OpenAI is no different
That's not exactly true. OpenAI is structured like Mozilla, where there's a nonprofit parent part which owns a for-profit subsidiary.
Idk all the details, but I suspect that the typical exit strategy isn't in the cards for them without some legal shenanigans.
There's also a distro called Hannah Montana Linux, but that doesn't make Hannah Montana literally Linux.
I keep seeing stuff like this but I don't get it. Azure is Linux because if it was Windows only, nobody would use it. It's a shit service filled with tricks to lock customers in.
It's obvious that WSL is EEE. It only exists because of their focus on the cloud, and they realized that Windows was a poor dev environment for Linux software. Microsoft is directly incentivized to kill Linux so people get even more locked in to their ecosystem.
Is the reason you have a good impression of them because you use VS Code? That's not even open source. The proprietary parts are all more spyware and walled garden shit designed to lock you in.
Or maybe you're not a dev, and it's because you like Xbox gamepass? That's an anticompetitive attempt to monopolize the game industry. It's unsustainable and designed to price out the competition and lock in customers, which is classic monopoly shit. It's the best deal in the game industry today, but prices will shoot up when they get the market share they want.
The golden rule still applies today, as it did 20+ years ago: never trust Microsoft
Lets let the perpetrators encouraging mass shootings continue to get off scott free while actively enraging their base with falsehoods.
Is there a /c/insanepeoplelemmy yet?
This feels fucked up to write, but incels shooting women/children/non-whites is probably better than having lefties/righties shooting each other. That's how you actually get a civil war.
...honestly, I'd rather get shot
World: But it's already December!
America: hold my beer
Alternatively, at the rate they're happening, it'll stop being newsworthy soon.
That's why you should never put people on a pedestal. There are a lot of people I admire, but I always try to imagine them being stupid assholes most of the time to balance things out in my head.
This is far from the first (or last) time he wrote something like this. This was just a regular thing in the kernel world for a long time (until Linus matured a little).
Whether or not it was a good thing is up for debate I think. Yeah, it's very rude and unprofessional (and discourages new contributors who don't want to risk getting chewed out), but considering the importance of the Linux kernel, it's good to know the lead maintainer is doing too much of the right thing than not enough (i.e. being lax with bad code in order to be respectful). I'm fine knowing that a few tech workers got their egos smashed if it gives me confidence that the code powering civilization is high quality.
I actually have experience porting games and engines to consoles. If it runs on a development PC (likely Windows), they have the build system and platform layer implemented, which is the hardest part. Porting the content is also an important step, but really only for consoles, which usually have limited memory and power.
Typically the only problem with "PC ports" today is when the game wasn't designed around mouse/keyboard, or when the devs didn't make an effort to optimize it on consumer specs (although nowadays console architecture isn't too different from PCs so there are more optimizations that work across platforms). Another potential problem is when the game gets a lot of last minute hacks to fix bugs in order to ship on a console and those hacks don't survive a platform transition, then the publisher just tells them to ship as is since there's no certification process on PC. Basically, the problems are almost always logistical/business decisions due to a lazy/cheap publisher.
None of that is going to apply to this game. Rockstar has always intended to ship and fully support PC from the beginning. They had the technology, the talent, the incentive, and the time to do it. The most realistic explanation (IMO) for the PC delay is that they're trying to double-dip.
Cue the legal bickering over what counts as "reasonable". I think the definition is clear: the only reasonable price for medicine is the lowest possible price. And the only way to ensure that is to not award drug patents in the first place (at all, but especially if development was funded by taxpayers).