There has been clear evidence for decades that obesity and high carb diets increase risk of diabetes. Comparing tea to coffee or Skittles to m&Ms is a useless research project as far as diabetes goes. Because it is extremely unlikely that someone will discover that the cure for diabetes was a small change in lifestyle like that.
> Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
Is this a valid question? most critiques without any supporting evidence are pretty poor
really? "most" dietary studies? so 'most' of what we know about nutrition and diets is pretty poor? In the past 75 years there was no real nutrition science done?
The authors affiliations are below[1], are you saying they have no idea how to conduct a valid study? Why are you dismissing a study out of hand, with anecdotes and cliches, instead of reading it and commenting on what's actually published?
Why are you anti-science?
[1]
Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Navarra—IdiSNA (Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria de Navarra), Pamplona, Spain
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
CIBER Fisiopatología de La Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
Does "antioxidant" there just refer to tannin, really? If you like tea strong, it's necessary to add some milk to bind to some of the tannins so it remains drinkable and doesn't try to turn your esophagus to leather.
This is silly, many societies drink tons of strong black tea without polluting it with milk or sugar, and do just fine. (I come from one, and have never had any problems with my esophagus — maybe it has already turned into leather without me noticing?) It does often cause nausea on an empty stomach, though, so filling it with something first might actually be useful.
Hi Kazakhstan! Yeah, I guess one can adapt, but I think there's such a thing as excessive antioxidants, is all I'm saying. Neutralizing some percentage to taste isn't going to stop you getting the healthsome goodness of tea, along with its fluoride for cavity protection (and possible lead or cadmium content, just to even things out).
you don’t need milk per se. you just need something that your body can digest alongside the tannin. i love strong tea and have had to be saved more than once from cramping and dry heaving from tannin overload.
When Americans put "cream" in their coffee, it's often actually milk. Especially if they are making it at home (most people I know don't keep half-and-half in the fridge just for coffee). So kind of a cousin of a cappuccino.
Where? I've been most places and never encountered this. It should be noted that in the US "half and half" is popular which isn't a thing in Europe but would be referred to as "cream" by Americans.
We make the distinction between half and half and cream. If I goto a diner there's usually both light cream and half&half available for coffee in plastic mini-creamers.
Austrians do it ("einspänner" and "melange") - Germans and French will have that (called "wiener" style or "vienois"). Italians have their "Espresso con panna" (literally: "Espresso with cream") - would also use. The Swiss will often take their coffee with cream too. In Czech republic it's "kafe se šlehačkou", in Greece it's common in capuccinos or added at will to black coffee.
Whipped creme is perhaps the most common form (cream + sugar whipped).
Not sure about "half and half" though, think that's just an American thing / product.
This doesn’t make any sense - chemically espresso and filtered coffee are very similar. There are some subtle differences which contribute to the differences in taste between them, but it seems unlikely those make any contribution to cholesterol
Drinking a lot of cappuccinos could potentially raise cholesterol levels due to heavy milk consumption. But if you have them with skim milk, that reduces that problem.
Plus I personally have abnormally low blood cholesterol (in spite of a heavy cappuccino habit). My doctor thinks it is a harmless genetic mutation in cholesterol metabolism. At least one of my siblings has the same thing which supports my doctor’s theory.
I believe this is the reason that the AeroPress uses paper filters to reduce the cafestol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol) significantly. Personally, I prefer using permanent metal filters in my AeroPress (for the flavour more than anything), but then I don't have high cholesterol so am not concerned about it and cafestol has been shown to be anti-carcinogenic and neuroprotective in animal studies.
Coffee does contain oils that will "increase cholesterol" (meaning increase LDL/bad cholesterol specifically). Filters reduce the oil significantly but unfiltered methods like cafetière and espresso (which is the basis of cappuccino etc) let it all through. It's something to think about if your drinking many unfiltered coffees a day. It is possible to add a filter to espresso if you brew it yourself.
> Cafestol, a diterpene present in unfiltered coffee brews such as Scandinavian boiled, Turkish, and cafetière coffee, is the most potent cholesterol-elevating compound known in the human diet.
Diabetes is a problem with blood sugar regulation which is primarily accomplished via insulin regulation. if you have a problem regulating something it is almost always best to minimize both the amount and variability of use of that thing.
The long answer is, in our time of great abundance, the most common version of type 2 diabetes by a mile is the one where blood sugar is always elevated because fat cells have stopped responding as well to insulin and insulin is also always elevated. Elevated insulin stops energy release from fat cells and keeps fat cells absorbing glucose and storing it as fat for as long as they can until they get large, unresponsive and usually start releasing inflammatory chemicals (aka they start causing you a bad time) thats when insulin jacks up further and once jacking insulin up stops working you now get classified as having type 2 diabetes. so in so far as our fat cells are not highly responsive to insulin, sugar is bad and inso far as sugar contributes to your fat cells getting unresponsive to insulin over time it's bad too (barring a famine that being at maximum fatness will help you survive).
Disagree, I use a tsp of cane sugar in mine, you can't agitate it efficiently by hand and it needs to be piping hot to help it dissolute. You need something like a cheap $10 handheld milk frother/mixer or something that can get into it better than your hand going anti-clockwise. I typically add a small amount of hot water and get a thick sweet enough paste then add more hot water if I'm doing instant and for ground the same but add a strain step at the end.
I have hard of MS's issues. The biggest issue is a game dev team is generally lead by a game-director. It's not a "design by committee, come to consensus" type of thing like software dev is at Amazon, Google, Microsoft. The way work happens is not the same. They might look superficially similar but as a simple example, at typical game dev team is 70% artists, 20% game designers, 10% software engineers (+/-) where as a typical team at Amazon, Google, MS is 95% software engineers.