The main argument against it seems to be that a browser forces standards - while really the the strength of this approach is that standards will naturally evolve, rather than forced by 2-3 companies
You're the first person I've ever interacted with that has personally enjoyed one of his games! Your comment is forcing me to slightly update my beliefs thanks. how many hours have you played them?
It's amazing to me how little moderation they do for Ad content. My Instagram ads are constant crypto scams. Maybe there just isn't the same incentives to moderate companies paying to scam your users, as opposed to free users posting their political views
Yeah - there really is a opportunity now to rethink browsers as just sandboxed rendering windows using WebAssembly + WebGPU.
Could still have typical DOM rendering handled with Webassembly delivered by the web sites (ideally cached).
The challenge is though still having standards and accessibility options. That VeryGoodGraphics example allows for no text selection - and doesn't at all handle zooming.
Still though it'd be a good bottom up way for a new browser to disrupt Chrome
How would ads work in this world? The advertising ecosystem relies on adding a 1-2 line JavaScript blurb to the page, and then the ads are added at display time.
Since that graph measures per capita, I think the obvious (and grim) one might come to here is that immigrants to Canada, on average, aren't as productive in the Canadian economy as native citizens.
No doubt you hit the nail on the head, for two reasons:
1. Immigration is a federal matter, commerce is (mostly) a provincial matter. In practice, this means the federal government brings in the people it thinks should be most economically useful for the economic need that is present, but the provinces put up red tape to disallow them from being most useful. The canonical example here being the trained medical doctor left to drive a taxi.
2. Immigrants tend to want to settle amongst each other. Which is no doubt important socially, but the communities are most often not located where there is the economic need. This leaves individuals to be under-utilized, if even jobless, all while employers can't find anyone to hire. Since provincially-regulated employers can't find anyone to hire, the federal government sees a need for even more people and use one of the few tools they have. You can guess what happens next.
Is this true for well educated immigrants too? It seems like this might be affecting a limited population, if the educated immigrant goes to Canada, they are aware of what immigration means and might be open integrating instead of living in an immigrants community
Well, if we look at the Statscan economic region that consistently posts the lowest unemployment rate (and where the news regularly reports on the exceptionally high number of job vacancies), only 2,140 immigrants arrived there from 2016-2021 (latest census data). Whereas 1,328,240 immigrants arrived in Canada over the same period.
Is it possible that only 0.16% of immigrants are educated? Well, maybe, but if that's the case it is insignificant enough that it is basically meaningless. Said economic region is home to 0.8% of the population, so immigrants are disproportionately not going there despite the data showing the greater economic need.
Education does not remove the human experience. I expect it is plain hard to be one of almost no immigrants to show up somewhere, even if you come with awareness. You aren't likely to find a familiar culture, or other people going through the same experience, so it can easily become isolating. Immigrant communities beget immigrants because they offer something to immigrants. Life isn't just about work it turns out.
Blaming 'corporate greed' is a easy thing for politicians to do. It's then not their actions that are causing prices to go up.
Easy to point at things like 'record profits' of Loblaws, without looking at if their margins have changed (they haven't). If you keep the same margins and have the amount of business with inflation then of course there are 'record profits'.
Their margins actually did go up but it’s kinda hilarious when you see it — they’re squeaking out ~3% these days while it was a razor thin 1.x% before.
Yup that’s an extra buck fitty on your $100 of groceries
Git LFS is a giant hack ontop of Git. Most game devs I know moved away from it over time (back to Perforce or SVN). It might seem okay at first - but deep into a project you'll want to rearrange/rename folders and keep history logs, and discover that Git LFS doesn't actually work like normal Git and your file history wasn't kept. Only once you start dealing with issues will you find all the weird hacks Git LFS does ontop.
I'd say Git not working well for game dev isn't a pitch that Diversion needs to make, because it's already clear to most game devs.
Its gotten a lot better over time as far as adding tooling to make big changes. Its the same ol' 'its fine if you know what you're doing and not so fine if you don't.' Personally I'd rather deal with git's issues but p4 has the a lot of built in support in engines.
Day to day I think its the industry tooling and the partial checkouts that have people pick P4, not esoteric problems you face years down the line.
"if they scrape and present their content" - and you don't think this is relevant to Bard?
It's less them 'punishing' Canada, and more being uncertain how these insane linking laws will be applied to this new technology. If Bard can summarize a News article from Canada that is very relevant to C-18.
