• 1 Post
  • 14 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • Some tips:

    • Unless the code is very small, or your feature is very big, try to put blinders on, and focus only on the code you absolutely need to to get your feature built. Use search tools to comb through the code to find the relevant methods while reading as little surrounding code as possible, tweak those methods to be different, and call that a first draft. If the maintainer wants the code refactored or differently arranged, they can help with that as part of the review process
    • Being unable to build sucks, it really does. But if the software is released for your platform, it means someone out there is able to build it. And these days that someone is often an automated build tool that runs per release. See if you can figure out how this tool works. What build steps it uses, what environment it runs in, etc. If you can’t figure that out, try contacting the person who releases the builds
    • If the software is in apt (if you’re on a Debian-based system), you can use apt build-dep, apt source, and debuild to try and recreate the native apt build process. These tools will give you the source that built the system package, and its dependencies, and allow you to build a deb yourself out of it. Test the build to make sure it’s working as-is. If it is, and if the software’s dependencies haven’t changed too much, you can even use apt to fetch the old version that’s in the repos, update the code to reflect the upstream release, and then test the build there to see if it still builds. If so, now you have something you can start working off.
    • If you aren’t on an apt system, but do have a package manager, I assume there’s an equivalent to the workflow mentioned above
    • If your change is subtle enough that you think it’s pretty low-risk, you could just edit the code even though you can’t build it. This might be sufficient for bug-fixes where you just need to check something is greater than zero, or features where you pass a true instead of a false in certain conditions or something. You should probably mention this in your PR / MR / Patch so the reviewer knows to test building it before merging.
    • This one is a bit wild, but let’s say you’re on a Mac or Windows machine, and the build instructions only work for Linux. You can just run a virtual machine that’s got Ubuntu or something running on it, and use it as your build environment. These days you can probably be in a simpler situation with Docker or something more lightweight, but as a worst-case scenario, a full virtual machine is there for you if you need it
    • And finally, if the tool isn’t a crazy popular or busy tool, it’s possible the maintainer or other people in the community are more approachable than you think. If they are looking for contributions, then getting a willing contributor’s build environment setup is a benefit to the project. Improving their build docs helps not just you, but potential future contributors as well. A project will usually be more helpful towards someone who says “I’m trying to build this feature, but I’m running into trouble” compared to someone saying “why doesn’t your tool do X”. You may need to be a bit patient, they’re probably doing this on volunteer hours, but they might be happy to help you get your stuff sorted out

    Good luck out there, and try not to be discouraged!





  • I think that’s too much thinking, I’m pretty sure it’s simpler than that. North Americans say “December Twelfth” or “May Forth” or “March Fourteenth” rather than “The Fourteenth of March”.

    So they go “March -> 3”, “Fourteenth -> 14”, and you get “3/14” that you can read from left to right as “March Fourteenth”. That’s about it, I’m pretty sure.

    And so long as everyone agrees which one comes first it’s not ambiguous. Of course, everyone doesn’t agree, and there are logical reasons to pick the others, but this one is simply in reading order.




  • Huh. My siblings and I love the Trine games, and wanted to like Nine Parchments, but found it to be one of the worst games we’ve ever played. I don’t think we could find a single redeeming quality, and it just seemed like a total misstep.

    So seeing it here on this list makes me think maybe there’s something that was okay about it? I’m curious what people liked…

    (all the rest of these seem like good games, though, which honestly makes me even more confused about Nine Parchments’ inclusion…)


  • I’ve never been a Twitter/microblog user, but here’s how I gather it worked, presented in the order in which it was developed.

    Do you ever think “oh, that’s a funny/interesting thought I had”, but there’s no one around to tell? Or not enough people and you think it had more potential than that? Microblog. Unlike a forum, you just dump in out into the void as-is. It’s a broadcast. Like if every account was a personal /r/showerthoughts.

