BAR (https://www.beyondallreason.info/) is an open source TA clone that proposes massive scale and that is totally open. After the recent disappointment over a series of failures to bring a new big RTS game in the last 2 years, the RTS community talks a lot about this one.
The mechanics are old school, as with basically all RTS, but the openness allows for far more experiments than one would assume in a proprietary game.
Well, HTML was supposed to be a generic language to describe typical documents. Most websites don't need more than the default elements.
From an outside perspective, it is perplexing to see the constant back and forth webdevs do between making website more complex and rediscovering the simpler first principles
I am sorry but its not the devs who want complexity. Users and Designers want a snappy interactive UI with lots of animations to get the "vibe" right. Devs are usually fine with websites looking like they are straight out of 2003 (considering all the language doc pages I've seen)
Personally, I would first try to get the semantic structure of HTML right for the content I want to display. Then I would look at what I can do in CSS to make it look nice, but without going full overboard. Stick to things that are now standard in browsers, and that are responsive and resize and float nicely. Perhaps, if necessary even something like the checkbox hack, but probably try to avoid it, since it is a hack. Then the site already looks sufficiently good usually. At no point in this comes JavaScript into play, because this is about visuals, and that should be handled by HTML and CSS. I will use JS, when I have something dynamically changing and/or interactive on a page, and I will try to make a noscript alternative, perhaps usable by the user simply reloading the page.
However, I have also seen a lot of frontend devs, who just throw JS framework at everything and since everything is JS anyway, they also do things that could be simple HTML and CSS using JS instead. The result are those pages, where one is greeted by a blank white page, when not running JS.
So there definitely are a lot of devs, mostly frontend devs, that do this kinda thing, and it often secures their job by introducing complexity under the guise of looking fancy.
Example from a previous job: Making buttons that have 2 corners cut off, but the main navigation bugs regarding responsiveness, that led to broken layout took 3 months to fix. Transferring a navigation from one project to another? 3 weeks.
Frameworks are a lot simpler than building with vanilla html, css and js. At least that's my experience... Requires a lot less boilerplate too.
Regarding the noscript alternative solution. I do not know a single modern website relying on users refreshing the page to update content. Except for HN maybe. This approach is very very outdated and will frustrate users.
The refresh page thing is, as I explained, a fallback for users, who don't want to run or cannot run JS. 99% or more of the users will never see this. I personally would be grateful, if web devs took precautions and paid attention to also having a no-JS workflow for things where it is relatively simple to implement. It also has to do with accessibility. A JS-only page, that results in a blank white page has exactly zero accessibility.
It depends, the frameworks I've seen require a ton of boilerplate (ie. the things tools like create-react-app sets up for you) and have quite a learning curve. Using what you already know is simpler, and some of us know vanilla html, css, and js. It also very much depends on what you're making. Many sites don't necessarily need much interactivity or to constantly receive updated data.
Only 1-15TB of data processed at $10k-$100m depending on model size. Then, this shaves off a few hundred to a few grand on fine-tuning. I mean, we're still saving money at least.
Ah... so you're telling me I should delay my plans for the firepit on the titan lake-side human-alien diplomacy embassy? I feel like I won't be able to show them a great time without s'mores.
Old people in Japan went through the deprivation of post-war Japan. Not all boomers were raised the same. It is harder for someone who has known famine to accept it is ok to throw food away for fun.
US grandparents think you can buy a house with a part time job, Japanese ones think that you could save a life with a watermelon. Different delusions.
We "chouettistes" are thirsty for more as well. There is almost a cult growing out of some hypothesis, we are waiting for the confirmed solutions a bit like the second coming.
> and now they managed to shake up their user's trust in leadership stability
Do users care about that? I care about features stability and avoidance of shitification.
That's why I am usually preferring open models to depending on OpenAI's API. This drama has me curious about the outcome and if it leads to more openness from OpenAI, it may gain me back as a user.
When leadership takes on a gigantic amount of VC backed debt that must be paid back whether or not there was ever a business model that could justify the loans, then you get shitificaition.
> Do users care about that? I care about features stability and avoidance of shitification.
I pay for ChatGPT, and I care.
What percentage of users, and how many in absolute numbers is a matter of debate, but this nonsense (and it is nonsense) is antithetical to building a strong trusting relationship with AI. At the very least it's as antithetical to their mission.
If we take a step back, the benchmark now is to be actually transparent. Radically transparent. Like when Elon purchased Twitter and aired all the dirty laundry in the Twitter Files transparent. The cowards at OpenAI hiding behind lawyers advising them of lawsuits are just that, cowards. Leaders stand by their principles in the darkest of times, regardless of whatever highfalutin excuses one could hide behind. It's pathetic and embarrassing. A lawsuit at a heavily funded tech startup at this level is not even a speeding ticket in the grand scheme of things.
95%+ of tech startup wisdom from the last decade is completely irrelevant now. We're living in a new era. The idea people will forget this in a month doesn't hold for AI. It holds for food delivery apps, not AI tech the public believes (right or wrong) might be an existential threat to their prosperity and economic future.
The degree of leadership buffoonery taking place at OpenAI is not acceptable and one must be genuinely stupid to defend it. Everyone involved should resign if they have any self-respect.
My prognostication is the market will express it's displeasure in the coming weeks and months, setting the tone for everyone else going forward. How the hell is anyone supposed to trust OpenAI after this?
The mechanics are old school, as with basically all RTS, but the openness allows for far more experiments than one would assume in a proprietary game.
reply