True, but people remember the headlines, so I wanted to make the actual quote slightly more visible.

Use something that supports tags properly.

It lets you handle fuzzy boundaries way easier. If something’s both fantasy and sci fi? Give it both tags. A book on the real science implications of some fantasy magic system, using actual quantum physics models? No problem. Give it fiction and non-fiction, and science and fantasy.

Then you can filter by tags to get all the books that fit what you want.

So the whole thing is well worth a read IMO, and addresses a lot of the issues I have with cloud as the solution for everything.

My main point here is that individuals and organizations that require all the flexibility that cloud services offer are a (tiny) minority. This means that for the majority of us, all the complexity necessary to provide this flexibility ends up being purely a complication or worse, a liability.

There are absolutely companies who need the scaling. But it’s a fucking lot of overhead if you don’t.

Let’s repeat it one more time: complexity hides and creates security issues.

This is similar to all the LLM code stuff. If you don’t actually fully understand what your code does, bad stuff happens.

This premise has the consequence that Cloud systems are a big puzzle. The pieces of the puzzle are the Cloud products. Engineers working with Cloud systems essentially need to understand the abstraction but not necessarily the underlying, ultimate working mechanism of what those abstractions do. For example, a cloud expert might know everything about the difference between NACLs and Security Groups, all the details about how to configure them, their limitations etc., but the main idea is that such expert doesn’t need to know anything below that (e.g., how the traffic is filtered).

Ultimately my perspective, and I appreciate it’s a very personal one, is that building and working with the Cloud makes me feel like a glorified application administrator. My job becomes researching how the Cloud solved the problem that I need to solve, and compose the solution in the way the Cloud provider imagined it should be solved, rather than solving the problem

I was going to bring up basically this point:

because vendor-lock is not something that has only to do with infrastructure. It has also to do with the skills of the engineers involved. Cloud knowledge, for the most part, is not portable. You are a wizard of IAM policies in GCP? Good job, this is completely useless if you go to Azure. Oh, you are a guru of VPCs and private endpoints? Well done, this is completely useless if you move to a different cloud.

But you covered it pretty well. Abstractions are great. Proprietary abstractions that are more focused on how they can bill you than real, useful, functional categories? Not so much.

Despite the efforts means something which is ironic: many companies which run on Cloud, at some point, will have one or more teams whose main purpose is understanding how they are spending money in the Cloud and to reduce those costs. If this sounds conflicting with the idea of reducing personnel, well, it is. The digital infrastructure of my organization is not that huge. Give or take 2000 compute instances (some very small). Something that 200 servers could easily provide. Cloud bills are more than $15 millions/year. I checked a server builder for example, and an absolute beast (something like 2x Xeon platinum processor, 200TB of NVME disks, 1TB of RAM etc.) would still stay comfortably under $250k. 100 servers this powerful will probably be a multiple of our computing power, and cost almost a third if we consider a lifetime of 3 years, which is very low. A more realistic estimation of 5 years leads to a saving of ~$50 millions over 5 years. Completely insane! This is of course if you want to buy hardware. Powerful servers rented run you for $500-1000/month. Assuming a cost of $1000/month, my company could rent more than 1000 powerful servers, and still save money compared to Cloud costs, leaving plenty for additional services such as networking, storage, premium support (remote hands) or actual engineers salary

So there’s a level of rent seeking behind all the software moving to subscriptions, and them wanting to lock you in just like their service providers are doing to them. But I have to think the massive costs of cloud junk also pay a role in stuff like a calendar charging double digit annual fees for something that takes very little storage and very little computation (and you of course can’t just buy software any more).

I have no words for multi-cloud. Even like a Facebook or YouTube scale site, are you really going to double (or more for some reason?) your storage costs (plus whatever intercommunication between the two), just in case the provider goes down for a couple hours (which is extremely rare, and you won’t be the only site impacted, so people won’t really blame you for.) Plus that architecture sounds like the shitshow to end all shitshows.

Rubin continued: “The engine is really great but it does require a lot of work and with that work comes a lot of bugs that other engines have already worked out.

“We’re not a shooter that’s been out for 20 years. If you like what we are trying to do stick around and you’ll see things improve and new features get added. But if the game isn’t for you that’s ok you can move on.”

The quote is a lot less aggressive sounding than the headline.

Two brief paragraphs of light nonsense on a blog post, then a quick summary of what the article will cover?

What do you think about translating games with questionable quality? Should such efforts be encouraged or discouraged in the gaming community?

I wouldn’t say encourage it. It makes the most sense for the community willing to do the work to push for games that people will like.

But there’s no reason to discourage it. If that’s what they want to do, go for it.

His examples were games that demonstrate what being stunlocked and killed before you can react look like, and why some people think they’re “too hard”.

I agree with your premise that AC style generally not what I want to play. Though Shadow of Mordor does that format well enough that the combat in a true alert is more or less just to buy time to get the f out, because they swarm like crazy and you’d have to kill a hundred plus enemies to “win” outright at points. Taking on captains is about hitting hard and fast, triggering events that limit the number around, or at minimum disabling the alarm systems so the crowd doesn’t get too big. But overall I prefer to be punished hard.

They both bring their own ideas, but the modern hitmans and sniper elite are both big 3D games built around stealth as a core part of the gameplay loop.

Sniper elite leans into the sniper part as the primary gun (you can get a lower power lower range silenced version, or you can gun and move before they triangulate you, or you can use other loud sources of sound to avoid triggering alerts), but you can do most to all of it with a pistol and knife if you want.

Hitman does the costume thing, but every level is designed with the intent of a “no extra kill, no alerts, no bodies found, suit only” challenge being possible.

In both cases the enemy AI (what makes a stealth game IMO) has a nice level of reaction to sounds/things they see, without just categorically abandoning their post to chase shadows, and once clearly sighted enemies can really swarm and escape gets super messy.

It’s another untapped market they can monopolize. (Or just run at a loss because investors are happy with another imaginary pot of gold at the end of another rainbow.)

There are ways to handle and prepare most meats so that they’re reasonably safe. And even the “safe temperature” people generally see are the instantaneous temperature (if they hit that, the most common sources of food borne illness they carry are dead), but you can achieve the same results if you can keep the internal temperature at a lower temperature for longer.

The guidelines for cooking are assuming some potential for exposure to contamination somewhere in the process.

For beef you’re generally fine if you kill surface germs. You can serve steaks rare because it’s not really a risk.

Ground beef is not because the surface germs get mixed in.

Your inability to read a straightforward sentence is not my issue.

You should work on your reading comprehension.

Where did anyone say anything that resembles “make a free for all in between” in any way?

The core concepts of current laws are completely incompatible with any form of actual ownership in a digital world. You need to write new laws that start from the ground up with concepts that work.

The core concept of ownership and copying needs to change if you want anything resembling what IA did to be protected. Because the underlying premise behind copyright legislation that that any unauthorized copy needs a specific exception to be legal, and it’s impossible to use digital files without numerous copies.

That’s starting from scratch.

That’s the point, though. The law is very clear that mass distributing wholesale copyrighted works isn’t fair use. Digitizing it was the part justified by fair use “archival”. Distribution isn’t.

You have to start over and throw out the old laws. Right now there’s no framework to own a file at all (outside of actually holding the copyright). It’s always a license.

There is no logical fallacy.

It also is not a statistic. 🤷🏼‍♀️

The title isn’t a mistake.

It’s openly stating that they believe that to be an inherent feature of at least our current legislation.

IA didn’t get sued for archiving. They got sued for mass redistribution.