Quoting: TangoBakerWizardry on an Apple II was pretty much my first PC game. That and the original flight simulator.

I remember some other game about a space fleet moving around a galaxy and assaulting planets where you had to decide how many resources you had to allocate for air battles and then for the ground assault, but that may just have been something someone wrote.

I think the game you're refering to is X-Com: UFO defense/UFO: Enemy Unknown.

Also I'm gonna be a frustrating nitpick.
The original flight simulator and Wizardry were also something someone wrote.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: JohnologueAlso, scalping doesn't make manufacturers money, unless the company is doing something VERY illegal that would be discovered very quickly.

it might not do then extra money, but unless they are losing money to get marketshare on each unity sold (as consoles usually do) it will make then money, just not at scalped prices.

Ooh, this makes me think of a scalper scamming business model.
Overproduce your product in the premiere, don't publish stock numbers and enable scalping.
Maybe also add an every x items sold temporary "out of stock warning".
The scalpers will buy up unreasonably large shares of your stock and after that you will still either be competing with said scalpers or have sold more items than you could to your customers and the scalpers will have surplus stock.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThere is a cynical side of me that says the buzz surrounding "Gizmo sales crash site, gizmo sells out in hours" is bigger than the buzz surrounding "gizmo sells this many units out of a large stockpile" even if the second number is bigger. So, what's the motivation to fix it?

Larger Gizmo sales numbers mean larger income and thus happy investors.
Costs pr value, gains hard cash value.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ElectricPrismI saw someone claim on X that Valve has 20,000 Steam Machines, considering they sold Millions of Steam Decks, that's going to sell out so fast, it'll be the Steam Controller all over again.

Valve also pays modern RAM prices.
I don't think they can sell equivalent numbers to the Steam Deck.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eocene84Where has the EFF been all this time? This is the first I've heard of them getting involved. Did they run out of funding or something??

The full list. [External Link]
Mostly USA government overreach.

You're scared of your publicly accountable elected government arbitrarily locking off parts of the internet by arresting and blocking the operators.
You're completely right to fear those things and people like you keep them away.

In the USA the danger is getting shot in broad daylight based on inaccurate information pulled straight from the ssd of your phone for fully lawful acts on the whims of some rich dude, while the public can still do something about it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PlayingOnLinuxphone> Valve continue to impress with their openness when it comes to their hardware.

Still far away from open hardware, but I was not even expecting an open source case. Well done Valve.

I already looked into both files. The STL file (for 3D graphic programs as Blender) is ~75MiB big in size. It is a super high resolution file with a single surface. So you have to cut them apart manually, which is annoying. The STP file (for CAD software) is ~8MiB and contains detailed surfaces you can select and edit easier.

If I find some time I may create my own case. There are some pretty unique ideas in my head.

Quoting: LoudTechieThe most major party besides Valve that does this seems to be framework [External Link].

Purism released everything [External Link] for their pocketcomputer Librem 5. Not just the CAD files, but also the actual hardware schematics. There is still room for improvements as opening the CPU (which becomes possible with RISC-V open hardware CPU manufacturers).

Yeah and Mnt reform did even that. [External Link] with the Ls1028A module.
I wasn't comparing openness, but majorness with the minimum requirement of realeasing CAD files.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineThis isn't of interest to me, so I can't say for sure, but I can't think of many other big-name vendors that would do this. I mean, I expect they'll already have given this to skin-creator vendors like dbrand, but making the schematic public, directly? That's pretty cool.

There certainly aren't.
Physical design publications are pretty sparse and often restricted.
Even source code is more often published than CAD files.

This's exactly, because "it's not of interest to you".
Physical garage development is monumentally more expensive than software development.
Meaning that a much smaller group cares to do it and thus cares to advertise it.

Edit:
The most major party besides Valve that does this seems to be framework [External Link].

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PlayingOnLinuxphone

Quoting: LoudTechieYou're making the same mistake I made.

