Like another commenter said, Apple does this every few years and it's always a focus on some Apple-specific system that doesn't address pretty much any of the concerns of people who are actually trying to port games to their platform.

For example, here's a fairly major one for independent game developers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This guy is a former penetration tester for Activision Blizzard and I believe at least one other major games publisher; he's now an independent game developer. This is one of the people Apple should be trying to appeal to the most. Is this something they've addressed in the 1-2 months since this video hit? I didn't see it in TFS, so I highly doubt it.

That's just one example. I've followed the progress of the cross-platform Dolphin Gamecube/Wii emulator over the years in their (sometimes-attempting-to-be) monthly progress report. An occasional recurring theme I've seen with several of their feature implementations or big bugfixes is that the OS X solution requires some kind of kludgy workaround because OS X lacks basic support for something important, assuming they even implement said feature in the OS X build. I can't point to any specific examples (I have an unfortunately bad memory), but it's definitely come up more than once.

There's also Apple's apparent lack of support for something as basic as a native Vulkan implementation, presumably because they want to push developers to Metal instead? I'll admit I don't know all that much about the specifics of the situation. What I do know is that almost everyone that bothers to port games reliant on Vulkan to Mac apparently just uses MoltenVK, which is a FOSS project that just implements Vulkan on top of Metal. Supposedly it's a really solid project, but it's still a third party workaround for Apple's lack of first party support for something pretty basic and fundamental to modern cross-platform game development. And let's be real, OS X is not getting many games that aren't cross-platform.

For the record, I'm not even a developer at all (anymore), let alone a Mac one... this is all stuff I've just kind of heard about over the years following various gaming topics. I'm by no means an expert; I'm sure someone actually involved with game development for OS X would have much more insight on this and probably other major problems with OS X game development.

But I do know enough to know that a half-assed gaming push like every other one they've made won't be enough to capture any substantial percentage of the market. They'd need a much, much bigger, much more sustained push that addresses the existing fundamental problems, something which they seem unwilling to do.

It doesn't have to be immediately and wholly correct in order to be useful. LLMs are currently decent at two things: they give you straight answers to questions you'd spend much longer on Google searching for and they can generate things very quickly that would take a lot of time to create yourself. In both cases, you're likely to get some degree of garbage. But, depending on the signal to noise ratio (which can be improved with good/clever prompting), the reduction in time spent on research and creation is going to more than make up for the time spent reviewing and fixing its errors. The specifics are going to vary depending on the domain of your problem; it's better at some things and worse at others. But in many cases, it saves you work, and that's all that's needed for it to be useful.

If this is a substitute for in-place upgrade, it's actually much appreciated. An in-place upgrade is where you run the Windows installer for your current version of Windows from inside your current Windows environment (you can't boot into it; you have to run the setup utility from inside your current Windows environment for it to work properly). This reinstalls Windows using the same process you would use to upgrade from one major version of Windows to another, leaving everything other than the Windows system files intact, including your user profile, application data, settings, and registry data. It's great for problems that the classic sfc/dism combo isn't able to fix for whatever reason and it's a little less intrusive than the "Reset my PC" function, which resets a lot of state data so that you're closer to a clean install (I'm also not sure if that function actually replaces all the system files or just resets state data).

If Windows Update is able to just do this on its own with a button, that's actually a useful addition.

Legally speaking, you're not allowed to use source leaks like this for anything, I believe. In fact, I think I recall that at least one game platform emulator project has explicit policies against not just using leaked code (obviously) but also against using leaked documentation or anything learned from said leaked documentation or code, to the point where if a contributor were to admit doing this, all their contributions would be purged. Game platform emulators are high profile legal targets as the platform creators often see them as threatening their profits, so they often have to err on the safe side of legal issues like this.

Practically speaking, learning how the internals of the game works can be very helpful in game modification projects. As an example, there was a community-driven reverse engineering project for Ocarina of Time that was able to successfully reverse engineer all of the source code (with substantial help from a version of the game that left debugging symbols in) such that the compiled code together with the assets is a bitwise match for the game ROM. This helped the creators of the existing randomization mod to add some nice new features and separately resulted in a very feature-rich PC port that had its own (optional) built-in randomization mod along with many other optional changes, enhancements, bugfixes, etc.

