PopOS is a great middle ground. It's an Ubuntu derivative (although they also recently released their own OS) that manages Nvidia drivers on your behalf.
Gaming on Steam is extremely simple now, doesn't matter if it natively supports Linux. Valve has put a lot of effort into decoupling from Windows.
Admittedly, there are still some issues, but 95% of the time it's fully functional. I'm mostly messing around with settings, not drivers.
Tailwind itself is not useless, but the plus package is.
It's a simple convenience utility belt that LLMs can already automate.
Both open-source and open-core need to be re-evaluated as labor value plummets.
I also disagree with the "why". Tailwind is extremely useful with LLMs as it can set styling inside of HTML, rather than maintain an external, typically massive, convoluted CSS file.
It's for the same reason that typing in programming will become a standard with LLMs: eliminate implicit/semantic density with explicit/semantic precision.
In both examples an LLM can have a strong understanding of a single file/module without needing to search for its meaning externally
Our concept of "Tailwind itself" should encompass, really, the economic foundations in which it's ensconced and from which it grew, even if it grew "on spec."
Ie, without the promise of some path to profitability, eg the plus package, the mere library cannot justify itself. So are we to stop building FOSS on spec?
I'm sorry, but seriously? How could you not care who has your health data?
I think the more plausible comment is "I've been protected my whole life by health data privacy laws that I have no idea what the other side looks like".
Quite frankly, this is even worse as it can and will override doctors orders and feed into people's delusions as an "expert".
I’d rather have all my health data be used in a way that can actually help me, even with a risk of a breach or misuse, than having it in a folder somewhere doing nothing.
In general, health insurance companies (at least in the US) are pretty much prevented from using any health data to set premiums. In fact, many US states prevent insurers from charge smokers higher premiums.
It doesn't have to get to your employer, it just has to get to the enormous industry of grey-market data brokers who will supply the information to a third-party who will supply that information to a third-party who perform recruitment-based analytics which your employer (or their contracted recruitment firm) uses. Employers already use demographic data to bias their decisions all the time. If your issue is "There's no way conversations with ChatGPT would escape the interface in the first place," are you... familiar with Web 2.0?
I’ve had mixed experiences with doctors. Often times they’re glancing at my chart for two minutes before an appointment and that’s the extent of their concern for me.
I’ve also lived in places where I don’t have a choice in doctor.
What is it with you people and privacy? Sure it is a minor problem but to be _this_ affected by it? Your hospitals already have your data. Google probably has your data that you have google searched.
What's the worst that can happen with OpenAI having your health data? Vs the best case? You all are no different from AI doomers who claim AI will take over the world.. really nonsensical predictions giving undue weight to the worst possible outcomes.
Your health data could be used in the future, when technology is more advanced, to infer things about you that we don't even know about, and target you or your family for it.
Health data could also be used now to spot trends and problems that an assembly-line health system doesn't optimize for.
I think in the US, you get out of the system what you put into it - specific queries and concerns with as much background as you can muster for your doctor. You have to own the initiative to get your reactive medical provider to help.
Using your own AI subscription to analyze your own data seems like immense ROI versus a distant theoretical risk.
It feels like everyone is ignoring the major part of the other side’s argument. Sure, sharing the health data can be used against you in the future, but it can be used to help you right now as well. Anyone with any sort of pain in the past will try any available method to get rid of it. And that’s fair when those methods, even with 50% success rate, are useful.
I'm in the same boat as them, I honestly wouldn't care that much if all my health data got leaked. Not saying I'm "correct" about this (I've read the rest of the thread), just saying they're not alone.
It's always been interesting to me how religiously people manage to care about health data privacy, while not caring at all if the NSA can scan all their messages, track their location, etc. The latter is vastly more important to me. (Yes, these are different groups of people, but on a societal/policy level it still feels like we prioritize health privacy oddly more so than other sorts of privacy.)
My heart goes out to the devs forced to return to work to solve these issues. Numerous groups claiming numerous exploits - mostly MongoBleed.
One has to wonder: why didn't anyone anticipate this happening? Surely the moment this exploit was discovered the team would've locked it down immediately?
If this is a result of that vulnerability, Ubisoft only have themselves to blame. Our support contacts ensured that we knew about the vulnerability as early as possible and gave us a clear guide to remediation for our self-hosted clusters. Our Atlas clusters were automatically patched before this was announced publicly. You'd have to be running your database open to the internet (already a mistake), ignore the advice to simply turn off zlib, and ignore the fixed versions that have been available for over a week.
If you're going to be in the business of running your own critical infrastructure, you better have spent a lot of effort planning for these situations, because they are inevitable. Otherwise, it's easier to just pay a vendor to do it for you.
I would agree with this statement before LLMs. Reading manuals can take time, be messy, and are sometimes hard to understand.
Now, I can simply ask any LLM to write the command, and understand any following issues or questions.
For example, my OS records videos as WEBM. Using the default settings for transforming to MP4 usually fails from a resolution ratio issue. I would be deadlocked using this library.
I sometimes use LLMs to generate commands, and it generally works. But a common issue is that it throws in extra options because they are very commonly used - even if they're not necessary or relevant to my actual situation. So if you don't go through and check them all, you get this kind of unchecked cruft in your scripts that may later cause a problem.
