Pff, amateurs. I'm supervising my bunch of loop managing agents, which loop over looping the loop writer agents so the agentic loopers can agentically loop the looping agent loops. Catch up, you're already falling behind!

Reminds me of that old quote about how computers let you make your mistakes very accurately and incredibly fast.

Just because you're recursively automating and parallelising code generation doesn't change the fact that you're a moronic wannabe-developer and have no idea what you're doing, Jack.

Or maybe it won't. Results show that model performance starts degrading sharply as the absolute size of the context window grows -- anything beyond a certain size (I think it was about 100k) seems to approach a systemic limit, so bigger context windows are a marketing thing without much relevance.

Maybe you were joking, but I find it highly amusing that people still seem to utter the meme-ish "you'll get left behind" in earnest.

Mate, if LLMs ever become able to cash in even a fraction of the productivity gain cheques the providers have written, there's nothing to fall behind on. There very selling point is that it takes no time or skill to "catch up".

Claude seems to not have been involved in the games side of things at all, only peripherals etc. He doesn't even have a MobyGames profile (vs. his brother Yves who is credited on more than 600 games there).

Also, in pretty poor taste. Also, factually quite off. Ubisoft used to publish excellent games. Rayman. Splinter Cell. Rainbow Six. Ghost Recon. Beyond Good & Evil. XIII.

They don't need their own cameras, they can just piggyback on the network the "good guys" have set up.

We're not living in the middle ages anymore. It makes quite a difference if being in public means a neighbour could see what you're up to, or if it means there is a database that allows anyone with access to, within seconds, profile your every step, movement and action in public over the last 5 years. It feels like a big enough difference to warrant some laws protecting against it.

Godwin's law has lost a bit of its edge, now that actual, open, self-admitted Nazis are once more taking positions of power in Western democracies.

You're conflating the sale of a copy of a work with transferring the copyright of a work. Those are VERY different things. Of course you never acquired the copyright of a game you bought in a store because that would've meant you could've printed up and sold your own copies. But it's very important to remember among all the pernicious and constant gaslighting from the industry that YES, you used to own the games you bought. Your copy was yours to keep, sell on, destroy, whatever you wanted as long as you didn't infringe on the rights-holders. It's true ownership. Exactly the same as when you buy a book or an art print. Of course you didn't buy the rights to the novel or the painting, but you did fully, 100%, perpetually own YOUR copy of it.

No, that's not correct. You did, in fact, always buy a copy of the game and own it. What you didn't get is the right to distribute copies of it, that's all. If it's distributed as a download or on a physical medium doesn't make a difference either. You own your copy of the game.

It's true that the lawsuit isn't very well worded, though, because the same thing is true even today. You own the copy of the software you install even today. What's different today is that the software you buy and own and install is not the game, but a client that can give you access to the game. You still own and can keep that, for all the good it'll do you.

The discussion shouldn't be as much about ownership of the copies of the software, but whether that software is functional without external services. I agree with the lawsuit that using words like "purchase" because, while it's technically true that they sell you a copy of the client, that client is worthless on its own. The important distinction is between buying a piece of software or subscribing to a service. Selling a copy of Myst is the former, "buying" a game on PSN is the latter, and it has nothing to do with a disc being involved or not.

I told an SVP politician during the campaign that, while I disagree with the method, in principle I agreed with their position that people should finally stop having so many children already. I think he didn't get the joke.

But a lot was made during the campaign about how the right-wing SVP argued mostly with usually left-wing talking points: sustainability, preserving natural landscapes, public transportation, etc. But ultimately, it was pretty clear that their argument of "fewer people" was simply them trying to hide their actual wish of "fewer of THOSE people", because they knew how unpopular their actual demands were.

In the end, what counts is the letter of the proposed law, and I'm glad so many citizens saw through the marketing bullshit.

The campaign they ran did pretty well in painting it as not being a far-right demand. That's why it managed to still get those ~45%. But when looking at the actual wording of the proposed law and the clearly intended consequences, I do think it was pretty far-right. It would've meant completely abandoning the bilateral contract framework with the EU (hence "Swiss Brexit") and essentially forced Switzerland to violate human rights treatied. Knowing the people behind the initiative, that wasn't an unintended side effect, but one of their central goals. They initially ran on the "sustainability" arguments to try and hide their true intentions (but ultimately realised they still needed to spill some hateful racist fearmongering to reassure their core voters).

As others have pointed out, this is made-up and not a real divide. In fact, surveys often show that immigrants are more likely to support stricter immigration laws than natives.

What WAS a real divide in the results, though, is that the initiative got the most support in the regions with the fewest immigrant residents, and vice-versa. (As a reminder, non-citizen immigrants weren't able to vote on this, and anyone who has gone through the process will tell you that becoming a Swiss citizen takes a lot of time and effort).

As always with topics like this, the people who see all the problems with (legal!) immigrants are invariably those who barely ever encounter one in their everyday life. Us cityfolk just raise our eyebrows when people from the countryside talk about how bad our life in the city must be with all the crime and overcrowding.

Probably because an increasing number of people react allergically to the kind of pictures LLMs generate. The moment I get a whiff of GenAI imagery on any website, that is very likely the last that website will ever see of me. I have a feeling the implicit statement of "I couldn't be arsed to pay someone to illustrate this, or even just look for a real picture, but please, waste your time reading my slop" might not be a great long-term recipe.

But you have a point, LLM images are inherently worthless because anyone can whip them up. Why would someone pay an intermediary to get someone else to whip the slop up for them? Not a great business model.

But the government also sets other rules. You can't operate on people in a hospital of you're not a real, accredited surgeon. You can't get the contract to build a railroad bridge unless you're a real, accredited engineer.

It's not just words, the whole point is to ensure that those that need a service have a way of knowing that the person offering it has at least been vetted somehow. Good luck getting a job without that accreditation in an industry where it exists

I wonder where people get this idea when everywhere I look, people are looking for developers, and even the industry-wide statistics say that dev employment has gone up in all but entry-level roles (which, granted, might turn into a problem yet).

And once those companies who *thought* they could replace their devs with LLMs start hearing from their customers about the state of their products? Oh, boy. Not necessarily the job I'd want to do, but there'll be a lot of emergency demand. Same as when everyone started figuring out that offshoring was a stupid idea, as well.