Mars

If the site breaks on Firefox, probably it only works in chrome based, so I’d say just use ungoogled-chromium.

My 970 seems as old as the wheel if you read this kind of threads.

I really need to upgrade my rig…

Well, I have spent countless hours between Zachtronics games and Factorio, so…

Yes, I’d play that.

It’s getting bigger, but I said they WERE less than an 1%. And macOS was bigger that Linux for ages.

Then Apple proved they were not an ideal alternative platform, being even more closed than Microsoft, and not understanding the games ecosystem, so Valve pivoted and got into the Linux thing, failed with the Steam Machines, pivoted into Proton, and now I have a Deck.

The technology used by Valve is Irrelevant. The operating system losing support is not even supported by apple. The users of that version of MacOs are at risk because they use a closed source unmantained operating system.

As I said Apple is not concerned with kind of old software. They expect everyone to move up with them, developers and users, or get left behind.

Portal is a game released THE SAME YEAR the iPhone was. In classic hit PC game time that’s “nothing”, you expect to be able to run it, but in Apple’s timeline is ancient history. Take a look into how many iPhone games just won’t work anymore.

They tried. Then apple dropped 32bit binaries support.

Apple is a very expensive partner to have. They do whatever they want with their ecosystem and many developers have been burned when apple decides to make their work obsolete or outright copies it and makes part of the bundled in apps.

So. It would be amazing if valve updated every one of their games for new versions of macOS and if they would kept MacOS proton support. But macOS is a moving target that will break backwards compatibility whenever it suits apple. So I understand that is hard to justify the investment.

In the end MacOs and Linux where less than a 1% of the Steam user base. But one is an open ecosystem where there is competition and some semblance of respect for backwards compatibility and the other is a closed and sometimes hostile environment.

Bots are routinely rounded up and banned. A lost follower is not necessarily an unfollow.

The article is reaching for a narrative. The lady they talk about has done other things in this period of time. Other stuff has happened. The change in followers is minuscule in relation to the magnitude, so it could be noise.

It could be homophobia obviously. It could be some controversy about unfortunate body image declarations. It could be noise. It could be the war on Middle East and a round of banned bots. It could be too much time since the last record. She could be losing the spotlight. The social network could be purging deleted accounts.

The reason “homophobia” is a guess. The reason “bots” is another. None invalidates the other because in both cases you have to make assumptions about the motives of 100.000 entities.

Also could be 5.100.000 followers lost and 5mil gained. The article talks about the delta, but there is not a reliable analysis about the composition of the following and its change over the last months, except one simple number.

Correlation != causation.

That because is doing some heavy lifting

A tree can be seen as a formal language. Look into L-systems.

If you generalize what a symbol is (the rgb value of a pixel) you can write a grammar that ends producing a list of pixels. You can then place it in a 2d matrix and you have an image.

I guess a better approach would be wave function colapse, but seems to me like it could be formally described as a grammar (CS or CF, dunno, would have to look into it)

Didn’t you go into Turing machines and the Halting problem from that?

That was my intro into computation: regex, automatas, state machines, stack state machines, formal languages, grammars, Turing machines, Hanting Problem, P NP.

I’m really sceptic about that kind of metrics because many of them take carbon offsets into account, and carbon offsets are mostly greenwashing.

Power mix in the world right now is over 50% coal and gas, and only hydro is over a 10%. This is worldwide, so mix varies depending on where you are.

In the end EVs are no making a dent in power demand. They are increasing it. The percentage of fossil fuels is maybe going down but total fossil fuel consumption is increasing as our demand does. Green energy is only taking some of the slack from the increase.

EVs will be remembered as the thing we did to keep using cars and feeling good about it.

Are they? Because unless you live in some green energy paradise, most EV are charged using coal plants.