Epic added a Linux build target to Unreal Engine 4.1 in 2014. And since UE5 in 2020 the entire development toolchain has been feature complete in Linux. Meaning you could make your Unreal game on Linux and then release it natively for Linux (and Windows/consoles/mobile devices/etc).

So while Epic has not been the best supporter of Linux, they have not been ignoring it, either. The core engine is ready. What's left is that the anti-cheat software (Easy Anti-Cheat) and the store need to catch up.

Epic looks to be hiring to improve the anti-cheat situation as it currently lacks kernel-level support, and this latest announcement indicates that they're working on getting EGS running as well.

I'm not sure how well that would work on this. I don't know the specific algo they're using, but an early, primitive one was even-odd. You divide all tokens into two groups, A and B. When generating, on even tokens you somewhat boost the odds of tokens from A, while on odd tokens, you somewhat boost the odds from B. If a high-probability word is coming up it won't meaningfully alter it, but if there's different ways something can be phrased, it can cause changes in the phrasing choice to match the A/B boosts.

Now, it's easy to see how one could defeat that algo, but I'm sure that what they're using now is a lot more sophisticated than just alternating even-odd.

From the summary:

The entire camera weighs less than 3 pounds and contains a few grams of copper and less than a milligram of gold.

The incentive to use AI to generate content and then pass it off as human-generated content is very strong. Especially right now. There is real money in the ability to lie about this, and so people absolutely want to. Many won't admit it in these terms, but the incentives are objective realities and that's all anyone needs to know in order to predict human behavior in aggregate.

Further, this watermarking does not solve the problem. It just means that people who want to deceive will simply have to use different models instead. Such models will come along one way or another; demand for them will ensure it. Tools will also surface that can detect and remove these watermarks, with varying degrees of success, to neuter the feature. It's an arms race that guarantees the intention behind this move will utterly fail.

The AI law that requires this was drafted by people who didn't think this through. It is in their nature to think that regulation can solve every problem. Enforceability is a factor too, and this law is basically dead on arrival on that front.

Yeah, I'm extremely dubious that the open source version will "sync" with the operational version. I expect the general codebase to be truly represented, but not the "levers" that can be pushed on an operational system.

. You can't just decide you don't like the algo and that you'll modify it and use a different one;

I mean, on any decent social media platform you should be able to? Bluesky has had this feature for years. Not just algo choice, but the ability to outright create your own algos and share them with other people.

It's IMHO a red flag when a for-profit company wants to force everyone to use the same algo.

Well, technically, per international treaty, nobody can "have the best spots." Legally speaking, there is no real estate that can be owned on the Moon.

And if someone at the bar thinks you're an asshole, they'll do the RL equivalent of "blocking" you.

Once again: nobody has an obligation to listen to you, and if you think you have a right to force other people to listen to your views, you're the asshole.

I'll take "Things I've Never Once Seen On Bluesky" for $1000, Ken.

You're not paying me to be your research assistant.

Voila, asking your kind of science-deniers for scientific evidence usually ends this way.

So you have not read those IPCC documents yourself — while smugly accusing me of doing "anything at all to avoid looking at" same. Take your "L" at the exit, by your left, and don't let your tail get caught in the door.

You're not paying me to be your research assistant. So far I've given four links-- you have given none-- and for three of them you explained why you're not going to read them, and one you simply ignored. Since you show not even a casual interest in the links I already gave, I see no reason to spend any of my time giving you more links to ignore.

The one you ignored is this one:

As for

Yes, I've noticed that deniers don't like being called deniers.

I've noticed that climate deniers are highly allergic to reading actual science

But you are not, are you? So it should be quite easy for you to provide the citations of nature and in the shape I've asked for: a prediction, and it materializing. Two separate links at least 5 years apart... With the evidence being, supposedly, so abundant, why is it so hard for you to satisfy my request?

1967, the first greenhouse effect model using detailed CO2 infrared spectra and incorporating convection and radiation

Great, what did it predict, that was not trivial and actually impactful, but precise?

here's an article from Forbes that does the same comparison

You're now offering a different link — instead of answering the follow-up question about the earlier ones — does this mean, you concede, that the links you posted earlier are not satisfying the simple rules I started with, and wish to withdraw them? I don't want to be accused of "moving the goal posts"...

P.S. Calling me "an idiot" or "denier" is not going to work :-)

To be clear: anyone can join Bluesky, regardless of their views. But if your posts are mainly, say, calling black people monkeys, calling trans people groomers, things of that nature, yeah, a lot of people are going to block you on sight. That's not "censorship", that's just people finding you to be an arse and having better things to do with their time online than be forced to listen to you. Everyone has a right to show anyone else the door; nobody has an obligation to face harassment.

If you feel the need to force other people to listen to your views regardless of whether they want to hear from you or not, you're the asshole.

Meanwhile, here's the reality of Bluesky user numbers (drag the range to the full range). Funny how everyone always wants to truncate the timeperiod for the "user base" to have a start date of that last big spike.

The simple fact is that with any site, most people who visit don't end up sticking around, and there's a dropoff rate. The persistance rate at Bluesky is actually unusually high**. The reason for the spikes is that Bluesky's users joined in waves; you can track each wave to specific events. Those two big spikes in new users were the US election date and the US inauguration date, respectively. You can find various other spikes related to for example various things that happened with Twitter.

** The typical retention rate for a new "consumer-social" app is 40-50% for 1 day, 20-30% for 1 week, and 10-15% for 1 month. Compare that to the Bluesky data. Again: persistence has been very high; the new-user join pattern has just been extremely "spiky".