While this was obviously a bug in their algorithm, said algorithm is also preventing brainwash videos from turning your child into a terrorist, racist etc.

Would you have rathered such an algorithm not exist? People should bear in mind the terrible complexity that such an algorithm entails. Can *you* code such an algorithm? If not, you can't expect it all to work flawlessly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: ShabbyXThis is absolutely not true. 16KB is 4 pages of memory, saving that on every .so is huge! It's not just that you have the memroy laying around, there are other costs too. There's the cost of loading the objects from disk, maintaing the struct page entries in the kernel etc.

Everything has worked fine so far even with this extra cost, so I doubt the (real world) effect is huge. What kind of improvement this change makes for desktop use case?

Quoting: ShabbyXThere is a reason Linux is _fast_. With your approach, Linux would have been bloatware like the rest of them.

How come Linux is the fastest kernel there is when it absolutely follows that "bloatware" practice?

1. As others mentioned, little things add up. Linux is fast because every little performance improvement is applied. After all, large company X saves a lot of money for improving things by 0.01% simply because the multpilier is so large for them. You enjoy a fast kernel on desktop thanks to that.

2. Two reasons. One is that a good chunk of the ABI people use is POSIX, which is standardized. Linux is not free to change it, no matter how many complaints they may have about it.

But more importantly, it's because Linux actually doesn't follow the bloatware practice. Linux's ABI most definitely changes in backwards incompatible ways. It just happens to change mostly in actively developed areas where users are also developers of the feature and they adapt to new changes.

Linux's motto is not *never change the ABI*, but *never break userspace*. The difference is that if a change breaks ABI but not userspace (like, no active users of it, or userspace happens to not break), then the change goes through perfectly fine.

---

To be clear, I'm not defending glibc. They were wrong to make a backwards incompatible change without incrementing the major version. I'm only saying that "win32 is stable, so it must be good" is a terrible argument.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPMemory is not an issue anymore nowadays outside of very specific environments.

This is absolutely not true. 16KB is 4 pages of memory, saving that on every .so is huge! It's not just that you have the memory laying around, there are other costs too. There's the cost of loading the objects from disk, maintaining the struct page entries in the kernel etc.

There is a reason Linux is _fast_. With your approach, Linux would have been bloatware like the rest of them.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThis is just one library.
Imagine if all libraries took this approach.

There is something called semantic versioning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Semantic_versioning [External Link]

It's made exactly so that libraries *can* break ABI if they have to, without the world imploding. glibc made a breaking change, and no matter how small, they should have made an incompatible version change. Yes that would still be inconvenient, but at least it's detectable and fixable. Imagine if python3 did all its backward incompatible things but still called itself python2.

Also, I don't understand at all how anyone could be defending win32 here. win32 is a piece of hot garbage. No one likes is, no one wants it, not even Microsoft. Is anyone suggesting we should stick with some shitty API for another 1000 years because ABIs should never change?

No, software changes, it's the nature of it (soft is in its name!). And ABIs break when they need to. But you have versions just so you can deal with this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: ShabbyXI remember I sucked hard at Diablo. I could never finish it. Diablo 2, I also sucked but at least I could get through to the end.

Then I played Diablo 3, which was rather easy, and so boring (500 yellow items to be identified one by one, each taking 4 seconds? What were they thinking?) So I decided to go back and play Diablo. Man, they had it *right*! Blue drops were so rare, it was so exciting to see one. You couldn't wait to get it identified. Same with Yellow items on Diablo 2. Diablo 3 just threw garbage after garbage legendary items at you. No excitement at all for getting them.

Anyway, rant over. I hope divelutionX doesn't force you to click the mouse for every attack :)

Diablo 3 is so boring, to this day I couldn't finish the story line, because it was just too easy. Even continually cranking up the difficulty to the maximum every time we'd level, my brother and I just got bored.

I finished it, but yes it's so boring. "Diablo is back, let's kill it". Wow, much story.

Worse was that all the lore you'd find are basically from the Diablo books, which I had read (actually very interesting mind you), and which then meant there was 0 new anything for me in the game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=1xok]

Quoting: itscalledreality... suffering. Even with Windows. :)

The word you are looking for is "especially" ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I remember I sucked hard at Diablo. I could never finish it. Diablo 2, I also sucked but at least I could get through to the end.

Then I played Diablo 3, which was rather easy, and so boring (500 yellow items to be identified one by one, each taking 4 seconds? What were they thinking?) So I decided to go back and play Diablo. Man, they had it *right*! Blue drops were so rare, it was so exciting to see one. You couldn't wait to get it identified. Same with Yellow items on Diablo 2. Diablo 3 just threw garbage after garbage legendary items at you. No excitement at all for getting them.

Anyway, rant over. I hope divelutionX doesn't force you to click the mouse for every attack :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: setzer22What I'd be more worried about is companies like Nvidia introducing proprietary extensions that are gated off in their Linux drivers, and that is already happening today.

What extension are you thinking about? Nvidia is actually doing an amazing job of supporting every extension that makes sense on Linux (and windows for that matter) as much as possible. And they are usually the first to ship any extension, often times even on the day the extension is released.

I do recall one extension was released on windows only, something about memory pages, and I'd bet it's more to do with Linux not supporting the exact usecase more than anything.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestAlmost needs to dedicate part of their steam page to saying what they do different?

Which I hope would be "nothing" :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Surprised it's not called The Curse of Moon Quay Island, and there's no new character called perhaps Gooy Brish

View this comment - View article - View full comments

And there it is:

> GitHub Sponsors is great!

This was just a microsoft ad. And such a cheap one too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments