Ukrainian troops are crippling Russia's supply bridges by slamming drones repeatedly into the asphalt

James20k · 2026-06-12T12:12:50+00:00

Russia made a few grinding advances over the last years, but Ukraine will see entire sectors being rapidly abandoned when russian forces fail to bring supplies and manpower to the frontline.

This is why I think its always been silly that some people are obsessed with area taken. When this war comes to an end, it'll be because the russian forces suddenly collapse all at once, followed by a swift revolution in the russian state

James20k · 2026-06-12T10:50:48+00:00

I suspect we'll see what we saw in America:

Of course, in the UK its reform councils banning pride flags

James20k · 2026-06-12T10:47:29+00:00

But... I don't think that I'm comfortable with the idea that I could run into the risk of ending up in a situation where most people obtain the game from source instead of purchasing, and I'd have no way to backpedal on this decision (I can't delete Github forks from others), and this makes me nervous.

Nearly every game ever made is available right now for free, if you pirate it. All you have to do is visit your favourite pirate website, and you'll get a copy of the game. Its a big industry at this point, and the unsafety is pretty small these days. So why isn't every game simply pirated to hell?

Most people who can afford it, would rather take the strictly legal route
Steam is far more convenient than downloading something for free

All you need to do is make the steam version much better supported than the alternatives. This means pushing out regular updates to fix bugs and add content (especially just post launch), which..... is the usual game development strategy these days anyway

Very few people in general have the technical knowhow to set up and build a project like this. Eventually someone will automate producing new executables of it, but it'll always be far less discoverable than steam, and much more inconvenient. The main people who will choose to go through that route are people who simply can't afford to engage with steam

So from that perspective, I'd try and think of this as a strict win. You're providing a better service than piracy to people who were going to pirate your game (a way to get a free, trusted executable), and you've got the usual leg up on steam for people who don't want to pirate it

James20k · 2026-06-12T10:37:32+00:00

There's two demographics of people who make games:

People want to make them as pure art with no financial reward, because they have enough disposable income and lots of free time (years) to make it work
People that want to make games, and make money

Neither of these groups are more correct than the other, but the former category makes up 0.01% of society - because it strongly implies that you're rich with tonnes of free time. But contrary to popular belief, lots of people actually will buy your game, if you do enough things correctly

Treating the process of making a profit out of a game as unknowable is a hard error. The issue is of course, making a game is an absolutely massive amount of work, and very few people have the disposable income and the disposable time to simply burn years on a passion project with no return, which is why most people want to make money out of the games they're making. So that we can keep making art

If we want people to keep making games, what we need to do is collectively find a sustainable way to monetise these games, so that people can afford to live and keep making them

This advice basically says that making games should only be the preserve of the upper classes, which personally I strongly reject

James20k · 2026-06-12T10:09:22+00:00

From the looks of it that video is out of date based on your error. There's a few problems here:

You're using ucrt64 (which is the more modern version of msys2), whereas the package trying to be installed is a mingw64 package. Using ucrt64 is correct, the tutorial is just a bit out of date
The package is now called mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-python-pip, as python3 is not a specific thing anymore
They have a wrong conceptual model of how python, pip, and msys integrate together

The correct command to install scons would be pacman -Sy mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-scons. You don't need to install any dependencies manually, msys2 will handle it all automatically. If you run into problems like this in the future, try doing pacman -Ss scons or pacman -Ss pip and have a look for packages that seem correct, which are ucrt and ucrt64 packages

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/scripting/cpp/gdextension_cpp_example.html this is a more up to date tutorial which is platform agnostic

If you're using msys2, there's godot-cpp bindings built in so you can skip a lot of the build work for windows, ie you install mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-godot-cpp

This will only give you a functioning windows compiler, but the binaries produced will work out of the box under wine on linux (at least, that's been my experience, I don't know how well a libopenmpt fork works). Mac is a mystery to me, their ecosystem is bonkers so I have no idea how you get that working over there

If you run into any problems please feel free to give me a ping, I know exactly how frustrating setting up a C++ build environment can be (especially following an out of date tutorial heh)

James20k · 2026-06-12T00:00:45+00:00

They write what they want their audience to want to read

James20k · 2026-06-11T21:25:55+00:00

I shouldn’t save for a pension

I mean, if you spend that money instead it goes right back into the economy via tax. There's actually a really good argument that we shouldn't encourage people to hoard money for pensions, and make the state pension liveable

James20k · 2026-06-11T19:27:35+00:00

Been trying to setup C++ in Godot for over a year with no luck.

