Ah yes, makes sense. Well overall if there is a lot of text it’s tiring anyway. Maybe if you are already familiar with the content skimming is OK.

Probably a SteamVR bug, might want to check https://wiki.vronlinux.org/ there might some useful hints. I encountered few hiccups but so far nothing from preventing me to play.

I didn’t suggest they are exactly the same. Since I don’t have a benchmark, can you please clarify for example which popular game would be playable with one but not with the other? That would help the rest of us better grasp how very different it will be.

FWIW I have a SteamDeck so you could also use that as a metric if that’s useful.

Very finicky but feasible. Yes I imagine once the Frame is out that’ll be a lot more convenient and reliable.

Wondering how it’d benchmark against https://www.tuxedocomputers.com/en/TUXEDO-Nano-Pro-Gen14-AMD.tuxedo in an even smaller form factor and similar price range for specs.

That’s not what they said. Free software can be paid for, either via users or via subsidies. Nobody in this thread suggested that developers starve.

To be pragmatic here are ways free software can be monetized :

• get a salary from a company or institution that relies on free software
• ask for donations via e.g. https://liberapay.com/ or Patreon or OpenCollective
• get money per project via CrowdFunding platforms e.g. KickStarter or for hardware https://www.crowdsupply.com/
• get subsidies directly, e.g. NLNet (International, no need to be European), or https://www.sovereign.tech/programs/fund or by being part of a consortium, e.g. public/private partnerships on a theme e.g. https://www.ciiic.nl/en/calls/learning-communities

I professionally do both, namely I get paid to develop free software but I also pay free software developers, e.g. https://gcompris.net/ via their https://www.patreon.com/animtim . I also until recently worked in a public institution and was paid to write free software.

I think it is important not to conflate free software with free of cost and indeed free of production. Free software developers, like me, need to pay their bills but that does NOT have to be opposed to your freedom in using and modifying that software. By implying a false dichotomy by software being either proprietary or funded somehow you are in fact sadly promoting proprietary software, please do not do that.

I just want to play No Man’s Sky on linux VR.

Should work already https://www.protondb.com/app/275850

Sousveillance

I agree with everything you wrote but I’m not sure how it helps clarify what I said earlier. So… I think we agree?

On your final point I think the big difference between then (before LLMs) and now is that until recently a very demanding PR, in the sense that the person asking for the merge would have a good idea yet didn’t really get something about the project and thus needed a lot of guidance, it was seen as an investment. It was a risky bet, maybe that person would just leave after a lengthy discussion, maybe they’d move to their own project, etc… but a bit like with a young intern, the person from the project managing that PR was betting that it was worth spending time on it. They were maybe hoping to get some code they themselves didn’t have the expertise on (say some very specific optimization for very specific hardware they didn’t have) or that this new person would one day soon become a more involved contributor. So there was an understanding that yes it would be a challenging process but both parties would benefit from it.

Now I believe the situation has changed. The code submitted might actually be good, maybe not. It will though always, on the surface, look plausible because that’s exactly what LLM have been trained for, for code or otherwise, to “look” realistic in their context.

So… I would argue that it’s this dynamic that has change, from the hope of onboarding a new person on a project to a 1-shot gamble.

IMHO what it shows isn’t what the author tries to show, namely that there is an overwhelming swarm of bits, but rather that those bots are just not good enough even for a bot enthusiast. They are literally making money from that “all-in-one AI workspace. Chat - MCP - Gateway” and yet they want to “let me prioritize PRs raised by humans” … but why? Why do that in the first place? If bots/LLMs/agents/GenAI genuinely worked they would not care if it was made or not by humans, it would just be quality submission to share.

Also IMHO this is showing another problem that most AI enthusiasts are into : not having a proper API.

This repository is actually NOT a code repository. It’s a collaborative list. It’s not code for software. It’s basically a spreadsheet one can read and, after review, append on. They are hijacking Github because it’s popular but this is NOT a normal use case.

So… yes it’s quite interesting to know but IMHO it shows more shortcomings rather than what the title claims.

If it doesn’t ignore artistic intent (good luck with that) I’m fine with it.

Sounds like “It it were to work as expected it’d be amazing” i.e every single entrepreneur out there, backed by VCs who know it’s impossible but don’t mind cashing out of the delusion. Bubbles are propped by this kind of sentiments.

I’m not saying it’s a good strategy, just that since SoftBank it’s basically core to the VC default playbook.

I believe it’s been tweaked, thanks to Musk, Enron and banks to subsidies transitioning to too big to fail.

So, it might not work, ever, but I still think if you look at the large VC rounds, that’s what they are funding, to be so big nobody can reach you at any cost.

Damned, edited, thanks! (shows the benefit of discussing ;)

Indeed, as they said in Italian “if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike” … the reasoning might be theoretically correct but in the current situation it’s just not the case.

Run up their bills until they can’t afford to be speculative any more.

Sadly I don’t think you’ve met venture capitalists… they will use your usage as a KPI for success. They have a runway longer than you can imagine, check the history of Amazon or Uber. They can be unprofitable for years, heck longer than a decade, and they are fine with it because they are claiming (and sadly sometimes right) to be cornering a trillion dollar market.

Won’t repeat what I wrote just hours ago in https://lemmy.world/post/44130119/22616090 but just the ending :

"I would personally consider instead Bottles, GOG (have different problems), Steam (obviously not open source and basically monopolistic position), etc.

Overall I think preventing discussion is unhealthy (even though sadly sometimes needed, here I lack context, maybe the issue poster did this numerous time on other platforms, title definitely was provocative) but removing provenance is NEVER a good choice. They want to use Claude on their repo? Absolutely fine (even though not to me) but hiding it makes it instantly untrustworthy to me. In fact I even argued in the past that even though I personally do not use GenAI/LLMs (for coding or otherwise) except for testing it should always be disclosed precisely so that others can make THEIR choice in consequence, including using or contributing, cf https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices"

a special case somehow.

IP, e.g. Mario, Zelda, Pokemon.

Better integrated than Steam? I’d be curious to hear how.

Classic GenAI marketing BS :

• show a superficial demo (literally it’s JUST the surface of the things you claim you can “generate”)
• imply that we are on the “brink” of radical change so we “just” have to wait then the “rest” will be generated
• move on to the next grandiose claim to make sure nobody goes beyond the surface

It’s so obvious it’s painful. Sure it’s not random, sure there is “progress” but it’s NEVER tackling the hard problem. What makes a game fun or exciting isn’t the generated world, only a non gamer would claim that.

Well I do mean physically opaque but true that implies, as few persons did comment regarding e.g. Poker, that the content itself or the rules do not change the distribution to introduce artificial scarcity.

The point is that purchasing a package in itself should not be a bet.