Are the petabytes of training data included in the repo? No? Then how could it ever be called open source?
At best, some of the current AI can be called freeware.
If you’re just including the trained AI itself, it’s more like including a binary, rather than source.
You can’t really modify Llama in a significant way, can you? You can’t fork it and continue improving that fork.
I meant this:
The biggest one for me is that most of the games come out on PC eventually anyway, and will generally run at higher resolutions and frame rates.
Did you edit the comment? I could have sworn there was the word “issue” in there, originally.
Is it an issue, though?
Edit: The whole comment was just a misunderstanding.
I’m fairly sure the crouch jump is part of the Half-Life 1 tutorial level.
I just beat this level yesterday!
It becomes easy… Once you know what the tricks are supposed to be, which the game doesn’t tell you at all.
For me, these were the tips I needed:
Supposedly the PSX version also has a video in the options menu which shows you a dev completing the course, with button prompts on screen.
Oh, and there’s a cheat code in-game to skip this level entirely.
I think that would depend on the skill of the developers and the resources they are given.
A lot of us are only ever taught to be code monkeys and those would probably not naturally gravitate towards true agile practices (which most, I would argue, have never actually seen in a real project).
Another problem is a lack of access to domain experts, which is also crucial.
However, my current project doesn’t have any managers, or even business analysts, there’s only the developers and the Product Owner. We have access to some domain experts and we work with them to build the right thing.
It’s going great and the only problems we are facing are a lack of access to the right domain experts sometimes, as well as some mismanagement in the company around things we can’t do ourselves (like the company Sonarqube not working and us not being allowed to host our own due to budget constraints).
In conclusion, I think part of the problem is educating software developers - what true agile is and what the industry best practices are (some mentioned in my previous comment). Then you give them full access to domain experts. Then you let them self-organize. Basically, make sure you have great devs, then follow the 12 Principles of the Agile Manifesto to the letter and you’ve got a recipe for success.
Otherwise, results may vary a bit, as I think many would tend to continue doing the Fake Agile they were taught and continue producing the poor quality, untested code they were taught to produce.
Fair point!
I’m hoping for a 4-day 6-hour work week in my lifetime, but it seems the world isn’t ready for that quite yet, even though I’m 100% convinced productivity would not be impacted in any significant way, at least when it comes to software dev.
A part of it is horrible practices and a work culture which incentivizes them.
Who can be happy when the code doesn’t work half the time, deployments are manual and happen after work hours, and devs are forced to be “on-call”?
Introduce Test-Driven Development, Domain-Driven Design, Continuous Deployment with Feature Flags, Mutation Testing and actual agile practices (as described in the Agile Manifesto, not the pathetic attempt to rebrand waterfall we have in most companies) to the project and see how happiness rises, along with the project’s reliability and maintainability.
Oh, and throw in a 4 day work week, because no one can be mentally productive for that long.
IMO the biggest problem in the industry is that most developers have never seen a project actually following best practices and middle management is invested in making sure it never happens.
Isn’t the entire point of federation to be able to do what you’re describing?
First part of the article sounds like what I’d expect.
The second part makes me wonder if this research was sponsored by some company which provides “Prompt Engineering” training.
Joplin itself is AGPL. Unfortunately, Joplin Server is under “JOPLIN SERVER PERSONAL USE LICENSE”.
While I really like Joplin, I’m thinking of making the switch to something fully open source.
Hopefully this will enrage the users enough to go and actually vote against Trump.
I don’t think source-available licenses have any chance of outcompeting open source, or at least I hope developers won’t let them.
Open source thrives on contributions. The moment you restrict what I can do with the software I’m supposed to contribute to is the moment I ask myself: “am I being asked to work for free, solely for the benefit of someone else?”.
The incentive to contribute completely disappears (at least to me) when I’m asked to do it for a project which “belongs to someone in particular”.
While that sucks, it’s only some games, and AFAIK they only rely on Gog Galaxy for the multiplayer features sometimes, and maybe achievements.
I’m also still holding out hope they’ll come out with a Linux version of GOG Galaxy. For now, for my single player gaming purposes, running the games using Lutris (or Heroic, which I’ve heard is even better for this) is good enough for my Linux gaming needs.
I think GOG gets better and better as a place to buy games.
I’m a die-hard fan just for the DRM-free offline installers they provide, but the game selection has been consistently getting wider, to the point where many AAA games release on GOG on day one.
The deals are also generally nice.
Can’t easily download offline installers, though.
They refused to pull out of Russia when it invaded Ukraine, though, so they’re shitty in other ways.
The coalition is a mix of left (Lewica), center (Donald Tusk’s KO) and center-right (Polska 2050, PSL).
KO generally voted for the bill, it was PSL who voted overwhelmingly against it, which, together with PIS, made it so that the bill didn’t pass.
There’s good reasons to hate Tusk, and I share a lot of them, but this one isn’t it. With the cards he was dealt, there wasn’t much he could’ve done.
Just because open source AI is not feasible at the moment is no reason to change the definition of open source.