TsarVul

Yes! It very often is a reasonable thing to say! In the sense that if you fix one bug, you might be creating a couple more bugs. Like opening a can of worms. But the author in this case used this as a retort to the community saying "if you have an issue with the engine, and you can fix it, then please contribute the fix to the github repo". So ultimately, the argument seems to be why would one contribute fixes to the engine when one might have to fix another issue afterwards. This is antithetical to the nature of FOSS and immediately discredited the author, in my mind, as having a technical discussion in good faith. I'd love to give quotes that brought me to this conclusion, but the article seems to have been taken down as I write this.

They are better served using Unreal Engine and there's nothing wrong with that.

Well reasoned points.

Regarding your 2nd point, absolutely correct. But man does it look good in a hit piece such as this article. Appeasing the needs of the many is a delicate procedure that sometimes involves using in-engine data structures and not just fixed length arrays, much to the chagrin of the author. Less maintenance at the very least.

Regarding your 4th point, Godot can accommodate the need for precompiled shaders, it can add adapter layers around its Vulkanic render pipeline, it can technically play by console rules. But there is the one thing that it can't do. It can't just publish usage of a proprietary API to a public git repo. That will always be the albatross around Godot's ass. But I would pose the following question: is this a flaw of Godot or a flaw of the status quo, which forces FOSS into a permanent song and dance to be on equal footing with private enterprise?

Fucking exactly. And here to finish my article, a person that called Godot a "scrappy little engine" built by a "gameplay engineer".

Godot is obviously not a flawless diamond placed behind museum glass, but don't give me this bullshit that this article is written solely in the name of technical due diligence.

The probative value of the article is massively outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

In other words, it's a smear campaign. The author is literally saying, oh I can fix all of these issues, but I don't know what other issue might come up. This is horse raddish. Balloon juice. A downright dismissal. As if you'd have better luck with the walled-off garden that is Unity or UE. They simply stated issues the community has already been talking about, and framed it as Godot is a lost cause not even worth fixing.

And here's the bullshido that the author implemented. They sprinkled in the thing about Godot being tied to the Vulkan API. This is valid criticism. Surprise surprise, a FOSS engine being worked on by a handful of paid devs and some volunteers has more work that it needs done on it. But now if you disagree with the thing I said about it being a smear campaign, they throw Ol' Faithful at you:

"An engine is a tool, not a cult." "Oh, you disagree with the article. Are you saying that Godot is perfect?" "So you're saying that there are no technical issues with Godot?" "You can only release low poly games with 3D Godot."

As soon as the status quo was disturbed, suddenly the imperfections of Godot are on full blast. Juan Linietsky and Co. are now to drop literally everything they were doing and address the smear campaign's concerns, lest it be successful. I suppose that's both a positive and a negative.

Precisely what I'm talking about. They can afford to do so, since they lost the trust of the user about 2 statements from the CEO ago.

And not to go too deep into it, but how the hell are you going to create a brand new pricing scheme in only "a couple of days", without already having a draft of it ready? Don't you wanna check in with your lawyer? Your CFO? This shit must take more than 2 days to do.

We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

Allow me to translate:

We're now publishing the terms that we were actually going for from the very beginning. We've always known that the flaming bag of shit that we laid on your doorstep was unreasonable. If it worked, it worked, but if it didn't, it can stand in contrast to the new less shit terms that you're either supposed to agree to or rewrite your whole game. Not like our PR was great before this gambit. What have we to lose?

Like laying down a mighty fart just as the elevator doors close, Unity management abandon the aircraft they were supposed to captain on their golden parachutes. The corporate money making machine continues to chug on.

Writing is firmly on the wall, gang. All I see is patch notes for the wars for arable land meta.

It's a brand new flavor of bullshit that people need to adjust to. In the same way that you may be wary of clicking certain links, reading spam mail, not giving personal info out, we will need to have an extra sensor in our brains for how LLM-y a user is.

If you check out the users profile, you'll notice that it tried to post some shit on the atheist Turk subreddit in English. Primo bot behavior and dead giveaway. Also the Turks didn't seem to enjoy it much.

By perusing further, you might notice that the majority of people don't notice that they are conversing with a fucking bot. This is profoundly upsetting shit

Yeah I just looked it up. Serving stuff through CF does a check for illicit material. Pretty neat. Be that as it may, the original complaint is that Lemmy is lacking moderation tools. Such a moderation tool would be something that disallows CSAM even being stored in the server in the first place.

The developers of LemmyNet are being asked for the ability to define a subroutine by which uploaded images are to be preprocessed and denied or passed thereafter. There is no such feature right now. Even if they wanted to use CloudFlare CSAM protection, they couldn't. That's the entire problem. This preprocessing routine could use Microsoft PhotoDNA and Google CSAI, it could use a self-hosted alternative as db0 desires or it could even be your own custom solution that doesn't destroy, but stores CSAM on a computer you own and stops it from being posted.