I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just stating that a broken unplayable game objectively has no value. The publisher has forced that value to 0 if they turn off their servers without support, regardless of if there was any value there before or not.

Edit: I realize we might be talking about different things when saying “stop supporting”. I meant that to mean when the servers are turned off, not when they stop releasing updates or delist it from stores.

But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it

Well yeah. Obviously the game losses value BECAUSE it’s not being supported anymore. There’s no value in a paperweight.

My understanding is that this would force games to be sold as either a good (lasts forever) or a service (lasts a specific, advertized amount of time). It does not prevent service games from existing, it just stops them being sold as goods with an unspecified expiration date. The problem is consumers are uninformed about the lifetime of the game they are purchasing.

This graph actually shows a little more about what’s happening with the randomness or “temperature” of the LLM.
It’s actually predicting the probability of every word (token) it knows of coming next, all at once.
The temperature then says how random it should be when picking from that list of probable next words. A temperature of 0 means it always picks the most likely next word, which in this case ends up being 42.
As the temperature increases, it gets more random (but you can see it still isn’t a perfect random distribution with a higher temperature value)

Yet another reason why we need side loading to be possible!

This article seems poorly written and says the same thing over and over again with slightly different wording. I would have liked some more specifics.

The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) could have several implications for the open source software sector:

1. Increased legal and financial responsibility
2. Deterrent effect on the development of open source software
3. Lack of consideration for the specificities of open source software
4. Lack of consultation of the open source software community

Only 2 of those are implications of the law. 3 and 4 are redundant and are not caused by the law’s wording. They wouldn’t even be a problem if not for 1. 2 is also caused by 1 in a fairly obvious way.

Hows does the limitation of liability section in basically every open source license factor into this? It seems like you’d be fine as long as you aren’t personally using the code commercially? Or would this new law somehow override the open source license?

Personally I use dnsrobocert with my own domains. I’ve got a few subdomains that point to a Wireguard subnet IP for private network apps (so it resolves to nothing if you’re not on VPN). Having a real valid SSL cert is really nice vs self signing, and it keeps my browser with HTTPS-Everywhere happy.

Well, we had Windows 10 for over 5 years before Windows 11. 10 was supposedly the last version they were doing, so it’s a little surprising they’re back to regular major releases now.