The comment said why not go open source, not why not go source available though.
JackbyDev
joined 3 years ago
I'd love to see that but realistically I don't ever see it happening.
They've had something for quite a while now that made it so names weren't changed between releases so stuff would work better. I don't remember what it's called. Like it used to be that a new version meant figuring out everything again.
Do you mean source available or actually open source?
The game Dungeons 3 was almost really good but just felt grindy. Evil Genius 2 was awful and I'm still sad about it.
I don't ore order games and very very rarely purchase before reviews come out. Even then I always set a timer to stop before 2 hours to see if I should refund on Steam.
So, no, not really. It's not a hard no, but it's certainly not a definite yes.
OP, please update the post to reflect the current article title. It may have changed since you posted.
Please, won't somebody think of the drones? 🥺
Damn, Preston. This one really is different.
Yeah, sports betting is getting legalized in more and more US states. It's pretty crazy. During most live sports broadcasts there are tons of commercials for it and even on the stadiums there are ads on the walls.
FanDuel is sports betting
I swear, that's what this argument sounds like to me. Also, I'm genuinely confused why people don't think that, if we can simulate randomness with computers in our world with pseudo random number generators, why a higher reality wouldn't be able to simulate what we view as true randomness with a pseudo random number generator or some other device we cannot even begin to comprehend.
Either this paper is bullshit or they're talking about some sort of very specific thing that all these articles are blowing out of proportion.
I don't believe we are in a simulation but I don't believe this paper disproves it. Just like I don't believe in god but I don't believe the question "can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up?" disproves god.