Except what if you don’t really grok those ffmpeg flags and the LLM tells you something wrong - how will you know? Or more common, send you down a re-encode rabbit hole when you just needed a simple clipping off the end?
Sure but it's just being morally lucky. They found themself in a situation where there was temporary and situational alignment, why give them any credit for that? They didn't create that situation.
It's like AMD open sourcing FSR or Meta open sourcing Llama. The outcome itself is good, but if they ever become leaders in these verticals, they will pivot to closed source quicker than you can blink, because the reason they're doing it is just coincidental to the public good, not because of a genuine motivation to do good.
No, it's not. They're choosing the path that builds user trust and positive sentiment for long term success, rather than choosing to fleece their customers and not worry about whether people hate it.
Other corporations in a similar spot for games and game platforms could choose to make the same type of choices, but they'd rather boost next quarter's profits, even if that means pissing off their userbase with consumer-hostile policies.
No one forced Valve to have a great form of family sharing. No one forced them to have generous policies around generating Steam keys. No one forced them to invent remote play together. They do these things because they're nice features that are useful for players and make people stay engaged on Steam, and more positively inclined towards Valve.
I am “morally lucky” because every decision I make is to ensure I can always be morally lucky, 10 years later. I take certain kinds of jobs in certain kinds of industries.
It’s my same approach to reducing stress or getting things done. I never get a parking ticket not because I’m amazing — it’s because I know if I have to go out later and move my car, I’ll forget, so I’ll just park right the first time. 10 years later and no parking tickets and no stress — if someone tells me “oh you’re just lucky,” I can only chuckle.
I don't see it as an "approach", I see it as a description. If the FSR upscaler becomes better than DLSS, then my description leads to the prediction that AMD will make FSR closed source. The prevailing camp that says AMD are exercising their moral compass will predict that AMD will keep FSR open source. We'll see who has a description that aligns with reality if that day comes.
Why not give them credit for that? There is no moral rule that to be virtuous, it has to be self-sacrificial. If you narrow a commendable course of action to some sort of ascetic vision of martyrdom and self-punishment, then yes everybody and everything is evil.
So they may pivot to closed source when the circumstances will benefit it, or they may actually not do that. They have no shareholders that force them to squeeze the bottom line. The perceived benefits may just be slight and their culture will push them to stay the course on the long term, where other companies will do the reverse. Maybe if their survival is at stake, but wouldn't anyone faced with existential danger do anything to stay alive, including the worst imaginable?
Within certain commercial boundaries that keeps the business profitable, companies can and do make all sorts of decisions based on values and visions that are more than just economical, especially companies not beholden to shareholders that only care about short-term profits. Even the economical decisions aren't purely rational and often done from some kind of cultural bias.
Valve predates Google by two years (at least per the wiki), and was started by Microsoft employees who didn't particularly like Microsoft's operation. Hoping Valve has a long future ahead of them :)
Valve has had all the triggers and opportunities to change for the worse and it didn't. Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I don't see what would ruin it now.
You can argue they did, depending on what you value. If you loved valve as a premier developer discovering unique experiences and narratives, thars been gone for 14 years now. If you valued not having your software locked down to middlemen or preferred physical media, Valved killed those off in the PC market. If you are a dev and wanted to set your own prices, Valve is current under litigation for price parties.
Its not all sunshine and windows.
>Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I
In the same way Bill Gates did not force you to use Internet Explorer, yes. Both are free applications with alternatives. Let's not forget our history.
Sure, Valve may turn bad after Gaben. It is also possible that he thought of something for the long term that will prevent enshittification. Some companies have managed.
Your argument doesn’t make any sense. What does this have to do with supporting Arm chips? It’s not like AMD and Intel are waging a war against Valve. If anything Steam helps them by strengthening the PC gaming market, leading to higher CPU/GPU sales.
Slowly getting their stuff independent of wintel gives a lot of flexibility. And the big gaming market's on phones / tablets. A steam controller could find itself paired to an iPad running steam in a year or two.
The only play I see here is a legitimate Valve console to take on XBOX and Sony. Plus Arm on a Steam Deck would improve the battery life considerably (assuming they are able to integrate with some powerful GPU solution).
> Windows is closing in on them: stricter kernel access (tougher time for anti-cheat)
Why would Microsoft not work with leaders of a multi-billion dollar industry they benefit from to develop anti-cheats that work with whatever limitations they put on kernel access? Also isn't stricter kernel access in part being done for anti-cheat and related measures?
> Encouraging users to use the app store, or more accurately: discouraging users to install from binary
Why would this threaten Steam? Unless you're suggesting they can't just distribute Steam through this app store?
> They threaten Valve's business model, and Valve is responding with proton & SteamOS
You didn't even mention Game Pass or their store, which are actually more of a threat!
Microsoft's a competitor. And they have a reputation for being the first ally to stab you in the back (e.g. SGI / DirectX). You don't want to depend or trust them when they like the market you're in.
I don’t see it. Stricter kernel access is pressure on game devs, not Valve. And I don’t see MS booting steam off windows any time soon.
It’s more about Valve having complete control over the stack and being able to vertically integrate, something they will never have with windows, especially as it continues to enshittify
reply