sudotstar

I think their original intent back when Proton originally launched was to just show generic Linux compatibility on any titles if it worked with Proton and was approved by Valve. I’m not sure why they stopped doing that.

I think that’s the rub, in my theoretical scenario, Apple is not blocking the distribution or sale of iOS applications through third-party means, they’d enforce their existing restrictions on and power over building iOS applications in the first place. Developers would absolutely still be able to distribute unsigned applications - end user iOS devices would just be unable to install them.

It sounds ridiculous to me, and as I wrote earlier, it would be a clear violation of the spirit of the DMA, but I don’t see any reason why this scenario would not be technically possible for Apple to pull off.

I’m not too sure that these actions violate the letter of the law here, even though I agree that they’re 100% in violation of the spirit of the law.

It’s been some years since I’ve put the mobile development world behind me, in no small part because of Apple’s shenanigans, but the way I understand how this might work - Apple may be required to allow “iOS software” to be installed from third party stores, but software that runs on iOS must either be signed using a certificate that only allows installation in a developer or enterprise context (which require explicit and obvious user consent to that specific use case, and come with other restrictions such as the installation only lasting for a limited period of time), or through an “appstore” certificate that allows installation on any device, but the actual application package will need to go through Apple’s pipeline (where I believe it gets re-signed before final distribution on the App Store). All certificates, not just the appstore ones, are centrally managed by Apple and they do have the power to revoke, or refuse to renew, any of those certificates at-will.

If my understanding is correct (I’d appreciate if any up-to-date iOS devs could fact-check me), then Apple could introduce or maintain any restrictions they please on handling this final signing step, even if at the end of the day the resulting software is being handed back to developers to self-distribute, they can just refuse to sign the package at all, preventing installation on most consumer iOS devices, and to refuse to re-issue certificates to specific Apple developer accounts they deem in violation of their expected behavior. I haven’t read the implementation of the DMA in detail, nor am I a lawyer, so I’m not sure if there are provisions in place that would block either of these actions from Apple, but I do expect that there will be a long game of cat and mouse here as Apple and the EU continue to try and one-up the other’s actions.

I can see the use case for someone who wants a single OS install on the Steam Deck that does gaming just about as well as SteamOS does, but has a more fleshed out desktop experience (or even just a different one). The linked article goes into detail on various desktop-focused developments within Bazzite that wouldn’t really make sense for Valve to prioritize in SteamOS itself.

This change is interesting. The process of creating parameterized blueprints looks a little tedious, but I’m pretty sure that’s just inherent to the idea in general and there isn’t much room to make it better, and I imagine the ease of using such blueprints that are e.g. downloaded from the internet is perfectly fine.

I play a lot of Factorio in multiplayer, with a group where not everyone has the same desire to make blueprints, and we in-general resist just downloading designs off the internet and try to do everything in-house. This leads to a lot of asymmetric gameplay, where e.g. I may design a blueprint and others will use them. I think this kind of change will work well overall for that (complex train systems are now a reality) but might come with the cost of the blueprint producer spending more time faffing around with the blueprint UI.

I was aesthetically a fan of the Fossil watches, and was using a Fossil Sport (1st gen) for quite a while. Unfortunately the layers of proprietary-Fossil required software/watchfaces on top of the layers of proprietary-Google WearOS hampered the software experience a tiny bit, and the frankly poor hardware quality marred the experience significantly. My charging band coil in the watch completely dislodged itself (it appeared to be held in with glue), rendering the watch unusable.

Fossil’s customer support was excellent, replacing the device fully when this happened, though that was when that model was still on store shelves. I recently inquired about getting a replacement battery and was told I can just trade it in for 50% off a current-gen model, which while being far more generous an offer than I expected, still leaves me hesitant to upgrade to another device that suffers from the same problems and is in danger of being outright discontinued.

At this point I don’t really need/want a WearOS device specifically, and would actually prefer something that’s less tied to Google’s whims, the hardware OEM’s whims, and whatever the interplay is between those two companies. I’ve been eyeing more hobby-oriented projects like bangle.js or the PineTime smartwatch, but the fact that I’m even looking in that space shows that it’s become a device I would get for tinkering, not one I strictly “need”.