Funny to call criticism of this bill 'bootlicker sorts' - when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy
Every LLM has serious copyright concerns that manifest in every nation on the planet. There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this. They're all going to be sued by everyone all over the place and we'll see how it ends up.
>when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy
I have almost zero interest in the C-18 discussion. It has appeared on here countless times and I have made zero comments on it. I do chuckle when I see people say obviously nonsensical things (a common one is that Google makes no money from scraping news -- if Google is doing something, they are, or are trying to, make money from it), but whatever.
Even in this discussion I haven't defended the law whatsoever, as I just don't know enough about it. And nowhere did I say that criticism of it makes someone a bootlicker, so this is all a strawman regardless.
How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this - then in the same comment say you don't know enough about the law to comment on it?
If you don't understand C-18 that's fine - but then you can't confidently say that it can't apply to Bard. Seems pretty clear based on how C-18 is written that it absolutely could.
You have the ability to doublethink here to the point of arguing is likely pointless - but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill 'bootlicker's.
"How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this"
Even Google isn't claiming it is... It is pretty ironic that you repeatedly claim that a bill is directly responsible for it when Google, despite being in a very public fight about it, isn't even claiming this.
"but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill "
Clearly I did not. Ever. You are strawmanning in a way that is absolutely agains the spirit of HN and is grossly unproductive. Attacking me as thinking in "doublethink" (because you inject your own strawman interpretations) isn't productive.
Criticize the bill all you want! But if Google throws a tantrum about it because it threatens a revenue pipeline, doing the "See, this is what you get!" bit is being a bootlicker. Mega corps always have the eager sort ready to tow the line for them and do the dirty work for them.
You would seem to be the one against the spirit of HN here.
You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts" (I see no other way to interpret your original comment) and now you're doubling down about people "ready to tow the line for them" and "do the dirty work for them".
That's "grossly counterproductive". Please don't call names or insinuate that commenters are doing "dirty work" here.
You may want to re-read HN guidelines, especially the parts "Edit out swipes", "please reply to the argument instead of calling names", and "Assume good faith."
>You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts"
Again. Christ. Honest question: How can people so lacking at basic set logic actually function in this field?
If you need to manufacture the position of the person you're "arguing with", take a break from the internet.
Though it's actually telling that a couple of people felt personally attacked by a general statement. I generally referred to people who carry corporate water as bootlickers, and several people took that personally. Maybe that's something to reflect on.
You say anyone interpreting your earlier statement as being about those who agree with Google lack basic logic, yet you repeatedly say things like this to people defending Google:
> And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.
If you don’t want to imply that you think this about anyone taking Google’s side, maybe use some more nuanced language. Just a suggestion.
Frankly, it seems to me that you want it both ways — to insult people who disagree with you but then hide behind some purely technical sense in which you didn’t.
By saying 'regulatory uncertainty', they are saying the uncertainty of C-18 applying to Bard. Very very clearly. It's a legal risk to them right now.
And yet you, who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it, knows for certain it wouldn't apply to Bard. Incredible
Except that they never cited the bill in any discussion on this. Such an easy target, but it is never mentioned despite incredibly aggressive lobbying and public posturing by Google. Instead it is the grab all "this government is mean, and if you're a bootlicker you run forth and tell everyone how mean they are!" sort of statement because it can't easily be refuted for being garbage.
So super clear.
And for that matter, amazing C-18 has caused no issues for any of Google's competitors when it comes to LLMs. "Incredible".
>who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it
I love that you think this is an attack. I said I don't care enough about it to hold an opinion (much less a strong one), unlike so many. But a corporate tantrum is the most obvious thing in the world, and Google is clearly having a corporate tantrum. And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.
You said you 'didn't know enough about it' to defend it, not that you didn't care, and yet still can say confidently "There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this". There is such clear contradiction to that that arguing with you is definitely pointless.
Yet here you are, many comments deep. Almost like the doublethink / pointless bit is what you think is good debating tactics.
Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.
See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.
It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.
As a side note, it's funny to call criticism of the governments overreaching bill 'bootlicking'. If there is one boot you should be afraid of stomping on your face it's the governments
The main argument against it seems to be that a browser forces standards - while really the the strength of this approach is that standards will naturally evolve, rather than forced by 2-3 companies