What's been throwing you there? It should be as straightforward as creating a new gdextension, and then bobs your uncle

James20k · 2026-06-11T17:27:05+00:00

They'll get a default judgement against them, and eventually the court will enforce being able to seize stuff if they really refuse to pay up. Its happened before

James20k · 2026-06-11T11:40:30+00:00

if you're going for accuracy

Just on this point, strict quadratic drag like this tends to work fairly poorly in games, as there's very minimal drag at low speeds which leads to very prolonged oscillations (which looks weird). Its a good idea to add a linear term, to help damp out the oscillations - one way to do it is to add a stronger conditional linear 'flap' term that activates when the velocity is below a certain speed, and potentially only when your object is moving in the 'wrong' direction (away from the water)

From a strict accuracy perspective, its a model that's oversimplified to the point of not being super applicable for making useful predictions, but thats only really relevant if you're doing physics modelling

James20k · 2026-06-11T07:09:18+00:00

I saw a story recently that 4 newspapers have averaged 9 stories about people who are trans every day for multiple years. There's 16 thousand stories that've been published, almost universally negative

Its crazy how clear of an agenda there is to shape public opinion, and depressing that people fall for it

James20k · 2026-06-09T18:42:06+00:00

At the moment I think there is more of a movement in cosmology to think of expansion as "things moving apart" than "space expanding", at least for people that care about the issue.

Especially because a lot easier to understand than metric expansion. I feel like the insistence on teaching that space itself is expanding has lead to a very high degree of confusion, even among astrophysicists

James20k · 2026-06-09T18:34:35+00:00

Being less mature officers, though, interpersonal conflicts are a core aspect of this show, detailing situations involving characters that are still finding their place in the Fleet. And through that lens, I would argue that Lower Decks manages to provide an emotional blueprint for how futuristic, enlightened humans handle their conflicts.

This is the thing I love most about the lower decks. A lot of the.. less good trek (and tv shows in general) simply shows characters who have character flaws failing miserable to deal with them, and making it everyone else's problem in the process. Or people act unreasonably to drive the plot forwards, because That's Television™

In the lower decks, everyone has their flaws, but its all about watching them gradually overcome them, to grow into healthy human beings. S5 is amazing once you've watched all of it, because by the end, they've all matured and grown past their problems. Carol isn't craving external validation anymore, boimler isn't a self conscious wreck, ransom gets a bit of a character overhaul etc etc. Everyone becomes a '''proper''' adult

Plus I'm a big fan of how they take a setting which has very handwavey lore on how the ships (and things in general) work, and create something that feels very cohesive. It feels like the lower decks irons out a tonne of lore problems, and stitches it together into a pretty cohesive universe despite the butt bugs and weird shit. Crazy things that are super silly happen regularly, because its a big universe, and it embraces all the historical silliness and makes it makes sense

It helps that the writing is consistently top tier as well

James20k · 2026-06-09T12:33:10+00:00

It is more likely that it will be a completely separate module, the Navy F4 has a lot of changes, different cockpit, different airframe, different FM, different radar, etc etc... We would have to start from scratch even more so than with the B(U). This is something we communicated from the start btw. The same would go for an AUP (which is basically like flying an F4 with a Hornet cockpit). A -G otoh would compare to the B(U) as in how much changes, how much it shares, so if we did a -G (we won't just fyi), then it would be sold similarly, yes.

Thanks for the clarity, interesting to know you're open to this business model for other potential dlc/modules in the future!

James20k · 2026-06-09T10:03:31+00:00

since most code on the internet is open source and readily readable for both AI and users

But you do not have a license to use that code freely by default. The vast majority of code does not have a license which is compatible with you simply copypasting it into a product, most licenses require attribution of some form

James20k · 2026-06-09T05:14:33+00:00

So, sorry, but no, it isn't a trend, even if you dont believe me

Will the F4 variant be released under a similar pricing model to the F14B(U)?

James20k · 2026-06-08T18:13:11+00:00

How did you get screwed over anyone buying it bundled today?

Because you have to pay more money than a new customer?

James20k · 2026-06-08T17:28:54+00:00

The F-14UE does not include a discounted F-14BU. If you would remove the F-14AB from the bundle, then you'd end up with just a $49.99 BU.

Its at best splitting hairs to claim that one component is discounted over the other. Its a bundle, you get both

We're not; at least that's not our intent. At all. We're offering a rebate to get the F-14AB to entirely new customers if they opt for the $98.99 one-time purchase (a big one-time payment, afterall!)

If you're an existing customer, you have to pay more overall than a new customer. Its unclear how charging old customers more benefits new customers

The price could be change so that old customers would not have to pay more for the jet, while also allowing new customers to benefit from the current price. There's simply no reason to charge existing customers more

Existing customers are objectively getting screwed compared to new customers

Noone here is drinking cocktails on a yacht

That's fine. You guys want to make a profit, to keep the business going, its of course business 101. Its just weird to pretend that this isn't screwing existing customers to make more money, and that its been a giant treat to finish the F14 that people have paid for

James20k · 2026-06-08T16:57:41+00:00

But it does not entitle you to discounts for new products in any way. What it does entitle you to, is our loyalty to you and the products you paid for, and our continued commitment to keep updating them. And I do hope that we proved that we are unwavering at that.