I’m a big fan of the series and would consider it to be my favorite JRPG series, not just for the story but because I enjoy the gameplay it offers as well.

It’s a fairly “cheap” series to try out and see if you’re into it. The entire series is a singular, continuous story, so the recommended place to start is Trails in the Sky First Chapter, which can be picked up fairly cheaply on Steam, especially during Steam sales. It’s not as long as future games in the series, and is fairly representative of the pacing and storytelling format that later games will follow (though it is considered one of the slowest-paced games in the series). Basically if you’re not a fan of Sky FC, you’re not likely to be a fan of the future games in the series either (especially given that the substantial improvements to gameplay over the series’ 20 year history likely won’t have much appeal to you).

There are also demos available for some of the newer games in the series (e.g. Trails of Cold Steel III), and while I would not recommend actually playing through those games out-of-order, they may serve as a quick/cheap way to see if the format of the games is right for you.

I will say that while the combat of the games is rarely very difficult, and the game provides difficulty modifiers to make it even easier if you’d like, that the combat system is still fairly fleshed out and quite good casually IMO, but if you’re really not into doing it even at easy difficulties, one option (PC exclusive) may be to download completed game saves and play through the games on New Game+ and completely trivialize the combat.

Thank you for your review, I think this is enough information for me to hold off on this game, potentially until a non-Switch release or some other updates.

I am a huge fan of the original DQM series. DQM2 (released as Dragon Warrior Monsters 2 in the West on GBC) is a game that I put in a lot of time into as a kid, and is a game I still regard today as one of the best experiences I have ever had in a monster catching game, or even most JRPGs in general. The balance between the game’s minimal-but-still-present story, the immense amount of post-game content (seemingly infinite randomly-generated worlds to explore and find new monsters in), as well as the incredibly in-depth monster breeding trees is, for me, the exact perfect balance I want out of a game and few others have really scratched that itch as well as DQM2 (mainline Dragon Quest IX is probably the closest I’ve gotten). While a lot of those mechanics, particularly the “randomly generated content” as well as the “deep” monster breeding trees, don’t really hold up to modern scrutiny and are put to shame by what hardware more powerful than the Game Boy is capable of, I haven’t yet found a more modern game that provides a better version of that specific experience.

The newer Dragon Quest Monsters games (I’ve played through Joker 1, and tried the definitive versions of Joker 2 and 3) haven’t really done it for me, and a big reason is just how “clunky” the games felt to play compared to the original. I was hoping this game going back to the “mainline” branding would also signify a return to DQM2’s seemingly infinite content, but that does not appear to be the case, and the atrocious performance of the game on Switch would probably just leave me reaching back for my GBC and DQM2 again.

In this case it’s referring to the fact that the OS is built upon the same containerization technology used on cloud platforms such as Kubernetes. As a marketing tool it’s a bit buzzwordy, but it’s not about running the core OS components outside of the physical machine here.

I’m curious to hear about yours and others’ experiences with containerizing Java applications in such environments. I used to work in a place that traditionally had such restrictions on JDK versions, but after the internal IT environment moved towards running applications within containers, either on Kubernetes or on public cloud platforms’ container runtimes, that restriction became unnecessary since the application would be shipped to production alongside its compatible JDK.

While there were still restrictions on exactly what JDK you could run for other reasons, such as security/stability, common developer experience, etc, it at least allowed teams to immediately adopt the newest LTS release (17 at the time I left) with little restriction.

I’d probably pick something esoteric and then just stop programming, tbh. I enjoy being a polyglot programmer, and learning many languages and learning from many ecosystems is incredibly interesting to me, far more than hyper-specializing in a single language would be.

I think logistics management issues are a classic example of “first world problems” in Factorio, but it did feel like a pain in the butt to manually manage personal trash slots, similar logistics requests across multiple similar objects, and whatnot.

