I don't get the 'choice' : the content of the box is aldready defined when you take your decision so taking it won't change the content of the black box and the open/transparent box have no drawback. What am I missing ?
Not from the article : Before you walk in, a supercomputer predicted which choice you'd make, and put $1000000 in the opaque box if it predicted you'd take just the one, or $0 if it predicted you'd take both.
So the amount of money in the black box don't change whatever you REALLY pick.
Either the predicator would have guessed you'd pick both and there is 0$ in black box, in that case you have interest to take both boxes and win $1000 which is better than zero.
Or it predicted you would only take the black box, put $1000000 in it and then again you win more by taking the two boxes.
This is exactly what’s funny about the paradox – we both think that our choice is completely obvious.
My argument is that since the predictor is always right, the situation where you choose two boxes and you get $1001000 simply cannot happen, because then the predictor would’ve predicted your choice and placed nothing in the variable box.
Nextcloud is not great, it's just the only available package that approximates an all-in-one GSuite experience. In practice, the UI is really janky and unpolished.
Was really helpfull when making international phone call to services like IRS or sometime good providers. Trying to spell out my french name and long adress or some order number with my strong accent was such a pain until then ^^
Funny, I always thought that phrase was ironic and actually a joke against IBM bad quality/pricing ratio but abundant and aggressive marketing targeted at non technical managers. ( I actually have no idea of IBM quality/pricing ratio, I don't work on fields in wich they are present)
I dare say it became ironic .. but I lived through the zenith of IBM in business sales and they had a cult following with many and a solid stranglehold on federal, state, and local Governments (and various corporate sectors) in a great many countries.
That lessened with the rise of PC's in the office and the spread of non-IBM PC clones. It's a dim memory today and has been for three decades and more.
And yet the company has been doing pretty well. Just because they're almost unknown in the startup world doesn't mean they aren't a major computer industry player.
IBM was more known as a sales-oriented company rather than marketing. Although, of course, they spent (and spend) a lot on marketing/advertising as well. IBM 2024 revenues were >$62B.
I bet (litteraly, founded an xr game development company in february) xr/vr games will indeed became a mainstream gaming platform in the next 5 years, maybe even next year. If or when it become the case it may totally become as present as smartphone and replace a lot of monitors, especially if they succeed to reduce them as smartglasses like their totally are progressing to.
if it become the case, meta get 30% of the revenues associated with it.
If it does not, i'm pretty sure they can now make good smartphones and even have a dedicated os. I'm pretty sure they can find a way to make money with it.
A meta quest 3s in inself is an insane experience for 330€ and it's current main disadvantages for gaming are the lack of players and the catalogue size. Even using it as a main monitor with a bluetooth keyboard is "possible".
I would have find it 'improbable' a few years ago even as an enthousiasth, i now could totally imagine a headset replacing my screen in a few years with a few improvements on.
Never watched him but honestly, that would be pretty standard mature workflow.
In most video games productions, efficient coding is basically conceptualizing a dsl from the game design, writing it's interpeter while gluing the needed library and make some tools to manipulate or better make converter from existing robust tools. 99% of 'actual game design related' content are assets and data.
I assume most of losses come from headsets R&D, and subjectively i would bet on them too, the progress are amazing, a today 350$ headset have better quality than 5 year ago 1500-2k ones. Honnestly I thinks VR/AR is becoming really amazing for games, if a quest 3 quality headset is available for less than 400$ in a year of two i'm expecting a massive adoption in a few years.
There is currently a bit of content problem : no enough gamer with headsets to attract spendings so no enough games to attracts gamers, so not enough gamers with headsets ...
But I went again on vr game development some months ago and the technical progress are really sweet and major downside are being removed.
Unless you specifically need a lot of the dot net library (and in this case you can probably theoretically 'just' use a plugin for access) I would encourage you to try gdscript. I went from 5 years of unity pseudo-c# to it in about 2 weeks, and I globally just find it an equivalent if not better experience for the majority of the code base.
Honestly one of my current fears is that they focus on c# integration in place of improving gdscript support (the integrated ide is not specially comfy, and static typing support still lack some feature, collection wise in particular. but nothing really awfull).
C# is a real programming language usable outside game dev, as well as transferable to other engines or frameworks like Unity and MonoGame. GDScript is usable only in Godot.
While this is true most of the structure of the language is taken directly from Python, which depending on your interests might be a little more useful than learning C#. The only syntactical differences I’ve found so far are the additions of var, const, match, how the walrus operator is used, and of course all the nice godot editor specific keywords. The built-ins have almost exactly the same naming scheme, you can still use global functions like len on any collection, I could go on…
I would argue that someone who starts programming on gdscript today would be able to transition into Python with little to no overhead.
Maybe if someone is learning their first language that's a semi-important choice but, if you already know a programming language, syntax doesn't really have a steep learning curve.
No disrespect but judging languages on syntax is a lot like judging a book on its cover. Chosing a language is, for the experienced programmer, a choice of ecosystem, libraries, tools, architecture, and also a matter of long term maintenance, evolution, technical debts. Gscript scores very low on all of these, especially compared to the behemoth that is C#. Only unexperienced programmers and sales people use the "it looks somewhat similar so it must be" argument.
For scripting I've yet to see general purpose (with the exception of Lua) languages shine where domain specifically cannot, instead usually from my experience the general purpose language adds complexity when you don't have certain built in features or structures.
Don't worry, they should be prioritizing C# but for now it is still very much a second-class citizen so your beloved GDScript gets to dictate the inefficiency of the API for more type-expressive languages.
I'm glad and don't see better solution than to use an algorithm to decide this over personnal choice. I understand the choice of using software. What I don't understand is why this software is not open source, heavily documented and the algorithm annually monitored, publicly reported and updated if necessessary by an open committee.
I personally prefer avoid being involved as much as possible in human life and death inducing procedure because that awfully stressful, but I don't see big problem on working on the software coding itself. What is problematic in this case is that the software was used to deinvolve everyone from the process and for what I understand the software developpement team was apparently tasked to make up the decision algorihtm and no human basic oversight was keeped during the attribution process.
I dont know if you are joking but when managing i do exactly that and that work (with a factor of 3 to be precise, with most people, some aldready take that into account). Works also with myself, i askmyself 'how much i think it will take, i double it and i assume half the day i will be bothered by other unplanned things'. It work remarkably well especially for longer projects.