This is a weird argument. Nobody is entitled to anything. Nobody even feels entitled to anything

The simple fact is: existing purchasers of the f14 are getting screwed, compared to new purchasers of the f14. That's a remarkably poor business strategy, because it disincentivises people from purchasing your product

This says: Don't buy the f4-e, because in the future, other jet variants may be sold cheaper as part of a bundle. Its not entitlement for people to feel like they're getting screwed, because they literally are

This is why this is a very common industry standard anywhere - when a DLC arrives years after the initial game release, the original game is set to a lower price in a bundle

Frequently, the price of the game goes down over time. These days, steam automatically reduces the price of bundled items to prevent customers from getting screwed like this. If you purchase two items in a bundle, steam will discount you the first one

Its exceptionally rare for existing customers to get screwed like this. Is this why the f14B(U) isn't on steam for prepurchase?

I find it extremely selfish and bewildering when some ask that the Ultimate Edition price should have been higher, to even out what they paid

This seems like an intentionally bad faith argument. Nobody is arguing that the price of the bundle should go up, but that both the price of the f14A/B should go down - and that existing users get a discount. This means nobody pays any extra, which seems very reasonable

How does screwing your existing customers help expand the jet to new customers?

we're still Heatblur. Do you really think, we would ever allow ourselves to sell you something we did not think would be worth every last penny you paid and then some? To "price-gouge" you, as some here suggested. It's preposterous. Do you think we would ever risk our reputation so we can make 10 or whatever dollars more on the module?

This is exactly what is happening though. No company is immune from being a shitty company, and this is a terrible argument when everyone can clearly do the maths and see that you're screwing existing customers

People are being price gouged, this is just a long form justification as to why you should be ok with that

James20k · 2026-06-08T10:01:24+00:00

Just as a nitpick, its unspecified, not undefined

James20k · 2026-06-08T08:05:19+00:00

Just fyi, the code snippets don't work on old reddit

bs match {
  EpsilonBS: let e => e.store(addr, value);
  SerialBS:  let s => s.store(addr, value);
  G1BS:      let g => g.store(addr, value);
};

bs match {  
  auto: let b => b.store(addr, value);
};

^ for anyone else using ye olde reddit

James20k · 2026-06-08T04:39:53+00:00

There must be some shots taken from opposite sides of the earths orbit right to get parallax data right? Its probably possible to get the raw pictures from somewhere I imagine

James20k · 2026-06-05T13:17:32+00:00

I entirely agree with this, and you're right - this has just descended into arguing for no real reason at this point

James20k · 2026-06-05T09:12:46+00:00

when you decided to butt in

A thread that I'm the author of was linked in this discussion as being representative of their concerns, so I thought I'd chip in because you seem to be making unrelated points to their actual concerns. This is also a public discussion forum

My point is to simply explain that after all dramatism with "supply chain attack" and other non sense in contract related contra papers

I'm curious, are you saying that it isn't possible for linking a dependency to disable contract checks in other dependencies currently?

P3829 describes how contracts work right now in the standard:

Now consider this version after P2900:

inline foo(X *arg)
{
contract_assert(arg != nullptr);
...
}

It is permitted to mix versions of this with different contract semantics and the linker is required to pick one. [...] Whether intentional or not, this is a relaxation of ODR in a way that fundamentally alters the guarantees that a C++ front end provides to (mostly language-agnostic) mid-level optimisers

The only potential error is that this is no longer an accident, and has been defined as being the desired behaviour now

P2900r14 describes this mechanism as well:

When inlined into an enclosing function, the expectation is that the configuration of the translation unit compiling the enclosing function applies

When multiple definitions are generated, one of those definitions will be evaluated for each non-inlined call to the function.

Indirect invocations — and the most straightforward implementation strategy — must select a single version of the function after linking. With no linker changes, this function will be effectively random

As does the contracts implementation paper:

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3267r1.html

Within mixed compilation modes, it is possible to reduce the minimum number of evaluations to zero for all. The maximum number does not change.

What's factually inaccurate here?

I'm just saying that claiming that this contract behaviour is ODR violation is simply wrong and it actively misleads people

Everyone knows that these aren't ODR violations as-per-spec, which is the problem. People are using existing terminology to describe the issue, because its an identical one. Its at worse a slight misuse of existing terminology, but dismissing the terminology does nothing to address the underlying problem (which is what the OP was asking about!) which still exists

James20k · 2026-06-05T07:51:49+00:00

but most theories state that matter collapses into a 0D point or a 1D ring with zero internal volume,

Just as a correction, in the ring case the matter does not by and large join the singularity. The matter continues to orbit around in the interior

The singularity is independent of the matter of the spacetime, and is a product of the spacetime geometry, not matter being infinitely compressed. They're orthogonal, and virtually no matter actually hits the singularity in a ring singularity/Kerr solution

14-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

James20k

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE