How do you download the games? I tried logging in to download cyberpunk which I purchased on gog, and they wanted me to download tons of files individually! I couldn't even just click a "download all" button.
Every installer there comes with an executable and those files you mentioned, for some reason they are always split into 4GB chunks, that’s why there’s so many.
AFAIK download all is not available, you will have to get them one by one. But after that they’re yours to keep forever.
I have Aria2 download manager installed on my router (OpenWrt) and Aria2 Integration plugin in the browser with "Capture downloads" option. I click on each file and it gets sent to the router which downloads them one at a time over night.
There is a third-party downloader that uses an API to grab binaries for all games in your library. I just download the individual files one by one, though.
This is a very good argument. We would also learn what features of an App Store add marketable value, and what features are trivial. I imagine the front end isn't very important, but some kind of build certification/verification is. That requires branding, infrastructure and labor. Maybe its easier than I imagine to verify that apps aren't lying about what they do, but as far as I can tell that could well account for some 5% at cost.
On the other hand you trust your bank, for example, so you follow the link on their website and install the App, and the trust came from their own brand.
If you think 3% is too much, there are plenty of other payment processors... the thing is, most of that 3% is not set by the processor (or kept by them) but is set by the card networks. It is the card networks that should be targeted by antitrust laws.
If there anyone could make an App Store, then we would have a better idea of what the market rate for app stores should be.
> If you think 3% is too much, there are plenty of other payment processors...
The things is, there's really not.
There's two: Visa and Mastercard.
In the US there's also American Express and Discover (afaik), but those aren't accepted everywhere (to the point that it was a joke in Futurama).
But We’ve actually seen this happen in the United States before. The Durbin Amendment put a cap on debit card transactions of 21 cents plus 0.05% (although an additional 1¢ can be added to the cap if certain security requirements are met). After this Amendment was put into practice we saw two things:
1) Rewards earning debit cards were almost entirely phased out.
2) Prices did not drop as a result.
The reason the EU even capped payment processing fee's was because of this duopoly that was strangling the market. Quite poignant.
Pydantic docs do clearly state that multple levels of nesting of Pydantic objects can make it much slower, so it isn't particularly surprising that such models were slow.
It is possible that 7 figure number included the offer to join Google, and since this engineer didn't accept that offer, they would not have recieved the compensation for doing so. It sounds like Garry Yan was getting his information second hand, so it may not include all of the context.
The Linux Foundation also runs several other projects, none of which do I see being ran terribly poorly from a corporate meddling point. I can only hope that is a strong signal of things to come.
Did I say anything is run poorly? Or good for that matter? The difference is intent. Run for community and run for corporate are both different. Currenlty Linus is the only thing standing in the way of LF pulling another Rust Foundation. Cos it's run by corporates as well. Time will tell.
Rust foundation has not been very community friendly. That's cos corporates run it. There was a fork of the language called crab or something cos of this at one point. Take Linus out of the scenario, it's the same thing that's probable about Linux Foundation.
"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
By having a clause that discriminates based on revenue, it cannot be Open Source.
If they had required everyone to provide attribution in the same manner, then we would have to examine the specifics of the attribution requirement to determine if it is compatible... but since they discriminate, it violates the open source definition, and no further analysis is necessary.
This license with the custom clause seems equivalent to dual-licensing the product under the following licenses combined:
* Small companies may use it without attribution
* Anyone may use it with attribution
The first may not be OSI compatible, but if the second license is then it’s fair to call the offering open weights, in the same way that dual-licensing software under GPL and a commercial license is a type of open source.
Presumably the restriction on discrimination relates to license terms which grant _no_ valid open source license to some group of people.
I had a Vizio tv that just gave up the ghost on me. The remote had a full keyboard on the back! Best remote I have ever had. It ran the Yahoo connected TV platform. It was fantastic. (except the whole vizio spying on its customers thing... but the hardware and YTV platform were great!)
