To my knowledge upgrading to the newer release of any of those linux distros was not blocked by having only slightly old and perfectly serviceable hardware.
To my knowledge upgrading to the newer release of any of those linux distros was not blocked by having only slightly old and perfectly serviceable hardware.
I completely agree that business ghouls doing business ghoul things make studios make worse games… doesn’t really affect my point though… studios are not making games based on a “bar” set by the consumers as described in the original post…
They are part of the studios… point was “the bar” is “fun/interesting”. The vast majority of people that purchase games don’t have a bar as defined by the comment I originally replied to.
Studios can make whatever they want. People aren’t putting in orders.
Sort of alarming how many upvotes this has without anybody providing any reference at all. We have enough privacy problems to worry about without people posting unsubstantiated claims :/
I can’t find anything about it. Claim seems sus tbh
Where is the info about this?
Why would it involve re encoding?
MMA has rules that don’t exist in real fights that almost certainly affect the dominance of styles
Their existence actually does inconvenience me. They have taken space at the grocery store that used to be used for things I purchased, and some restaurants that used to have pretty good veggie burgers changed to impossible/beyond which I prefer less and also disagrees with my stomach.
It’s better today than it was a year ago, and WAY better than it was 3 years ago, and is still improving. There are a few categories of games where you are likely to have problems though.
I would say whether linux is ready for (windows) gaming depends on is different per person predicated on:
For me, I tend to play some older games, and there are a few that don’t work well. I don’t want to boot windows, so I just decide I can wait for it to get there for them.
For some people, “ready” means will run every windows program as if running on windows. We’re still a ways off from that, if we ever get there (it’s a moving target, as windows is still being developed…)
The letters separately is how I’ve always said it/ heard
Meanwhile, llms are less useful at helping me write code than intellij was a decade ago
That is a very rudimentary understanding of the system that doesn’t always pan out in a particular time frame or due to external factors.
It’s straight up just because people will pay the price they’re asking…
Usually it doesn’t matter what abstractions you choose when you try to factor them to support hypothetical future work, because chances are you incorrectly anticipate future needs.
In other words, generic code that only supports one use case will almost certainly have to be deconstructed to allow a good generic implementation for 2 use cases, so it is better to just write simple code and factor code out when you can see the real commonalities.
In other, other words, KISS, YAGNI
I hate reading code like this. It means that there is a bunch of object or global state that could be getting modified by anything all over the place that I can’t see just by looking at the method. In other words, if you say you understand this method, it is because you are making assumptions about other code that might be wrong.
I’ll take a 30 line pure function over a web of methods changing member state every time.
You can do PGO with GCC, though it takes extra steps of course