The density of errors with smartphone keyboards is much higher. I've done this before when my phone's autocorrect seemed to be exceedingly buggy, but it's not a smooth experience at all.
If I decide to write messages 1m away from my keyboard using a golf club, the onus is on me to not produce gibberish; I can't suddenly cry that that the computer failed to magically / psychically produce the actual intended text without any extra effort on my part to correct the keystrokes I mashed by accident.
I'm the one with the eyeballs and intent, simple as that.
> On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Yeah, but you can complain that it kinda sucks as an experience. Autocorrect is generally speaking the better option, and it generally just means a different kind of error is more prevalent.
(you seem to be arguing that autocorrect is somehow an option that means that you don't pay attention to what you're typing. This is an orthogonal issue, and you can be lazy and error-ridden with and without autocorrect)
They exist as a consequence of how company ownership works (i.e. that it can be bought and sold). You would need to figure out some quite specific wording to prevent this without also preventing all kinds of other kinds of transfer of company ownership.
In principle, private equity firms could be a net positive: they could take over a business that's failing or just not living up to its potential, and turn around the management of it to improve it for all concerned. They often market themselves on this concept. In practice it rarely seems to work this way, where either they fail to make any return on their investment or they basically do this kind of monopolising, short-term extortion of customers. Often both.
(Patrick Boyle has a video on them from the financial side if you want some details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfUOPDOLHvE TLDW: they often aren't a great deal for investors, either)
At the cost of fragmenting the APIs to do any kind of related thing between all the different implementations (and making each one special-purpose as opposed to having a generalized mechanism to muck around with input and output).
It aligns with what appears on the screen accurately and without needing any extra work to make sure there's a representation in a tree that's pixel-accurate. It's also pretty low overhead with the way modern GPU rendering works.
What if you have a collision system where collision filters can exclude collisions based on some condition in such a way that their bounding boxes can overlap? For instance an arrow that pierces through a target to fly through it and onto another target? How do you accurately store the Entity ID information for multiple entities with a limited number of bits per pixel?
Entities that can't be picked, don't write to the texture, entities that can be picked, write to the texture their id. Whatever is closer to the camera will be the id that stays there (same as a color pixel, but instead of the object color you can think object id).
So you are limited at one ID per pixel, but for me that works.
Right, it's the same z-buffer problem of deciding what pixel color is visible, with a non-blending buffer update mode.
To be totally coherent, you have to draw the entity ID in the same order you would draw the visible color, in cases where entities could "tie" at the same depth.
DDoS are crazy cheap now, it could be a random person for the lulz, or just as a test or demo (though I suspect Codeberg aren't a bit enough target to be impressive there).
What is cheap and what are the risks of getting caught? I can understand that for a 15 yo it might be for the lulz, but I am having a hard time to imagine that this would give street creds, and why be persistent about it. AI-bots would make more sense, but these can be dealt with.
And yet NATO expands most readily when Russia invades another country. I wonder why nations might want in that alliance? You're just repeating Russia's justifications for their actions, which have never made sense.
The EU was bending over backwards for Russia until they invaded a neighboring country for being too friendly to them. The fact that relationships aren't good there is entirely on Russia.
Doesn't work in France with its huge number of toll roads, and in the UK where fuel duty is the largest single part of the price of fuel, it more than covers the cost of public roads, yet people still drive everywhere in increasingly large vehicles. It's not gonna reduce driving, though I do agree it should not be subsidized.
Public transport (especially trains) is very expensive in the UK. If you already have a car it's cheaper to use car even if you're traveling alone. For two it will be more than 2x cheaper than a train. If trains will be affordable I'm sure more people would use them. As to the size - during relatively good pre-COVID times SUV become popular but not many Brits can afford large vehicles today and on average cars in the UK are much smaller than in the US, I would not say it's a big problem.
The reason why British people are able to afford large and expensive vehicles is the heavy reliance on credit. 84% of new cars were bought on finance in 2024[1]
Road damage is exponential with weight, so heavy vehicles are still heavily subsidized in France even if the total revenue is correct.
There was an interesting court case where only giving tolls to 18 wheeler was problematic but the equivalent fee for cars would have literally worked out to under 1 cent.
reply