Could also be regional. :)

Article has a 919 partner personal data sharing wall.

I feel like this repeated promo stuff is too far way from this community called game development.

This doesn’t show me any kind of development information. Not even a launch plan or considerations, or store page designing infos.

It’s an ad. Nothing to do with game development beyond being developed by someone - which everything is.

I’m surprised this ad got so many upvotes for this community. It’s in line with previous sightings though.

Please allow skipping/proceeding the slow-timeout intro screens.

The yellow moving tutorial texts were confusing to me in that I tried clicking those. Took me a bit to realize I’m supposed to and only able to click what’s below/besides them.

Steam

• offers services
• takes a 30% cut on products sold on the Steam Store
• offers free Steam keys, within broad limitations, for you to sell on other stores, or distribute in other ways (free review copies, etc)
• requires you to sell the product at the same price even when Steam is not involved (different store, no Steam integration)
• the implication is that this also applies to discounts (I don’t know for sure myself, and the post does not give evidence of it, but the “fair to Steam” implies it)

You could sell a product DRM-free on your own website 30% cheaper, and get the same money, while providing a cheaper, DRM-free alternative. Steam currently denies that, restricting your choices. You can still sell it on your website at the same price, of course, and the customer still has a choice.

I think what feels unfair or maybe immoral is that they make demands, even requirements, upon your decisions and distributions that do not involve them at all. They’re taking your product hostage. And they can do so because they’re so big you can’t not publish on their storefront too if you want reach.

I didn’t add a star at the end for the word search, so at least for that example, the sarcastic ones were all ‘amazingly’ and consequently not counted, and the ‘amazing’ at the end seems literal. I haven’t looked at any other cases, though.

Glad you’re so appreciative and worked through it! I gladly share, discuss, and respond.

I’ll have to read up on palette filters. :) I do semi-regularly use ffmpeg, but palette filters are not something I have heard or used before.

I assume in this case it’s a downsampling into fewer colors, evading the issues of almost-same-colors?

Especially given the last square/check pattern makes me thing of codecs splitting into square blocks and then encoding those. It could make sense that this division leads to different results for one reason or another, which then produces a check pattern without it being there before.

For comparison, “amazing” occurs six times.

Only one of them barely reaching 200. For the size of the Linux kernel I find these numbers surprisingly low.

I don’t see a sharp drop as a sign of corporate oversight at all.

Stuff may be tackled en-batch. Or individuals can care. Or it can be an organic team decision or effort.

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 all look fine resized in the post and full size

3 looks fine full size but has slight visual artifacts resized in the post (check/square pattern)

I can barely see it on my monitor. So on worse monitors it may not even be visible. #272a31 vs #262b31

animated webp may also be an option

The screenshot is from my desktop with wide enough screen on Lemmy web (programming.dev).

The issue is one of scaling.

When I open the image without being resized into the website layout, it has the following visual pattern:

When I zoom out to 50% it looks (almost?) fine

Did you scale the source with ffmpeg? Do you have a visual pattern in your console background? The simplest solution would be to have a solid color as background. The second best to render a small enough size that it does not get resized in the browser.

At 1920x1038, it’s very big right now. I’m surprised the font is big enough to be readable. I assume you scaled it up or have a high dpi display resulting in this.

That visual pattern compression though

Let’s call the axes g o and d.

Thank you for sharing. Your views and experience were very interesting and insightful.

I wanted to pick up on some of your points, but I can’t seem to grasp fitting responses or meaningful thought continuations.

That’s an inherent problem of the current Lemmy implementation, though, isn’t it?

If you don’t spread-post, it doesn’t reach the appropriate communities and people, and communities are missing content. If you do, discussions are spread by community and posts, with only cross-post links under the post.

I’m hoping to someday be surprised that they are suddenly in a shared view by default. I haven’t checked whether there’s a feature request for it.

It doesn’t open with a summary or overview but dives right in to exploration, but I think the point comes across:

The copy and paste key codes, which have no physical keys anymore, are - to a degree - supported in software. Their claim is that those key codes are the tool for universal copy and paste, and then it’s the input interpretations job (key and combination mapping) to offer bindings to those key codes.

GTK added support the copy and paste keyboards in January 2025. QT also added support for copy and paste key codes the same month. I’m not sure of the first released version of the GTK toolkit that will contain the fix. For QT, it will be QT 6.10, scheduled for release in September 2025. Together, this will cover many apps built for Gnome and KDE as well as others that use the same toolkits.

… followed by some more “current state of support for those key codes”.

merge

The HackerOne report that does not even apply has 44 upvotes.

What do upvotes mean on HackerOne?

I guess, at least here, they’re mindless “looks interesting” or “looks well worded” or something?

The license doesn’t get revoked. It does not apply to things it does not allow in the first place.

Some kind of restrictions are easier to describe and assess than others.

I doubt someone that generates AI slob reports would care about the restrictions anyway.