I’ve played all three games. Arch on PC, Lutris, some GE-Proton 9 version. If the camera acts up in ME2, try Gamescope with relative mouse.

EA App didn’t come up. If it causes issues, try an alternatively sourced copy.

And the worms are winget.

I mean… that’s not incorrect, but…

>>> len("apt update && apt upgrade")
25
>>> len("pacman -Syu")
11

let you build faster like Python

I have to write so much boilerplate code to make sure my objects are of the correct type and have the required attributes! Every time I write an extension for Blender that uses context access, I have to make sure that the context is correct, that the context has the proper accessor attributes (which may not be present in some contexts), that the active datablock is not None, that the active datablock’s data type (with respect to Blender, not Python) is correct, that the active datablock’s data is not None… either all that or let the exception fall through the stack and catch it at the last moment with a bare except and a generic error message.

I used to think that static typing was an obstacle. Now I’m burning in the isinstance/hasattr/getattr/setattr hell.

@Mods, please don’t delete this. It’s a valuable lesson.

It’s a combined disability discount: people with hook hands, peg legs, and eyepatches may be entitled to a price as low as 0%.

I am thankful for Forkknife because most of the annoying kids who made Minecraft cringe are now playing that instead.

None of the issues you’ve described are Cargo’s fault. The long compilation time is simply rustc’s compile-time checks (ensuring type and memory safety is much more involved than lexing in GCC), and the number of dependencies to compile is a result of the crate ecosystem. Cargo is just the front-end that automates fetching dependencies and compilation with rustc. Blaming it for slow compilation is like hitting your monitor when the computer is acting up.

It’s called a hyperbole.

(edit) But, honestly, it’s still kind of accurate. Many of the most significant software suites that define the Linux ecosystem in more recent decades were written in the 80s or earlier. X (the display protocol) was released in 1984, and X11 in 1987. GNU Emacs was released in 1985. Vi, in 1976. UNIX System V, from which sysvinit and compatible init systems were adopted, was released in 1983. It’s not a stretch to say that certain people want to regress to the 1980s state, even if the kernel wasn’t around.

Off the top of my head, in no particular order:

• Systemd and its components are responsible for too many essential system functions. Init, services, mounts, timers, logging, network config, hostname, DNS resolution, locale, devices, home directories, boot, NTP sync, and I’m sure there are others, can be handled by systemd or one of its components.
• Systemd violates the UNIX philosophy of “do one thing and do it well”. Systemd is a complex solution to a complex problem: this thread has several comments by a former Arch Linux maintainer that explains why they’ve switched to systemd, and why the earlier method of using single initscripts was unsustainable.
• It is owned and maintained by Red Hat, known for its many controversies.
• Some people just don’t like modern things and think that the Linux ecosystem peaked in the 1980s.

Most (though not all) of the popular complaints are completely unreasonable. Those people usually see themselves as moral and righteous and expect the world at large to follow their personal creed. I especially consider the UNIX philosophy to be outdated, and strict adherence to it to be an obstacle for modern apps and systems.

I have some issues with systemd, and I don’t like that one for-profit company has such a massive influence over the entire Linux ecosystem, but I have to acknowledge that it works, it works well enough to counter my personal issues, and that the people whose opinion matters the most (specifically Debian and Arch maintainers) chose it for a good reason.

Nintendo sees rock bottom as a challenge.

A Song of Ice and Fire, basically.

The rules are on the same page I linked (https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq), under the “Game Eligibility” tab. I gave them the benefit of doubt and assumed that they had defined the exact terms of what is and isn’t allowed, but apparently I was wrong. Regarding AI, the document contains a grand total of one sentence:

Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.

I’m assuming the definition of what that entails is “at their discretion”, meaning whatever they feel like at the moment. I see that sentiment reflected in this thread too.

It’s possible that potential nominees have to sign some kind of declaration that they’ve complied with the rules, and that might include a more detailed list of rules, but I have no evidence to support this.

Unfortunately the boundary between “AI” and “not AI” is the polar opposite of sharp and well-defined. I’ve used Allegorithmic Substance Designer a lot for CGI work (before Adobe ate the devs; fuck Adobe, all my homies hate Adobe), and it contains a lot of texture generator algorithms from simple noise to complex grunge textures. Things like Perlin noise and Voronoi diagrams are well-known algorithms and definitely not AI. Chatbot slop is right out, but in between those two, things get remarkably fuzzy and Heisenbergian. What about an algorithm that uses real-world samples, like an image? Or multiple images? Machine learning is not the same as AI, so is that allowed? Where’s the line? I’m reasonably certain that everybody has a different answer for different situations based on different criteria.

Shut up, Elrond. Where was this certainty when all you had to do was kick Isildur into the pit to save the entire fucking world?

The issue is not that the game was disqualified. If the rules clearly and unequivocally state that at no point can generative AI be used (and also clearly state what, in the spectrum from algorithms -> machine learning -> chatbot slop, they consider to be unacceptable, which I don’t know if they did or not, guess what, they didn’t, but that’s not the point), then there is no controversy, and I’m not criticising that.

The issue is that the article completely disregards mitigating facts that counter the narrative. There are no credible sources linked in the article save for one that was grossly misrepresented. Critically, we don’t know what Sandfall actually said before the nomination or after, or how the decision to disqualify was made, only the second-hand account in the FAQ. The article presents circumstances in a biased way, leading the reader to interpret it with the assumption that there are AI-generated assets currently in the game. It is, frankly, sloppy journalism.

Both harmonicas and bagpipes produce sound by passing air over one or multiple reeds (tuned to resonate at specific fundamental frequencies), inducing oscillations in the reeds, which modulate the air flow. Bagpipes use pipes to amplify the sound, and harmonicas use the cavity between the reed plate and the body, and often the player’s hand.

A digital keyboard that doesn’t produce sound is just a fancy human interface device.

Horrid article, unless the intention was to throw shit around and hope to cause a commotion. There are no AI assets in Clair Obscur, and it should have been made clear by the article. From the IGA’s own statement:

[…] the use of gen AI art in production […] does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination. While the assets in question were patched out and it is a wonderful game, it does go against the regulations we have in place.

“Shell scripting (various languages, both POSIX-conformant and nonconformant)”

You need to pad that CV with meaningless acronyms!

At the end of the day, every instrument is just a mechanical-to-acoustic transducer with a resonating body to selectively amplify the desired notes and harmonics. The real question is whether a jackdaw qualifies as a sandwich.