Now granted, the OoT decomp is a reverse engineering project and isn't legally tainted (as far as I know) so SoH and other mods are generally in the clear to use it freely. But small scale mods like the random ones you'd find on Nexus or Curseforge are probably going to fly sufficiently under the radar that just using information they've gleaned from a source leak would probably not endanger them, especially since it's often difficult to prove that kind of thing to begin with. So long as they're not directly using code from the leak and aren't monetizing their mods, they'll probably be fine and it could end up being quite helpful... though I'm not sure how active the GTA5 modding scene is as it's not a game I play.

I have looked and looked and have not found a way to filter out by tag on Twitch. You can search by tag but you can't filter out tags you don't like from any listing I've seen.

I doubt most of the people buying Xboxes care enough to do anything about it. Your average consumer finds ads annoying but not enough so to do anything about it except maybe click a button to install uBO; your average person doesn't care enough about this to switch platforms.

A PiHole or similar setup might be able to block some of it. I primarily use PC so I don't usually have these problems, though. The worst I get is the Curseforge client that I use to update WoW addons has its own internal browser it uses to display ads; there's no easy way to block this without something like a PiHole or without hacking the client (not really worth the hassle). There are other clients that do this, but it's not even really worth the hassle to switch when I use it like once a week for 30 seconds.

What a bunch of vapid nonsense. Nobody can provide a good browser solution because there's no good browser solution. Having complaints isn't "contempt culture," it's part and parcel of discussion of an issue you care about. Hand-waving away all complaints without actually drilling down into a single one of the things you're generalizing is sophistry; you haven't actually said anything beyond "criticism bad." If you want meaningless praise, go watch marketing material.

I've heard many horror stories about self-hosting email, mainly how difficult it is not to have everything you send marked as spam or how many intrusion attempts you get from doing it. But the former at least seem to be centered around sending email versus receiving it.

The main reason I have multiple emails is for different website types and sign-ups. It seems like a self-hosted read-only email server wouldn't be too difficult to get running and being marked as spam would be a non-issue. Then I could just have one or two Gmail accounts specifically for sending. Has anyone gone this route? How hard is it to secure a setup like this against intrusion? I wouldn't want to make my home network a target.

I've thought about this topic a good deal. Despite my hate-boner for ads, all of the problems I have are solvent. If Google actually cared the slightest about reaching any sort of compromise with me, I'd be willing to compromise and turn my adblocker off. Until then, they can go fuck themselves.

• Scams and malware should never, ever show up in an ad; this is the #1 reason I not only use uBO myself but recommend it to everyone I know. The security risk ads pose make disabling adblock right now a nonstarter. Ads should not be able to be switched out after they have been reviewed; if a change is needed, that change must be approved. Images should be hosted by Google so they can't be changed. If the ad is linking to a site Google does not control, Google should require the ad host to have some tracking code on their site to make sure that the page being linked does not change, and if it does, it should trigger an immediate halt on that ad and a forced review. If the current paradigm isn't changed to make ads safer, I will never disable adblocking.
• Ad runtime should be limited based on the length of the content it appears on. 5-10% maximum; 10% is 2 minutes on a 20 minute video.
• If mid-roll ads are used, they must be placed at a natural break in the content. The content creator should be involved in this as a requirement.
• Mid-roll ads should not be used on videos under 10 minutes long.
• Sane limits should be set on ad volume. In general, ads should not be permitted to be significantly louder than the content they appear in.
• No targeting and tracking; don't store anything about me or on my device that I haven't explicitly agreed to share. Instead of all that bullshit that infringes on user privacy, users should be asked once up front for a category of ads they would tolerate watching. This would be mandatory the first time. So for instance, I could choose video games as a topic, with maybe an optional section to set more specific games I'd be interested in, like MMORPGs and strategy games on PC. This would be a category of ads that not only I'd like to see but actually potentially interact with. Then, once every three months, a single prompt could be pushed to the user to see if they want to add another category or change their existing one. These would be optional prompts that could be skipped. This would do a much better job at targeted (because the user would be seeing ads they've explicitly said they're willing to see) and would have no substantial privacy implications.
• There should always be an alternative monetization model available for people who are completely intolerant of any advertising and the pricing of that should be roughly equivalent to whatever the per-user ad-driven model would generate. So, if Google would have made $5 per month from advertising off me, the paid model should be $5 per month. Other features should not be bundled into this as an excuse to raise the price; those should be a separate subscription.

This specifically, and probably intentionally, affects uBlock Origin. I haven't looked too far into it, but I believe there are certain permissions or functionality that don't exist in v3 that exist in v2 that limit uBO's ability to have large rulesets. The developer has created a Manifest v3 version called uBlock Lite that "works" under v3 but is a lot more limited due to inherent limits on the number of adblocking rules that can be created in v3. The issue is tracked on his GitHub at https://github.com/uBlockOrigi...

It's not always about real-world use. Pushing the boundaries can be exciting in and of itself and sometimes technological progress comes just from that alone and figuring out how it's useful later.

This isn't one of those times, though. In this case, it's just marketing nonsense from a company that knows it put out a turd and wants to convince people it's not a turd. The past two generations were genuinely good; 14th gen barely adds anything and in some benchmarks actually regresses. I don't even need to look at the records it's breaking to conclude that they're irrelevant; if they were breaking any relevant records to any significant degree, standard benchmarks would also reflect that.

It is more complicated, but I focused on calories and macronutrients because those are the fundamentals. The reason I don't like the word "processed" is that it is nonspecific and it's used to both refer to things that definitely are unhealthy and things that don't really have any impact on health whatsoever. It's something I hear a lot in offline discussions and I've always tried to push people to be more specific.

I have digestive problems from my mom's side and diet is very hard for me to get right because there are a lot of things I can't eat without having a reaction (and it's a good mix of both healthy and unhealthy foods that I can't eat). I've done a lot of research over the past ten years or so to try and figure out things that are both reasonably healthy and won't leave me feeling like absolute crap. Offline, many people have foisted unsolicited advice on me about this subject and it's often a lot of vague nonsense. So I have a personal stake in pushing people to be more concreate about what they're talking about; it benefits me in the end because this is something I'm always trying to learn more about.

The word "processed" is widely overused and misused to the detriment of public discourse surrounding nutrition. It's basically just become a meaningless boogeyman at this point and its misuse makes it difficult to actually talk about nutrition with ordinary people in a meaningful way. It's actually at the point where it's even being misused in broadcasts that purport to be educational, like an NPR broadcast I heard the other day.

"Processed" food is just food that has been changed in some way. Applesauce is processed, chopped carrots are processed, ground beef is processed. The act of processing these foods didn't make them any better or worse, although there are obviously processes that can make food less healthy. For that matter, "devoid of nourishment" isn't the right metric, either; lettuce is unprocessed and lacks any "nourishment," but it has undigestable matter (fiber) that makes other food easier to digest, is fairly water-dense which helps with hydration, and tends to make you feel fuller, so it still serves a useful purpose in your diet, nourishing or not. What people usually mean by "processed" is e.g. deep fried or very greasy food, which isn't bad because it's processed, it's bad because it usually vastly over-emphasizes fats (and specifically saturated fats, the generally less healthy kind).

"Processed" is a distraction from the actual fundamentals of nutrition, which are caloric content and macronutrient content (that is, fats/carbs/protein). If you keep track of what you're eating, set sane calorie goals for your body weight/activity level, and make sure you're not over-emphasizing or lacking any specific macronutrient, you'll be pretty far along on the path to better health just from that alone. The specifics of how much you need varies person to person, but what I personally did was use meals that I already knew made me feel good as reference values and then came up with meal plans that tended to have similar nutritional content.

There are plenty of other dietary considerations beyond this (to name a few: micronutrients e.g. vitamins, saturated versus unsaturated fat, glycemic index for diabetics; exercise also plays a role and affects what your calorie and macronutrient targets should be), but the biggest thing that most people get wrong that contributes most to problems like obesity is that they overeat or they eat an unbalanced diet (which typically leads to overeating).

A faster CPU or 144hz monitor doesn't modify game code to achieve a faster refresh rate. I know this is /. but it would probably be helpful to at least read TFS so you can at least understand where the point of contention lies.

The changes Unity is making are negatively impacting the business model of some game developers. The specific problem is that the changes affect certain models of monetization quite severely and others not at all; most game developers probably won't lose much (if anything), others won't be able to make any money at all off years of work. The people affected by this had a life: making video games for other peoples' enjoyment. That life is being upended because of what Unity is doing with their pricing model.

Some of the people affected by this are probably not thinking rationally because, you know, years of work have just gone to waste and they don't know how they're going to feed their families or pay their bills. Obviously death threats are not the answer and are not acceptable, but generally speaking, the people affected by Unity's changes are most likely not "no-lifers," they're working people who have been driven into a corner. Whoever broke the law and made these threats should be held responsible for their actions even considering the circumstances, but implying that this pricing change is something that doesn't or shouldn't matter to anyone with a "life" is ridiculous. This matters a whole lot to certain people and those who are negatively impacted at least deserve a bit of empathy for the shitty situation that's been thrust upon them.