Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: Purple Library GuyHuh. Seems like Humble is orienting towards being a Steam . . . hmmm, not parasite. Not quite symbiont though. A Steam Remora?

A commensal symbiont (where one partner benefits without the other being affected) rather than a mutual symbiont (where both partners benefit)?

That's what I was looking for.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Appelsin

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: AppelsinYou don't need to link you Steam account, but you need to have a Steam account in which to redeem the key.

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: imgur.com

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

I guess you've already got it linked.

I know how humble works. I've bought plenty of games from them over the years, Steam keys and otherwise. They only require this linking for freebies, I assume so that they get something back for giving out free games. The information they can pull from our Steam accounts is valuable data for them after all.

I stand corrected. I just checked in the settings and you're right, the accounts are already linked.

It's strange why, though, as I can't really think of anything that this link "does", unlike e.g. EA and Ubisoft where you "need" it to be able to launch your Uplay or Origin account. Other than pulling data, of course.

Huh. Seems like Humble is orienting towards being a Steam . . . hmmm, not parasite. Not quite symbiont though. A Steam Remora?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I want it to have a pony!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: slaapliedjeThere is still not really a reason to move to Wayland. Like sure maybe architecturally it's better. But as a user and needing my things to actually work correctly, then why would I move to Wayland?

The people who used to work on X11 don't want to any more. They only work on Wayland now. No one else has taken over the X11 work. Wayland will become adequate or it won't, but, either way, there's no viable alternative.

Long term, sure. But right now it does seem that, certainly for KDE looking at that list, Wayland still has a lot of regressions. Or rather, KDE has a lot of regressions on Wayland--not really Wayland's fault, but for an end user the point is, if you go to Wayland you have a list of problems.
I do get the feeling that lately, people have been getting much more serious about making their stuff work with Wayland, and also that what I've been hearing about Wayland progress these days is much less likely to be "Wayland finally gets N to work" and much more likely to be "Somebody finally gets their N to work on Wayland". So I think we're getting a lot closer and the last mile could come rather faster than things have been going up till now. Well, it'd be hard for it to go slower.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The visuals are definitely freaky and really give it the kind of atmosphere they seem to be going for. Unfortunately, they also kind of hurt my eyes. I'm not sure if I can work with the tradeoff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Damn punsters! Git off my lawn!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: scaineI've liked your detailed responses that follow this post, because they explain how DLSS works. Thank you.

But this initial response was you dismissing other people's opinions snarkily. I've no time for that attitude. The air of superiority and mocking of other people's comments is infuriating. And you continue to do so. Language like "the other user" (they have a name), "Tried to pretend" , "gimme a break", etc. So condescending.

Don't you think it's also very condescending and sassy to dismiss innovative technology as "something over-specialized and good-as-dead"?

Do you not draw a distinction between dismissing a technology and dismissing a person? If you are the literal personification of Machine Learning, such that an attack on it is an attack on you, I'm sure we all apologize, and I for one would like to express my starstruck feelings at finally meeting an actual Platonic Ideal.

Have you read the rest of my comment? If you did, then you have my answer.

Yeah. You said "a partially emotional response was justified and expected" but you didn't give a rationale for why that should be the case. "You work in the field" is not the same as "You are individually under attack when anyone says anything about that field". I have a good friend who works for an oil company; he doesn't get defensive any time someone worries about pipeline spills--in fact, he's the first to point out that all pipelines leak.
And you said "It's not my job to educate the layman". Well, nice of you to go above and beyond, and condescend to correct the unwashed, I suppose.

It's not about "dismissing a technology" and then "dismissing a person"

Yes it is. The standards for how it's OK to talk about technologies and about persons are fundamentally different ... There is no victim there because technologies are not persons.

That technology was created by brilliant engineers. When someone cusses their creation because of unrelated prejudice, those engineers become the victims(it has social and monetary effects) - and also this forum's users because Fear + Uncertainty + Doubt is a just a shady tactic and being the victim of this misinformation-warfare is bad for every layman because it might affect their daily lives. You seem to be very concerned about what the individual in question feels despite the fact that the individual dismissed the feelings and concerns of the experts. I didn't call out that user's opinion because they were not interested in a piece of technology but because their comment was made with prejudice - it was just the cherry on top that he didn't even understand the tech(same happened when they mentioned CUDA). This case is not like rightfully criticizing the oil pipelines from your example, but much closer to calling a new linux feature shit/DOA because you're an ms investor and use windows. Hiding behind the pretense that you're only attacking a piece of technology and you're not actively hurting anyone is nonsense. It wasn't constructive criticism created from professional insight - it was just propaganda and this is what I responded with:

Quoting: GuestThis sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't understand either of these features. Hardware-assisted AI/ML being "limited" to specific use cases while an upscaling tech being "general purpose"? Give me a break...