    From there we make it so I can subscribe to my friends. Now when they post their funny thoughts, or even just being like “I feel like tacos tonight, anyone in SF down?” I’ll get their post. Now it’s kinda like open group texting. Except I don’t choose who sees my random thoughts, they self-select. I just broadcast things out there and whoever might be interested might be interested.

    That was basically all that microblogs were, at the beginning. A stream of non-topic’d stuff I said, and you can follow me if you want to hear more like it.

    But sometimes I’m surrounded by strangers, like at a conference. At these points I want to know what random people I don’t follow are all saying about FooCamp. Search already exists so I can see all tweets with the word “cat” in it, but I can’t find a way to fit FooCamp organically into every post, so hashtags get invented as a social convention to say “that was my message, but here are some other keywords for search purposes”. Later they got linkified and so people started putting them inline, but originally they were just at the end and just for extra categorization.

    So now the tool does two things. I can just broadcast out any thought I have without having to care about where to put it, etc. It all goes on my feed and anyone who has chosen to care about me will see it. And I choose who I care to receive broadcasts from because they’re cool, and it doesn’t matter what they’re talking about. But also I can tag a particular message with some categories, and that will allow strangers to see my messages if they happen to be looking for messages in that category, but obviously a single message can be in multiple categories.

    Then later famous people and governments showed up, and people followed them because they love go hear what famous people talk about. But if you don’t follow them, then you don’t hear from them.

    That’s basically it! So it’s kinda like the opposite of a reddit/lemmy/forum/usenet model. Rather than topics that have content posted by people, it’s people who post content that sometimes has a topic. Like a large group-chat (among friends or colleagues) where you’re not really sure who is in the chat, but you don’t have to care. You can prefer one over the other (I know I do), but fundamentally they’re not trying to solve the same problem as lemmy, they’re just a totally different model for communication. More like a friend group than a discussion group.


  • I don’t know the answer to the title, so I’ll answer the body. The answer is “it depends”.

    If you’re talking to someone in a technical setting, then servers are the physical machines. The computers themselves, sitting in a room somewhere. Or maybe a virtual server that pretends to be a physical machine, but runs on a real server that sits in a room somewhere. Whereas a website is some location you can put into a web browser and get content that “feels” like it’s all one thing.

    The reason this distinction matters is because you can host multiple small websites on a single server. For example there’s no reason a particular machine couldn’t host 10 different lemmy instances, if it’s got enough processing power.

    But on the other hand a popular website may have its work spread across multiple servers. Maybe I’ve got a database server, which is a machine that only runs the database. And then maybe I have a few different web servers that actually serve “the webpage”, but I’ve also got a cache server that stores part of the webpage and serves that when it can, etc. Websites like Facebook or Twitter are considered one website but have thousands and thousands of servers.

    But if you’re talking to someone in a non-technical setting, yeah they’re basically the same.


  • I have two criticisms of this view.

    The first is the distinction between “replacing humans” and “making humans more productive”. I feel like there’s a misunderstanding on why companies hire people. I don’t hire 15 people to do one job because 15 is a magic number of people I have to hit. I hire 15 people because 14 people weren’t keeping up and it was worth more to my business to hire another expensive human to get more work done. So if suddenly 5 people could do the work of 15, because people became 3x more efficient, I’d probably fire 10 people. I no longer need them, because these 5 get the job done. I made the humans more effective, but given that humans are a replacement for humans, I now don’t need as many of those because I’ve replaced them with superhumans instead.

    If I’m lucky as a company I could possibly keep the same number of people and do 3x as much business overall, but this assumes all parts of my business, or at least the core part, increases at the same time. If my accounting department becomes 3x as efficient but I still have the same amount of work for them to do because accounting isn’t the purpose of my business, then I’m probably going to let go some accountants because they’re all sitting around idle most of the time.

    It used to be that a gang of 20 people would dig up a hold in the road, but now it’s one dude with an excavator.