Where I make a mistake? The context was clearly not about NPC behavior, but about the marketing term "AI", which I usually avoid.

The context was AI based anti-cheat.
AI based anti-cheat is also older than the prolifiration of LLM's and the implicit connection between machine learning and AI.
Minecraft anti-cheat is the most known example of AI based anti-cheat and precisely as algorithmic and deterministic as you're proposing.
It just emulates human like analysis by looking at cheating incentives and realistic human behavior.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PlayingOnLinuxphone

Quoting: sarmadFor example, it should be able to detect that you are aiming precisely at a target behind a wall, or other similar things that are impossible without cheating.

That is a good example why classic algorithms are better than LLMs which are basically algorithmic lossy archive files. It is something like MP3 for all kind of data where the timestamp is the input (prompt, randomization number and so on). The important part is "lossy", because it loses information on the training process. This causes fail predictions as not being able to do correct maths. I just asked CGPT on duck.ai "What is the math result of 13/73²?" and the result was "13 / 5329 ≈ 0.002438 (rounded to 6 significant figures).", while the real numbers are 0.00243948... this was not even a rounding failure.

If we take this approach to your gaming situation, there are precise position parameters and time frames. The server can calculate precise if such an action could be possible - easy triangulating math. Why would you want to predict if it was possible or not if you just can calculate it? And AI probably does not even go the math route, because another one is "easier" (which does not mean more correct).

AI in games is good for things like animation prediction, can save resources while being much more natural than classic systems. But there is no benefit in using it for anti-cheat (except it may costs less at development, but it can damage the companies reputation in return).

You're making the same mistake I made.
AI [External Link] isn't machine learning [External Link]
It's the capability of computational systems to preform tasks typically associated with human intelligence.
As proof I will provide an example from the gaming space.
Far for the AI boom we've been calling the behavioral logic behind npcs the AI.
That logic is coded in no machine learning involved, yet we call it AI.

We nowadays associate it with machine learning, because most modern AI companies use mostly machine learning to achieve their goals, but that's just an artifact of our time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThis actually seems like a pretty good idea. There are going to be standards and standards bodies, and what they do is going to have an impact. So apparently these guys are saying "Gee, it might be kind of good if some of the open source programmers who have to deal with the results, who write the plumbing of our digital world, could have a voice on those bodies that make the standards." That makes a fair amount of sense to me.

People bitch about bureaucrats, but without them what you have is Somalia.

Also standards primarily benefit open source, because contrary to big tech monopolies it doesn't have a centralized management structure for smooth integration, nor a big tech master dependency that dictates terms.

Standard openness is preferential, but optional in this.
Thanks to POSIX bsd, MACOS and Linux coexist in app development space, thanks to C porting Linux to a new architecture is no more than writing a solid compiler, thanks to transitional docx Libre Office can compete with Microsoft office, etc.

Apple just forces everybody to recompile, rewrite and redo all their programs to their next architecture.
Linus can't do that, but he can hide changes behind standard C and POSIX interfaces.
Microsoft can just demand printer drivers.
The bsd team can't do that, but they can support driverless printing standards.

On the bureaucrats part.
Yeah, bureaucrats do good work.
Bureaucrats are the backbone of the power of the civilian parts of government.(planning a coup, try doing that without money and your every move published)
Bureaucrats are what makes customary law tick and thus keep the juridical branch in check(for a large part this is what went wrong in the USA).
Bureaucrats allow one to launch asymmetric economic sanctions.
Bureaucrats are the checks in checks and balances.

I do admit I think the EU gives them a little bit too much legislative power(the exclusive right of amendment as an executive branch of government), but that is because it was founded and nurtured by them.
Also they are boring and that is a good thing. The will of the people is absolute, but also fickle. Spread elections and the boring parts of government are what allows a democracy to middle out this fickle will into one direction.

View this comment - View article - View full comments