> Physical media doesn't work when modern games are 100GB or more.
This is a totally fair point and literally something I haven't even considered.
> most consumers don't care
I know.. I know.. I mostly commented because the linked article _does_ speak about it and that it implied people weren't happy (mostly for re-sell not for archival purposes). But, yes, I get that
I guess my point is.. if they were really to wait for X months and then start to release physical media (again, I can't see the financial incentive for them to do it), but it would really put a big split between: 1) people that buy that the game and simply want to re-sell it and 2) people that want to buy the game to "last forever" (like myself).
Because most of the people in 1) are _likely_ to be the people wanting to buy at launch, play it and move on, the second are _probably_ more willing to wait (or even (probably) wait and buy a second copy later).
Some backstory - I like gaming quite a bit - but more of a personal archivalist. I have basically all games I've ever played on physical media and try to keep someway to play them offline - just jailbroke my 360 to be able to play games from HDD incase the DVD drive broke. Anyway...
I saw the no DVD and was initially devastated. I'm in two minds - I saw one post that basically said "it won't contain a DVD at launch".. if I read between the lines, though I'm not sure I see the value incentive for Rockstar, but...
If they hypothetically launched with physical boxes with digital download codes, okay... This would definitely be in the name of re-sellers (as they've stated). But this is the same as piracy, which has always been, not that "we need to stop people from pirating our games for eternity" but "we need to stop people pirates our game for X months after launch", which makes sense (the piracy party).
So, I'm wondering, if they actually begin releasing physical disks (offline, re-sellable, usable in 20 years), say, 6-12 months after releasing the game.. would that work? I mean, for me, assuming it's the equal block-buster to the franchise I adore (in a varying sense), then I might not mind too much to pick up a copy after 6-12 months (I don't care about bleeding edge).. but... would this work? If we assume the first 12M of buyers can't resell, would the people who buy the game after 12M actually bring a great number to the second hand market.. perhaps not?
I really have the idea of having games that I love in physical form that I know it can't be taken away.. similar to reading a book that you end up reading and know you want to come back to anytime in the future.. and this would _suck_ if I couldn't get a copy (and I assume all PC versions would be full of online-only DRM stuff anyway).
I've spent quite a long time looking at artifact storage, both for work and for personal use and this project literally scratches that itch.
So featureful (assuming they're not placeholders ;) ) and yes, Claude Code, but still - the proof will be in whether it works (and how clean the codebase feels - you're making it sound promising :D ).
I agree this doens't seem too ambiguous - it's "you may do this.." and they said "or we may do the reverse". If I say you're could prefix something.. the alternative isn't that you can suffix it.
But also.. the programmers working on the software running one of the most important (end-user) DNS servers in the world:
1. Changes logic in how CNAME responses are formed
2. I assume some tests at least broke that meant they needed to be "fixed up" (y'know - "when a CNAME is queried, I expect this response")
3. No one saw these changes in test behavoir and thought "I wonder if this order is important". Or "We should research more into this", Or "Are other DNS servers changing order", Or "This should be flagged for a very gradual release".
4. Ends up in test environment for, what, a month.. nothing using getaddrinfo from glibc is being used to test this environment or anyone noticed that it was broken
Cloudflare seem to be getting into thr swing of breaking things and then being transparent. But this really reads as a fun "did you know", not a "we broke things again - please still use us".
There's no real RCA except to blame an RFC - but honestly, for a large-scale operation like there's this seems very big to slip through the cracks.
I would make a joke about South Park's oil "I'm sorry".. but they don't even seem to be
I did music production at the same time as heavily using SVN and starting to use Git - I didn't cross this over at the time. All (in my case) Cubebase files were just -1, -2 suffixes and it worked. I had continuous backups, sure and it just kinda worked at the time.
Given I now use Git heavily in my work/hobby life, when doing other projects (3D models for printing (questionable at best) and artwork (very very very questionable at best)) I definitely wanted to use some sort of SCM.
I opted for these for Perforce - mostly to experiment, but also the idea of having binaries in a distributed SCM. Yes, I know Git-LFS _exists_, but also, to me it breaks the idea of what Git is.. relying on a server for binaries in a situations where everything should be distributed.
If I now went back to audio-production, I would probably consider either Perforce or SVN. Perforce only if it were for a single user (because of licensing). The ability to clone/checkout a single directory of a repo at a given point in time natively and make modifications and push them back is almost quite necessary when dealing with very large files.
And I still use SVN for _some_ situations - particularly those where Perforce is overkill and all I want to _always_ HEAD and the rest is history (for manual preservation history) and no such need for merging and branching (thinking Wiki and other plain-text tooling).
In the case of any sort of any binary-merging - I _heavily_ assume this isn't expected in the poster's situation!
I originally wrote the speach in my blog repo, just for writing purposes.
My dad's funeral was yesterday and wondered, maybe, someone might appreciate it - either because they've lost their dad or it makes them appreciate their dad a little more.
> effectively turning the developer's most trusted assistant into an unwitting accomplice
"Most trusted assistant" - that made me chuckle. The assistant that hallucinates packages, avoides null-pointer checks and forgets details that I've asked it.. yes, my most trusted assistant :D :D
Sure, you're right in most cases. In the use-case I had, it's a private registry with "immutable" tags (at least enough to stop accidental overwrites - and it is a homelab, so if someone else did it, I'd have worse problems ;))
The point was more about using null_triggers (or `terraform_data` I see) and using the trigger replacement, with the docker resources as purely an illustration.
Good point - I hadn't actually looked massively hard into solving it with this provider - I had to do it again for another use-case recently and decided to blog about it (and also try my hand at a short post).. but used this example from a while ago because it seemed much more relatable than the latest encounter :D
I guess, assuming you're not building the image, whether you use the data source of image probably isn't too important (assuming the data source is able to lookup images that aren't present on the local machine :thinking:).
Edit: and now I've seen that in the docker image resource, they reference using the data source to be able to track remote image SHA changes, in order to trigger an image re-pull :doh:
I think saying you don't have a right is fine... they are providing a service and dictating it's usage and you are using it.
So on the "closing your eyes". On one side, yes, allowing your browser to play the video and YT then being able to treat as a advert view means that youtube gets paid and the creator gets paid.
However... I would personally view this as can a person do this and how it works as a generalisation and I would say "no", because if everyone did this (why does just one person have the right to close their eyes), then (at least I'd imagine) the companies paying for advertising would see a drop in click-throughs and (I don't know what you call it.. but let's just say) more money. They'd then stop paying for adverts. Then no companies would want to pay for adverts and YT is no longer profitable (to YT or the creators).
I see what you mean.. but if you take a look at vista vs 7..
Microsoft shoved glass panels, widgets and such down the user's throat in Vista. It was a new look and they wanted to make you realise it.
Without spinning a fresh 7 machine now, I'm certain it was very toned down.
But, I could be very wrong about this :D Last time I used Windows was XP (I mean, granted last week) because nostalgia is a real thing :D
Edit: I can't reply (not sure why, thread too deep?) but @cogman10, you're right! My memory is bad :(
This is a totally fair point and literally something I haven't even considered.
> most consumers don't care
I know.. I know.. I mostly commented because the linked article _does_ speak about it and that it implied people weren't happy (mostly for re-sell not for archival purposes). But, yes, I get that