    The second thing is the assumption that AI art is being evaluated as art. We have this notion in our culture that artists all produce only the best novels and screenplays, and all art hangs in a gallery and people look at it and think about what the artist could have meant by this expression, etc. But that’s virtually no one in the grand scheme of things. The fact that most people know the names of a handful of “the most famous artists of all time”, and it’s like 30 people on the whole earth and some of them are dead should mean something.

    Most writers write stuff like the text on an ad in a fishing magazine. Or fully internal corporate documents that are only seen by employees of that one company. Most visual artists draw icons for apps that never launch. Or the swoopy background for an article. Or did the book jacket for a book that sells 8 copies at a local tradeshow. If there’s a commercial for chips, someone had to write it, someone had to direct it, someone had to storyboard it. And no one put it in a museum and pondered its expression of the human experience. Some people make their whole living on those terrible stock photographs of a diverse set of people all laughing and putting their hands into the middle to show they’re a team.

    Even if every artist with a name that anyone knows is unaffected by this, that can still represent a massive loss of work for basically all creative professionals.

    You touched on some of these things but I think glossed over them too much. AI art may not replace “Art”, but virtually no one makes money from “Art”, and so it doesn’t have to replace it for people to have no job left.




  • Depends on what you want. I’ve been liking Godot, but I’m an “Open Source” person. There’s definitely more of a community around Unity or Unreal.

    But Godot is free in both ways and relatively user friendly, and since you’re uninterested in hiring a hundred people, using a tool that you like is fine, even if it’s not the most popular.

    There’s a course I’ve never used called Learn GDscript which teaches the inbuilt language for Godot (GDScript) in the browser with fun interactive tasks. It looks neat, but I’ve never tried it myself. You can use other languages with Godot, but I recommend the GDScript. It’s very similar to Python and is well integrated into the engine.

    So from there it’s about screwing around! Like other people have said, you’re not going to whip up the game that’s in your head in anything like the time frame you probably think. Even if you think you’re being realistic, it’s probably even worse than that. But I don’t say this to discourage you, I say this to prevent you from discouraging yourself!

    If you can get a game where a green circle goes through a maze and then text shows up on the screen that says “you did it”, that should be viewed as an accomplishment! It’s simple, sure, but it’s something you did. Try to break your game’s features up into micro chunks that are playable. It’s easy to spend 6 months working on something and making progress, but not in any way you can show friends or whoever, and can’t even really “play” yourself. That can be demotivating. Try as much as you can to have something playable as often as possible. It will feel much more like real progress if you constantly have something you can demo.

    And also don’t underestimate how much a bit of art and sound effects can change an experience. Silent 2D boxes is fine to test things out, but even a free art and sound effects pack makes a huge difference in how fun a game can feel. It can make even a simple premise suddenly feel like a game.

    Good luck, have fun! Oh, also once you’re done tripping over your feet, maybe try a game jam! They’re good exercise.


  • Agreed.

    But, to be clear without giving spoilers, by “simulation game in space” it means getting in a ship and flying from planet to planet, while dealing with things like gravity and momentum. In my opinion just the right amount of challenge that it starts hard but doable, but is possible to get good at in the late game. So that was lots of fun.

    Also, while I will not reveal plot here, I feel given feedback from some of my friends that didn’t like it the way I did, that maybe setting some tone expectations may help. The gameplay experience is mostly about exploring the planets, learning stuff, observing things, and making connections in you, the player. There’s archeological evidence out there in space, and it’s your job to figure out the history. It’s not boring, though! It feels more like a giant puzzle. But you should go in with an exploration mindset and if a particular path doesn’t work out, maybe it’s not time yet. Just try exploring something else!

    One of my friends was too “goal oriented” and just kept hammering a given path over and over and it made them frustrated, which is a shame.

    Also, while the DLC is also good, I waited until after the main game to play it, and I’m glad I did. I don’t know how it works to have the DLC running at the same time as the main game, but they’re two pretty independent stories / investigations and I wouldn’t want to get accidentally caught up in one while trying to piece together the other. I feel like that would be pretty confusing.

    To any followup posters, remember no spoilers!