I think it might be _unethical_ to not spread the joy of playing Doom for the first time? Though, I’m not entirely sure there’s been enough research done about the effects of violent video games in rat gamer populations.
I was very happy to see this. I’m fairly against live animal testing, but giving rats the joy of playing Doom??? I think I _may_ have to be OK with this.
Wait. Is Jelly Car basically a rethinking of this? I never managed to have the elasto games, but looking at the trailer, there’s a lot of similarities.
The onus is on you here… but, I think I know where you’re going with this. In terms of number of email addresses people have and use, vs number of usernames people have and use, you might be right that some people have 1 or 2 email addresses and many usernames.
Email masking has become easier to use, and many people use `+addressing` to uniquely tie their email to the service for spam prevention / tracking, which would make stuffing harder.
In these cases, email would be much more unique and a better protection against stuffing. HOWEVER, it’s not obvious how Email verification protocol would work for these types of things.
I think that the "tools" movement is probably the most interesting aspect of what's happening in the AI space. Why? Because we don't generally reuse the "jigs" we make as programmers, and the tool movement is forcing us to codify processes into reusable tools. My only hope is that we converge on a set of tools and processes that increase our productivity but don't require a burning a forrest to do so. Post AI still has agents, but it's automatically running small transformations based on pattern recognition of compiler output in a test, transform, compile, test ... loop.... or something.
We’re going to see a bigger rise up of independent media, and that means that Substack, Patreon, and other platforms that exist to spread a message to paid subscribers are vulnerable to the same buy and squash tactics as traditional media.
We certainly need a more P2P, version of this type of platform and a way to fund and scale it such that it can’t be messed with by billionaire hacks.
The odds of this being wildly successful are pretty slim, I’d say…
This supposed "independent media" in hostage to about 4 or 5 centrally controlled platforms that dictate discoverability, delivery. Payment controlled by even less. How would that turn out any different?
That’s exactly the point. Right now, “independent media” (across all political spectrums, mind you) is trying to rise up, but they’re doing so on platforms that _could_ easily turn them off. There’s a ton of multi-million subscriber Left leaning, independent media channels on YouTube that could easily become irrelevant by a simple “change to the algorithm” that squashes them.
Patreon, Substack, etc are no different. We’ve seen people be silenced on X. We’ve also seen payment processors disallow payments to organizations and whatnot.
There's some kind of missing link here between p2p and "I write for a living" that I don't think is going to be bridged any time soon. Funding and p2p / independent might not be compatible organisms in today's social and economic environment. We've had the tools for this for decades and it's never been achieved at scale and sustainably. I don't think it ever will.
True. I don’t think it was ever successful, because it requires a strong ideological point of view from the people who are supposed to support this idea. With so much distraction in the digital world today, this seems close to impossible.
Independent media is not vulnerable to buy and squash because another will just rise in it's place every time you squash one. Supply follows demand, and there are no barriers to entry. It is vulnerable to the much more insidious force of audience capture, though.
The problem is that we don’t have distributed systems of discovery. Patreon, Substack, etc, are all centralized. You have to migrate your audience, and you’ll lose some every time.
So yes, another will rise up. But even better would be a distributed network that actually _works_, immune to the threat of centralization.
> We certainly need a more P2P, version of this type of platform and a way to fund and scale it such that it can’t be messed with by billionaire hacks.
We already have that. Selfhosting is possible, and today even simpler than ever. And there is a multitude of systems and platforms which one can use to collect money as long as it's not doing something too critical, like porn or terrorism. Influencers have those field already covered well, and will continue building them to avoid the hefty shares on their usual platforms.
That's a different problem, and won't be solved by any P2P-platform. There are more than enough ways for discovering selfhosted content, people just don't use it.
No, not really. You want to change the world, but bring up a technical solution, when it's a social situation. If you want to strengthen indymedia, then work on the social level, not technology. Reinventing the same thing again, will not change anything.
You’re not wrong to bring up the social level, but you also have to combat the technological level as well. The systems that already exist don’t work not just because of social reasons. Mastodon/ActivityPub was gaining decent traction, despite its usability problems … and then the more usable, better funded BlueSky stepped in.
There are lots of options for running your own Mastodon/ ActivityPub implementation, etc—it’s not easy, though. This is purely a technical problem.
Of course, I am not really talking about Chirp clones here, but this is a pretty good analogue for comparison.
Wouldn't any system that enables funding be susceptible to influence by the rich? Why would any sort of P2P/decentralized/etc system be impervious to that?
It’s less about being susceptible to influence by the rich. Nothing can truly stop that. It’s more about ensuring that platforms can’t silence dissent.
You can dissent in an echo chamber but it doesn’t do any good.
There is "the rich", and that they have competing interests isn't really relevant to the issue of their ability to purchase influence in media. It doesn't matter if their interest is "good" or "bad"
(And also, they have some shared interests, like "staying rich", although I see you call that a "shared goal"; a distinction without a difference, it seems to me.)
True, but they also have a combined interest in growing their wealth that comes at the cost of leaving less pie for the rest of us.
I can’t think of many (Massie maybe?) rich (no black and white definition) that are using their wealth to better their fellow citizens to their own detriment. Most of them see it as another tax to prevent keep their heads attached.
A combined goal (growing wealth) is much different than a combined interest because the ways they go about it are very different and in many times conflicting. Taking pie from other rich people is many times a much superior strategy to taking it from the poor. e.g. OpenAI just launched a competitor to Chrome. And talking about "growing wealth" is much too general here because that applies to everyone, not just rich or poor.
They have a shared interest in using their wealth to enrich themselves (or their true home nations) instead of their countrymen.
Taking pie from other rich people is only lucrative because the wealth gap is so massive and consistently increasing. My point is rich people should be utilizing their wealth to enrich their fellow Americans (or whatever country they live in), but all the existing ones do not have this as a primary goal. They throw some pittances - just enough to keep people from revolting.
The majority of us are growing wealth so we don’t die on the streets. The rich have already cleared this goal post, and instead of making it their primary goal to give back they continue to take. Those in power could use their power to prevent this but don’t. That is their shared interest. It’s why every politician in America becomes more wealthy after entering office. It’s why corruption is rampant. It’s why we have no borders and let corporations abuse workers. The system is setup (this is the shared interest) to empower a few at the top.
This is an implementation of the OpenGL API interface. It is not OpenGL. It does not support GPU acceleration. It does math with floating point on the CPU. It then draws points and lines on a 2D surface provided by raylib.
Could this be adapted to use SIMD, or a GPU? Sure. That is not what this is today.
reply