FishFace

I think they do like it - they get loadsa money for it!

I see it more positively: there are more games than ever. I can play loads of amazing indie games, and I can also play the blockbusters; nothing seems to be holding back my enjoyment. I don’t really give a shit if an individual studio collapses under the weight of its own need for ever-greater sales, since I’m still going to get new stuff to play. If a big game is more-of-the-same and runs poorly, I won’t play it. So what if it’s the sequel to a really good game? If anything that sets the bar higher for me - a new game is more interesting and exciting so I’d rather play something completely new than a sequel. If a sequel is shit, then it’s time to abandon that series.

Back then is back then; the world is, as they say, changed.

More gamers, different standards. If you re-released a 2007 masterpiece today with no updates to its graphics it wouldn’t do AAA sales. Today’s AAA games are more like films, with blockbuster film budgets and timelines.

It’s perfectly true that no-one is forcing them to spend such a huge amount of money. But in another sense, economics strongly strongly encourages someone to do that, because doing so is profitable compared to not doing that.

Fair point, let’s hope this is the end of it :P

Reporting every bit of noise in this statistic is kinda boring?

That market segment is not the triple A segment though.

Pretty light on details. I’m not really sure what Venris has done or its impact - does their original mod still work? Does a change to Venris’ original have any impact on the unauthorised versions, or is it just as if they deleted it? What does AI have to do with it?

You’ve got no fucking leg to stand on, calling people lazy. What a clown.

I think the author may be having a psychotic break

Scale and impact are pretty damn relevant though. There’s a lot of things I’d boycott due to active genocides that I wouldn’t boycott because of quibbles over data protection and AI. When you draw an analogy between things, it only works if they’re of similar magnitudes, otherwise what makes one scenario in the analogy work doesn’t apply to the other one, and the analogy collapses.

Yeah. It’s beyond unnuanced thinking and is a bit brain-dead :(

Training AI models takes quite a bit of energy. But probably less than you think. Without knowing how much you think I can’t say for sure, but I can say that AI is so far down the list of water consumers that any time it comes up I can be fairly confident.

I learnt this myself making visualisations in Winamp :)

Isn’t this article essentially wrong because of this line:

Ubuntu 26.10 also stops systemd-oomd being able to kill user sessions

systemd-oomd works completely differently from the kernel OOM killer. Unless it’s changed, it just ranks everything by how much memory they’re using and picks the biggest memory hog that isn’t manually deprioritised by some config rule, and kills that. The OOM killer has a much smarter heuristic to deprioritise processes which are being actively used.

As far as I understand, systemd-oomd was always a shoddy implementation because of this, and when it first started being used in Fedora (I don’t know about Ubuntu) also had insanely aggressive settings so that it would nobble something when you still had 20% free memory.

The problem it was trying to solve was that Linux’s behaviour under memory pressure is actually abysmal. I have no idea if other OSes are any better, but basically once your computer starts thrashing, you’re better off rebooting it because it’ll be up again in a minute, whereas if you wait it’ll probably be half an hour if you’re lucky. The OOM killer detects actual out-of-memory, not thrashing, and so you can spend days slowly grinding your way through operations that should have taken seconds without ever triggering it. Hence systemd-oomd is designed to kick in before you actually run out of memory… and as a consequence it somewhat frequently does so too early.

Spoons are pretty safe