There’s actually an official transparent case Steam Deck too. They had the limited edition OLED when it first came out.

Are you serious? I bought GTA5 for PS3 in 2013 and later the PC version in 2015. That ship has sailed.

Story mode is at best 50% of the content at this point. Where’s my 50% refund?

You’re basically arguing that a square isn’t a very good representation of a rectangle because it’s more than a rectangle. But the fact is, a square is a type of rectangle, just like a Steam Deck is a type of PC.

It’s not “proper gaming” unless your 1000W water cooled gaming rig is heating up your entire room to 100°, just to show you the latest in ray traced puddles /s

That’s the 512gb version even. You can get the 64gb version for $296 right now, which is a great deal. Upgrading the SSD later is pretty easy too.

You can still install whatever OS you want on it, unlike a PS5. It would be nice if you could get into desktop mode without signing in once, but that’s not the end of the world. You need a Steam account to even buy it in the first place, and they’re not tracking you nearly as much as say Microsoft.

GTA 5 released over 10 years ago, and I don’t like the direction GTA Online has gone with micro transactions and pay-to-win mechanics. I don’t think Rockstar is the same as they used to be.

And here I thought you were just rating the title a B-

I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just stating that a broken unplayable game objectively has no value. The publisher has forced that value to 0 if they turn off their servers without support, regardless of if there was any value there before or not.

Edit: I realize we might be talking about different things when saying “stop supporting”. I meant that to mean when the servers are turned off, not when they stop releasing updates or delist it from stores.

But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it

Well yeah. Obviously the game losses value BECAUSE it’s not being supported anymore. There’s no value in a paperweight.

My understanding is that this would force games to be sold as either a good (lasts forever) or a service (lasts a specific, advertized amount of time). It does not prevent service games from existing, it just stops them being sold as goods with an unspecified expiration date. The problem is consumers are uninformed about the lifetime of the game they are purchasing.

Except the original pregnancy test screen would have been something like a 2 or 3 segment LCD. They don’t need to display anything but yes or no.

5.26 minutes per year*

GTA is filled with parody ads, which are actually fun content and not intended to make you buy something. The second they become real ads, you’ll have brands complaining about being displayed next to gun violence or prostitutes, and all the fun goes away.

There’s a reason there’s no real car brands in GTA, because none of them want to be associated with running down pedestrian and drive-bys

This graph actually shows a little more about what’s happening with the randomness or “temperature” of the LLM.
It’s actually predicting the probability of every word (token) it knows of coming next, all at once.
The temperature then says how random it should be when picking from that list of probable next words. A temperature of 0 means it always picks the most likely next word, which in this case ends up being 42.
As the temperature increases, it gets more random (but you can see it still isn’t a perfect random distribution with a higher temperature value)

The default copyright on all content is “all rights reserved”, even if no license is specified. So I guess it’s cool you’re giving out permission to use your comments with credit? It won’t stop any bots crawling the comments to train AI on though.

This article seems poorly written and says the same thing over and over again with slightly different wording. I would have liked some more specifics.

The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) could have several implications for the open source software sector:

1. Increased legal and financial responsibility
2. Deterrent effect on the development of open source software
3. Lack of consideration for the specificities of open source software
4. Lack of consultation of the open source software community

Only 2 of those are implications of the law. 3 and 4 are redundant and are not caused by the law’s wording. They wouldn’t even be a problem if not for 1. 2 is also caused by 1 in a fairly obvious way.

Hows does the limitation of liability section in basically every open source license factor into this? It seems like you’d be fine as long as you aren’t personally using the code commercially? Or would this new law somehow override the open source license?

Personally I use dnsrobocert with my own domains. I’ve got a few subdomains that point to a Wireguard subnet IP for private network apps (so it resolves to nothing if you’re not on VPN). Having a real valid SSL cert is really nice vs self signing, and it keeps my browser with HTTPS-Everywhere happy.