All games should have the option to have the timer turned off.
I regularly do cryptic crosswords (so this sort of game is in my wheelhouse). My goal is to complete the puzzle, not do so in a particular time. Completing it is often hard (depending on which paper I've picked up). There is no timer when I'm say with paper and pen, so it baffles me that every online newspaper cryptic has a timer on by default, and in some cases it can't be disabled.
It's also the thing that "ruined" the LinkedIn puzzles for me. They're generally fun puzzles, but timing it against my PB or - worse - people I'm connected to on LinkedIn just wrecks the experience. I opted out of leaderboards, because I don't really want to know a guy I worked with years ago trashes me at Queens every morning.
Strong agreement that a "relax" mode is needed here - at longer word lengths its becoming a test of recall and anagram ability, and that's fun in its own right. The timer just makes it a bit "meh", and I won't be returning as a result. Shame.
Or, perhaps the asynch chat thing is a distraction and we need something asynchronous that's well proven. Like... email?
Slack should never have been a thing IMHO. I remember first using it at a startup I was CTO of at the behest of the CEO ("everyone is using it"), back in around 2013. Instantly hated it. Just wish we could go back to good old email, TBH.
Most of the World understands the difference between buying a product and buying a service.
Games (and other digital media), are sold as products, not services, mostly.
TFA is arguing this should persist and not be replaced as games as (subscription/licensed rental), services. It argues the move to digital is being used by businesses to switch to a services model under the hood, and that this should be resisted and it should remain a product model.
> Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store?
Demonstrably, provably: yes.
> Fine, pass a regulation that makes online stores change the word to license or whatever.
Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected?
The mild alarm for me is that this won't be limited to just games.
I've spent almost 30 years building applications for the web. I've been switching my attention to different models of distribution in part because I see a desire for people to not be paying monthly seat subscriptions, but also because it can simplify my own operations - I want to move to a solo indie dev model, and giving you an executable you run means you look after "operations", and I don't. Desktop applications in particular have the potential for you to integrate them with your agent workflows.
But if I put effort into building some secret sauce into an application, and there is then a risk that by distributing it, it gets reverse engineered and then rebuilt by competitors, malicious actors, whoever, there is now the same economic risk to software distribution as there is to DRM-free media distribution. As a result, I might just not do it.
Now, some people will argue software wants to be free - build on the F/LOSS economic model, this becomes less of an issue - but there isn't really a viable F/LOSS economic model for most developers.
Per seat monthly subscriptions with remote access seems like the way we need to be, then...
It's a criminal act to not pay the license fee if you own a TV capable of receiving BBC channels (i.e. it's plugged into an aerial, satellite or cable box). Prison time is theoretically possible, but most prosecutions result in a fine.
As a result, and given that most political parties sense bias in the BBC (it's telling for me that the right-wing think it's too left-wing, and the left-wing think it's too right-wing, meaning it's probably just quite balanced and open and apolitical), the funding model is a hot political potato.
Recent announcements have suggested that the license fee should apply to anyone with a car radio (radio licenses were phased out years ago), and/or using streaming services regardless of whether they consume BBC content at all. This has not gone down well.
For me, I think regular consumption of at least some part of the BBC's very wide and diverse output is the only monocultural thing in the UK that helps people feel a common sense of belonging - we're a very multicultural society (and have been at least since WW2, and arguably since the Romans). People who hate the BBC are, in my experience, more likely to voice racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Covid-hoax views.
So, in short, making almost every household in the country fork out £180/year to fund it is not something that goes without political consequence or debate, and it's likely that rolling it back in some form is on the cards in the next 10 years.
True, I'll take that. I haven't been on a machine without bash in ~25 years though, but I have been on machines without vi. But yeah, from a "what can I expect from a POSIX-like environment bare-bones minimum install" perspective, you're right.
Known system dependency that's (almost) always on the system you're on.
I remember somebody once telling me that they had learned vi because "it was always installed". Well, no, technically, the only editor you can be sure is there is ed. So, you know, learn that. I was surprised that they actually did.
Bash is syntactically not perfect, I agree. However it's a well known, mature, stable environment. LLMs can write it well if you need them to. If it was perfect, we'd never have had Perl, and as a result we'd never have had Ruby, Python and other scripting languages.
But I like it's a tool that doesn't require me to go reach for a package manager and some build tools I don't always have on every system.
But I think there's more nuance here. I can buy a copyrighted book, read it, and then sell it or give it to you for free. The copyright holder's rights have not been violated: I've not copied it, the clue is in the name copyright.
It's not legal for me to go into a library, borrow a book, and then make a copy of it. It's a larger breach to then share that copy more broadly by making more copies.
In the digital era copying is cheaper, and distribution is broader. This caused panic within publishers of all media - they wanted to provide the convenience of digital distribution and consumption (and realise the cost savings), but noted that without DRM, copying would mean there was a risk they'd only ever sell one copy of a game, film, album or book.
This is a snap back to the extreme interpretation of enforcing copyrights. Publishers could structure their DRM and licensing to mimic physical media better. For example, the license could be irrevocable and provide a right to the user of a copy in perpetuity, so it can't be withdrawn. The license could be transferred to other owners: I could lend you my copy, you could then return it to me, digitally; I could donate it to a charity; I could sell my license to another individual; it could be part of my estate and bequeathed at my death.
Physical media has flaws, so does digital media. With a little vision and not much technology we could make digital media as awesome as physical media while retaining copyright to drive investment.
Or, we could go the way OP seems to be nudging towards: we try and grow the copyleft media industry to something economically viable and put the entire economic model of controlled distribution into a place of no longer being viable as a business. Big ask.
Not sure how accessible all this is outside of the UK (you'd need to check the BBC Sounds website & app), but the BBC has perfected a couple of great "gets you to sleep" radio outlets.
The oldest is Radio 4, the BBC's national spoken word radio station (there's also Radio 5 which focuses on sport and news, Radio 4 is more a mixture of comedy, arts, culture and news).
Late at night (UK time), there are programmes that were for many years my soundtrack to getting to sleep - news, a short programme (on Sunday it's a recording of some church bells from some church somewhere in the UK countryside - it changes each week), followed by the shipping forecast. The service "signs off" with the national anthem before switching over to the BBC World Service at around 1am through until 6am when it switches back to the iconic Today programme.
The shipping forecast though - that's the gold. If you've never listened to it before, try and find a recording. As an island nation with a decimated but still strong fishing trawler fleet, it's framed as essential safety information, but in truth its just an iconic, beautiful, ever-changing structured poem, read on national radio several times a day. It is perfect for helping calm the mind, it's a weighted blanket for the brain.
Somebody, somewhere realised that a continuity announcer slowly rattling through the shipping forecast was so good at putting over-active minds to sleep that they created a podcast - "The Sleeping Forecast" - which is a mix of slow/ambient music with old shipping forecasts read over them. I love it, but my partner finds it "weird" so I can't listen to it without wearing headphones late at night.
This, somehow, then led to the realisation that Radio 3 (the national classical music station in the UK), could provide more of the same. Cue other programs - Sleep Tracks, Night Tracks - where there is a composition of calming, quieting music, mostly rooted in classical tradition but overall just very ambient and calm.
And then the final inevitable chapter: in the world of DAB radio and digital platforms (including the BBC Sounds app that seemed absurd at its inception but now slowly becoming loved), the BBC realised they could cheaply put together a whole new station: BBC Radio 3 Unwind (or "3U" for short).
All of this being the BBC, there are no ads. No pledge drives. 3 Unwind has no news programming. It's my new go to when anxiety hits.
The BBC isn't perfect, the funding model needs to evolve, but while we have this - just in case one day we don't - do try and enjoy this stuff if you can.
I think the human mind is more complicated than regurgitation. I think repeating things we've seen is key to learning and reasoning, but there's a ton of other stuff we don't full understand that LLMs are not even attempting to solve for.
To get to being able to simulate it, I am reminded of the Borges story On Exactitude in Science [0], where we end up just building, well, an actual brain. Can we do that within 3 orders of magnitude as efficiently as the sum of human evolution in our lifetimes? I doubt it.
I was saying something like this a few years ago when people were getting first excited about ChatGPT. The gap has narrowed, but not by as much as people think.
AI produces output that is very convincing to a non-expert, and (dangerously), it's so good at looking like an expert, they might believe that it is an expert. But the moment you ask someone to use it for something they're an expert in themselves, the holes appear wide, consistent & obvious.
My favourite moment of seeing this in action was watching AI-worrier TV host/comedian Bill Maher. He has spent years talking about the dangers of AI taking everyone's jobs, destroying civilisation, ruining the economy, starting wars, "it's just getting better and better all the time", and so on. But one night he let slip a tell. "It's no good at writing jokes. Not yet, anyway". There you go, Bill... connect those dots...
There is real utility in it being a tool to help experts apply their expertise, as in this story where it speeds up some tasks to help the translator do part of the work, enhance their expertise, allow them to be more productive.
It's a better screwdriver, a better hammer, in the hands of somebody who knows what needs a screwdriver or a hammer. It doesn't replace them. It can't replace them. It's a tool that enhances the human, not an alternative.