I didn’t know I needed a solution to that problem, and I didn’t expect it to be specifically in this format, but I really like what I see. I especially think the named groups will go a long way in e.g. a multiplayer Factorio session where some people but not everyone is into setting up complex logistics systems, allowing everyone else to at least understand and use the system and its benefits even if setting things up is left to the experts.

It’s unfortunate, but it’s understandable if effort needs to be focused on a single good UI widget ecosystem fully under Mozilla’s control, rather than living by the whims of the three major desktop UI toolkits they have to support, as well as the hundreds of thousands of web pages that are exclusively designed and tested against Chrome which already has been using non-native widgets across desktop platforms for a very long time. I’m not in the web dev space anymore, but I’d constantly see sites built that were incredibly dependent on the exact pixel sizes of widgets as they would render in Chrome, and would visually fall apart on Firefox, or with other zoom/text size settings.

UI design across Windows, macOS, and Linux GNOME/KDE have converged enough that it’s probably good-enough if Firefox continues down the path of just theming their own widgets with the OS/user’s color scheme where applicable, and calling it a day.

If I’m not literally touching the content I’m trying to scroll, I’ll stick to the default orientation (scrolling down moves content down). Wayland touchscreen input handling seems to handle this just fine and not couple touchscreen scroll direction to trackpad/mousewheel scroll direction.

I wasn’t a fan of the built-in weather widget so I immediately replaced it, so I have no experience with it being nonfunctional, sorry.

Yes

It’s not like Nova Launcher, but I’ve been really enjoying Kvaesitso. It does support icon transformations (better than Nova does IMO) but provides a very different interface that’s focused on search.

We haven’t seen what actual game progression will look like within the expansion, but I feel like if progression ends up looking similar to vanilla with the vast majority of resources going towards science production, the quality mechanic will not even be a large part of the game if science itself has no benefits from increased quality, so I hope that there’s more news to come on how quality will impact progression. It feels like this information about this was intentionally left out in today’s update, likely to allow diving in deeper in future updates.

I think most “casual” progression around building more “factory parts” in vanilla usually looks like a single assembler slowly churning out items to fill up a single chest (or a few slots within a single chest), and just letting that run while focusing on other active tasks. I think quality will help make that specific part of progression a little more interesting, with needing to recycle lower-quality products back into the manufacturing chain, and/or tiering your outputs and prioritizing putting the best machines in certain areas while saving the mid-tier ones for other use cases. The randomness factor is concerning on the surface, but at least based on the numbers presented, it looks like the ability to produce items of a specific quality is very much intended to be a consistent factor, and not something akin to like hunting for rare drops in an RPG that tend to be tedious.

“Nerfing” Speed Modules by cutting their quality seems a bit reactive to the traditional/overused “assembler w/ Prod3 modules surrounded by beacons with Speed3 modules” setup, and I’m not sure if this is intended to shake that up so that there isn’t a single “right answer” for every type of product being manufactured, but given that current Factorio is what a factory with all “worst” quality manufacturing would look like, this feels more like unlocking new ways to grow the factory that aren’t just scaling out the same patterns from before, so I think this might be okay.

Overall I’m pretty excited about this within the context of the expansion. I think this is a good way of producing a different and fresh new experience to building the factory, while not invalidating the way Factorio has worked before, and I expect that future FFFs will be showing more about progression within the expansion and other new mechanics that play off of quality to provide similarly different experiences from the base game.

IMO this isn’t a real “solution” to the problem here, but this article states Android 14 also allows Google to manage device CAs remotely and push updates via Google Play, and goes into detail about how that mechanism is poorly documented publicly and is basically only an option for Google themselves, not any third party device administrators.

Google can easily claim that all security concerns are handled by their own management while continuing to deny access to all third parties to actually handle that responsibility themselves if desired.

Yup, while Denuvo DRM is still an issue for many other reasons, it has been generally very Linux and Wine-friendly, especially in comparison to other popular DRM/anticheat solutions in place that explicitly block LInux users by-design, or at best change their implementation so often that it’s a cat-and-mouse game keeping Wine and other layers up to date to support it.