ObsidianBlk

joined 1 year ago
[–] ObsidianBlk 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

They don't... But the option is still there if you want an emo-ink display

[–] ObsidianBlk 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was in college for Computer Science when these ads must have just started because in a Computer Ethics class, I remember the teacher actually using "you wouldn't download a car, would you" argument.

I recall answering... "Would the original owner still have their copy? Yes? Then yes, yes I would download a car." The teacher did not like me.

[–] ObsidianBlk 13 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Unless it's an e-ink screen... then, it doesn't emit light

[–] ObsidianBlk 0 points 1 year ago

As if any of that is more complicated than running your off the shelf Windows computer... at about the same cost... because, ultimately, they're the same thing... an operating system, running one or more storage drives, plugged into a network. If that is too complex to wrap one's mind around... well... shrugs

[–] ObsidianBlk 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you have a computer, and it's on the internet, you have NAS... Network Attached Storage... your computer is on the network, and it has storage, then it's network attached storage. Everything else is just software controlling it all. FFS

[–] ObsidianBlk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are always some that will "do nothing" if given the freedom to live as they want. Most won't. What exactly will take the place of a 9 to 5 in a post Capitalist world? No idea. I'm not that smart. Humans do need more than simple pixie dust and altruistic motivations to do more than the most bare bones of things. That said, whatever the next system may be, it need not threaten peoples security (housing, food, and medical care) to be functional.

[–] ObsidianBlk 0 points 1 year ago

So... my opinion regarding how I perceived C# and followed that statement up with it being subjective (aka, opinion), in your view, devalues the rest of my post. That's your hang up?

Cool beans

[–] ObsidianBlk 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I disagree. Even if one is new to programming, learning GDScript still teaches one how to program. Loops, conditions, variables, functions... basically all that is programming is still part of GDScript and it would be no more difficult, once learned, to switch from GDScript to any other language as it would to switch from C#, C/C++, Python, etc. That is to say, once you understand how to program, it's nowhere near as hard to switch languages as initially learning your first one.

That said, the same could be argued when working with different engines within the same language. C# in Unity, C# in Godot, and C# in ASP.Net applications all have their idiosyncracies that might make the language feel different, even though, at it's core, it's the same language. How a library functions can have a drastic effect on how you program a language, and if you change one library for another, even in the same language, you may find you have to alter your programming style.

Additionally, languages can be ported. GDScript currently only exists in Godot, but nothing is stopping anyone from writing a python-like or nodejs-like runtime interpreter for the language that allows you to use GDScript sans-Godot.

As for how nice the language looks... that's subjective. I, honestly, find GDScript to be a very clean looking language (much like I do Python... probably unsurprisingly). C#, on the other hand, I find to be a verbose mess, seeming to take 100 lines of course to accomplish something I can do in 10 in other languages. But, again, that's subjective

[–] ObsidianBlk 5 points 1 year ago

Sorry, no. This is not accurate either. According to Unity's own FAQ regarding the subject... Which you can look at right here...

Do installs of the same game by the same user across multiple devices count as different installs? We treat different devices as different installs. We don’t want to track identity across different devices.

So, again, if I install the game on 3 different devices, Unity considers that 3 installs. If I build a new computer later, then reinstall the game there, it'll count as a new install. The scary thing is... what if someone hates you as a developer? They now only need to buy your game once, then setup a script to roll VMs and install your game on VMs (each VM counts as a seperate device), and you, as the developer, will be hit with the new install cost each time.

Additionally...

Does the Unity Runtime Fee apply to pirated copies of games? We are happy to work with any developer who has been the victim of piracy so that they are not unfairly hurt by unwanted installs.

The issue here is... the developer would already have been charged the fee for a "pirated" install, because, how is a developer supposed to even know their game was pirated in the first place. Here, the developer may already be financially hit for a pirated game and now has to spend time and resources with Unity to convince them that some percentage of installs are pirated installs. Earlier in their FAQ, Unity claims they do not have a "phone home" when a Unity game is run, so, how are they determining installs in the first place? "Aggregate data"... or, another words, "trust us".

[–] ObsidianBlk 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

First of all if you're a poor (and possibly solo) developer who could only spring for the lowest tier you're being charged the highest rate per install. That rate is 20 cents... per install... not per purchase... per install. If I buy the game once and install it on my desktop machine, my laptop, and my steam deck, the developer has to pay 60 cents. one of those computers breaks down and I need to reinstall the game, that's an additional 20 cents every time. I have a young nephew who thinks nothing of installing a game to play for a day or two then uninstalling it to make room for another only to reinstall that first game again later. He does this with a lot of games... almost all of which are Unity games (I know, because he wants me to play these games with him quite often, so I see that logo pop up). Come January 1st, every time he installs that game, BOOM, developer owes 20 cents. My nephew isn't special and, if he's uninstalling and reinstalling games like that you can bet there's 1000s of other kids doing the same! Hell, you don't even have to be a kid. I might play a game for a few months, uninstall it, then reinstall it years later. That's another thing... this 20 cents is perpetual! As a developer, what happens when you're done with your game? You do have the time or energy to maintain the game anymore? This pricing model doesn't care. You abandoned your game 5 years ago? Don't care, 100 people installed your game, you owe us $20!

[–] ObsidianBlk 27 points 1 year ago (23 children)

My issue with typescript... and, correct me if I'm wrong... is it doesn't exist without Javascript. Typescript needs to be compiled down into Javascript to be run. It has no stand alone interpreter (that I'm aware of) and definitely not one baked into web browsers or NodeJS (or adjacent) tools. In essence, Typescript is jank sitting on top of and trying to fix Javascript's uber jank, simultaneously fracturing the webdev space while not offering itself as a true competitive and independent language for said space.

That's my amateur two cents for what it's worth.

[–] ObsidianBlk 4 points 1 year ago

I believe that AMD has flipped the script on this in recent years. From what I recall, AMD has been actively releasing a large amount (if not all) of their drivers as open source for integration into the Mesa driver (which I think is the same driver than handles Intel graphics as well). Arguably speaking AMD GPUs work more out-of-the-box now than NVidia do.

That said, I switched to an AMD card about a year ago as an upgrade from an Nvidia. My Nvidia never gave me issues, it was just getting a little long in the tooth (gtx 1050 ti upgraded to a RT 6600)

view more: ‹ prev next ›