I don't understand why this is not widely understood yet, but I'm sure it will in due course.
And I don't expect this to change. Even if the latest model scores 100% on every benchmark, all that really tells us is that it's now more productive/efficient than it was before at helping experts do that work, not that it can replace everyone in that category of work.
I bet there is a river somewhere near you. Explored all of it? What about a hill? Is there a road you've never driven down? It might have some stuff down it you've not seen before. Have you explored all the flora and fauna around you? Obviously you need to stay off private land, but I would be amazed if there is absolutely zero variation in any topology, geology, animal/plant life, or other factor within a 100 mile radius of you.
If that is the case, can you tell us where that is? I want to visit exactly once and never go there again. It sounds both magical and terrifying in one instance, and reminds me of a friend who drove down Route 66 and found the expansive empty plains "the most claustrophobic thing I've ever experienced in my life".
If you email a CEO or President, you're not emailing them. You're emailing a team of EAs who are filtering for them. Their fame leads to a lot of problems in the inbox: begging letters, death threats, and irrelevant noise more than you can imagine.
They also don't know much that you can probably make use of. They might think they do, and you might think they do, but they got there mostly through knowing how to talk to boards and investors, not by being able to engage deeply in expertise that is applicable to most people looking to make their way in the World - and if becoming a CEO of a major tech firm or President is the thing you need the help with, you probably know them or people like them already.
I've met quite a few famous people in tech over the years, particularly open source, and have had some short and some long conversations with many of them. I've found most people pretty approachable.
I also know through another side of my life quite a few people in the media and am an acquaintance of someone who is a household name in the UK. Through him, I've met famous sports people, writers, actors, etc., and through that and other networks I know people who have worked behind the scenes on major TV and theatre shows who have met hundreds of famous people.
The one thing that unifies all of them is obvious, but seemingly lost on a lot of people who "other" those whose names are known to them despite never meeting them: they're all just human.
They're not "other", they're us. Including everyone you see on TV, everyone you have read about in magazines, everyone you see on a stage.
They have to put up with being recognised and people dealing with them in strange ways (how would you really deal with a stranger asking for a selfie while you were eating dinner with your family in a restaurant?), but they still do all the things you and I do. As the old saying goes, they all have to put their trousers on one leg at a time in the morning.
I'd definitely encourage people to seek out experts (not just "famous people" unless those people are famous for expertise), and engage them as you'd want to be engaged about your expertise. You'll find most people will be approachable.
But emailing that specific list of people is unlikely going to get you much beyond a template reply from one of their army of assistants.
The "If it's on substack, it's not a real blog, it's just sparkling page bloat" take is a little strained for me.
The content is great. The tool gives writers a low-friction mechanism to charge for premium content, and works on most people's devices. I would rather have read this on substack, than the author get frustrated at having to learn how to publish pages by hand and give up.
Maybe we just need a better alternative to substack if that's the problem.
Energy efficiency as a "my language is better than yours" point was not on my bingo card for 2026.
JIT as an energy saver intuitively makes sense, and is probably the model most languages need to think about for "shipping to prod". I'm aware Python has started developing this, and given the install base, it's encouraging that results like this show it could have significant benefits for users.
I remember people could smoke on planes. On some airlines seat backs and bathrooms had cigarette ashtrays in them. Smoking was phased out between 1988 and 2000, with most airlines being smoke free in the mid-1990s.
But the ashtrays persisted well into the 2000s. Two reasons: they needed to refresh the cabins, which is on a longer maintenance cycle done every few years, and before that, they needed replacement seats and bathroom fittings without the ashtrays. That meant tests, regulatory approval, all sorts.
For ashtrays being removed.
Winglets are a similar story. They're an addition, but they needed test flying and type approval before they could be added to the maintenance cycle rotation and get added to aircraft.
This is a bigger change. Boeing and Airbus (and others), are going to need to design it, push it through CFD, build different variants, test fly them, get them through regulatory approval and then... well, existing aircraft are probably not going to get these. Too expensive, too hard.
What's going to make more sense is a new aircraft - even if it's a variant type like the 737-MAX or the A320-Neo or whatever - where they approve the type modification as a whole, but it's not a retrofit to an existing airframe, will help manufactures sell more aircraft, airlines don't need to ground existing fleet and over time the fuel efficiencies get involved.
By that reasoning, we should all be vibing away C code. It's the most performant and efficient language out there, there's a ton of code out there the LLMs were trained on, and the complex logic of memory management is abstracted away by the LLM so you don't need to think about it.
Most people are not doing that though. There's probably a good reason, and it applies to other languages too.