As you can see, I didn't call anyone stupid but correctly inferred(in an annoyed tone!) that the individual doesn't understand the tech and just posted a hot-take. Later, they had the chance to explain themselves but they doubled-down on this antagonistic behavior by attacking CUDA instead. If the user's goal was just to post their opinion(despite not being an expert) then they had the chance to do a bit of "research" and acquire knowledge. But as you all can see, it turned into something else: you all took offense instead and the user doubled-down. I don't know if the user changed their mind and it's not like I expect them to start to publicly appreciate the tech but none of the experts want to be the indirect victims of such foul campaigns. If you don't like certain business strategies of a company then you can call those out explicitly, no need to attack the others.

Similarly, when you and another user misunderstood our AI tech as "something less than instinct" you were technically incorrect and just fell to the trap of the common "true-AI" misconception simply because of your incorrect ideas about artificial "intelligence" and "instinct" - you were actively dismissing our work and achievements but I understood that you're doing it as some short of generic self-defense from this world's endless marketing garbage(still not a good justification) and not because you've an actual motive. I've tried to correct you but with a different tone.

There are also standards about what is OK in a healthy/rational community when it comes to information-sharing - as I said, if you want to completely give up impartiality and be totally OK with becoming something shallow - like the phoronix.com or the r/PS5 forums - then it's your choice but the experience of the many is above the whims of the individual. If you start sharing your opinion about things you've no experience with and dismiss the struggle of the experts then that forum will quickly reach facebook-levels of anti-intellectualism and soon, the experts will think about that forum as a cesspool - which in turn will hurt everyone who likes to lurk there.

So, basically, your position is that if someone says bad things about a technology you support, you are within your rights to diss them personally, because those are both the same. You are wrong and your arguments for it being the case are transparently mistaken. While you are no doubt an expert on certain technologies, I do not get the impression that you are particularly knowledgeable about ethical philosophy or the analysis of discourse. I do know something about these things, so by your standards (which amount to an extension of the "argument from authority" logical fallacy) perhaps you should be taking my word that you are wrong.
I predict this mistaken attitude is going to get you into a lot of fights. Indeed, no doubt it already has.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Maybe it's because I'm a union guy, but something about the scenario rubs me the wrong way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Beastmen, huh? I guess that's why they called the DLC "The Silence & the Furry".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: scaineI've liked your detailed responses that follow this post, because they explain how DLSS works. Thank you.

But this initial response was you dismissing other people's opinions snarkily. I've no time for that attitude. The air of superiority and mocking of other people's comments is infuriating. And you continue to do so. Language like "the other user" (they have a name), "Tried to pretend" , "gimme a break", etc. So condescending.

Don't you think it's also very condescending and sassy to dismiss innovative technology as "something over-specialized and good-as-dead"?

Do you not draw a distinction between dismissing a technology and dismissing a person? If you are the literal personification of Machine Learning, such that an attack on it is an attack on you, I'm sure we all apologize, and I for one would like to express my starstruck feelings at finally meeting an actual Platonic Ideal.

Have you read the rest of my comment? If you did, then you have my answer.

Yeah. You said "a partially emotional response was justified and expected" but you didn't give a rationale for why that should be the case. "You work in the field" is not the same as "You are individually under attack when anyone says anything about that field". I have a good friend who works for an oil company; he doesn't get defensive any time someone worries about pipeline spills--in fact, he's the first to point out that all pipelines leak.
And you said "It's not my job to educate the layman". Well, nice of you to go above and beyond, and condescend to correct the unwashed, I suppose.

It's not about "dismissing a technology" and then "dismissing a person"

Yes it is. The standards for how it's OK to talk about technologies and about persons are fundamentally different. It is ethically OK to diss a technology or treat a technology with disrespect, even if you are wrong about it. There is no victim there because technologies are not persons.

So. A person treating a technology with disrespect, even if you think that person is wrong about that technology, is not a reason to treat that person with disrespect. There is no equivalence between those two things. If you do, they have done nothing wrong but you have. You don't seem to get this. But aside from its intuitive obviousness, it flows very directly from every ethical theory I'm aware of; you could friggin' prove it with formal logic. On a less formal level, refusing to get it is going to get you into a lot of angry situations due to you ragging on people for, as far as they and logic can tell, no reason.

View this comment - View article - View full comments