what you describe reminds me pretty much of a binary blob that is loaded into a machine or software.

additionally modifying data in binary form was a longtime practice last time I looked, but I might not remember correctly.

Free Software is not the same as expropriation. It's perhaps more the social-democratic smoke mirror kind of thing than lifting the dependency.

Regardless of free software, capitalists control the means of production and obtain profits by exploiting the surplus labor time of workers.

Free software may make it more obvious though, at least for some.

A better way to differentiate might be to say how many watts have been used for an answer.

> Humans reason

Are you sure? They reason in a way to match others predictions, right? The problem of humans transporting information from one individual to another remains. All reason can effectively only be prediction, as it requires two persons at minimum. And there is a lot of noise to filter.

> LLM predict.

Well, there is a human that needs to reason with what the LLM has predicted. So from that perspective, it should suffice already for the moment.

Messaging is very simple, but made hard so that the benefit is not on your side. Business opportunities, yay!

Isn't using GPU and hardware acceleration considered experimental in browsers and the safe default to disable such features for day-to-day use?

Not saying to make this achievement smaller than it is, quite the opposite, it's important there is more such research.

No, these features have been enabled by default for a decade+ on every platform that isn't desktop Linux, including such modern browsers as IE9

> We are the collective voice of the game development industry—developers, game designers, artists, and business minds. Passionate about our craft, we've invested years in shaping an industry that touches the lives of millions worldwide.

Clearly the "our craft" is "business minds" and the problem with increased Unity fees is that their add business is at risk despite all these "business minds" invested years to shape their model.

What an excellent shit-show.

Our Craft = Coding what the resident psychologist came up with that will have the greatest likelihood of addicting players to buy our loot boxes.

I am wondering at what point will governments step up and regulate social media, loot boxing, and other such digital-based addictive things just as they regulate other addictive things like drugs, alcohol, and gambling?

When the current generation of politicians are dead or when something sufficiently drastic happens. It took EA being incredibly abusive with lootboxes in a game from a series as popular as Star Wars and the resulting backlash on Reddit going viral for some politicians to consider some investigations. Actually getting them to work on it seriously would take something even more drastic than that.

it's been in argument for years. I don't think the US will ever step in given its culture.

Also, I'm unsure how you step in and "regulate social media" to begin with. The whole issue is that social media provides much of its content via users, and users take these bathroom writings as gospel. That's a societal issue. Even if you regulate the money out of social media people will just join some home spun sites or even the fediverse, and the core problem continues.

Yeah, doesn’t seem they bring much the community, Id be surprised if content produced isn’t mindless addictive clicker of some kind. I agree it’s just a business model to leech off open source

While I'm able to understand your argument, IMHO the MIT license is not displaying that well. Community is plural, and fork with MIT could be like Windows: Closed source. End of the (fork) line.

Given the project itself is still strong, this might not be a problem, but then I see no reason why it has chosen it in the first place if not for that specific option.

see exec builtin in the bash shell. otherwise man execvp etc.

Everything was reverted with 48 hours, your arguments might all apply theoretically but given scope, size, practice and handling, I wonder - apart from the theory - what your opinion is how they practically apply for this case.

I didn't make it very clear, but I agree that the specific example isn't problematic. The false claims weren't meant to be any sort of targeted disinformation, and like you mention they reverted it in 48 hours.

Isn't community plural? Perhaps they meant their own community but didn't say specifically which one?