> Stuff like the Indie Awards disqualifying Clair Obscur not on merit but on this teeny tiny usage of AI just sits wrong with a lot of people, me included.
From the "What are the criteria for eligibility and nomination?" section of the "Game Eligibility" tab of the Indie Game Awards' FAQ: [0]
> Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.
It's not about a "teeny tiny usage of AI", it's about the fact that the organizer of the awards ceremony excluded games that used any generative AI. The Clair Obscur used generative AI in their game. That disqualifies their game from consideration.
You could argue that generative AI usage shouldn't be disqualifying... but the folks who made the rules decided that it was. So, the folks who broke those rules were disqualified. Simple as.
Yeah sure they're free to set the rule for their award show however they like, but I think going with a name like the "Indie Awards", kinda signals to the outside, that they wanna be taken seriously and like an authority on indie games. In my opinion, by adding clearly ideologically motivated rules (because let's be honest, something like E33 isn't a worse game due to their very small usage of AI), they'll just achieve, that they won't be taken seriously in the future. I know I won't take their award seriously, and I don't think I'm the only one.
They're free to define their rules however they want, I'm free to disagree on the validity of those rules, and the broader community sentiment will decide whether these awards are worth anything.
> something like E33 isn't a worse game due to their very small usage of AI
A gorgeous otherwise-monochrome painting that happens to use a little bit of mauve isn't a worse painting because of the mauve. If that painting is nominated for inclusion to a contest that requires the use of only one color, it is correct to reject that painting from consideration. This rejection would only be a problem if the requirement wasn't clearly disclosed up-front.
As for the rest of your commentary; you're free to gather likeminded buddies and start the "Robot-Generated-Art-Inclusive Indie Awards". As a bonus, I expect the fuckoff-huge studios would be quite excited to quietly help fund the project through cutouts.
Yea as I said, the award can reject them, I still think that this award doesn't actually represent the best indie games then, and therefore it will fade into obscurity. Funnily enough, this year's game Awards (the actual game Awards), were basically swept by small studios with tiny budgets compared to AAA studios. That's because these Studios had a coherent vision for their game, people that really cared about making it good, corporate AAA games are bad not because of usage of AI, but because monetization is more important than the gameplay.
To play devil's advocate, AI helps small studios with a limited budget actually way more, because they can bring a game to market, that maybe would've needed 10 people before, but needs only 3 people now. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that that's the new reality, whether we like it or not. As I said, I'm against GenAI in many fields, e.g. I absolutely despise AI generated "Music", cancelled my Spotify subscription because of it (they insist on putting it into playlists and you can't disable it), but that doesn't mean, anything which was produced with 0.1% AI is bad, unethical, etc.
> ...until the space finally gets used in the LV where it encroaches on the max size of the thin volume.
I'll assume that this means "once enough data is written to the LV to fill the space currently allocated to the thin LV". Do correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
Did you disable thin LV monitoring and automated resizing? By default, writes to full thin LVs are delayed until the LV is resized or return a write error if the LV hasn't been resized after (a default of) 60 seconds. In my experience, the automated thin LV resizing worked quickly and painlessly. lvmthin(7) says this about the default behavior:
Writes to thin LVs are accepted and queued, with the expectation that pool data space will be extended soon. Once data space is extended, the queued writes will be processed, and the thin pool will return to normal operation.
While waiting to be extended, the thin pool will queue writes for up to 60 seconds (the default). If data space has not been extended after this time, the queued writes will return an error to the caller, e.g. the file system. This can result in file system corruption for non-journaled file systems that may require repair. When a thin pool returns errors for writes to a thin LV, any file system is subject to losing unsynced user data.
> Also the documentation around adding disks and expanding PVs/VGs/LVs when you have thin volumes is poor to non-existent.
What changes with PV and VG management when you have thin LVs? I used thin LVs for a while and found that everything other than the automated resizing seemed to be the same as with "thick" LVs. What did I miss?
This picture from the list of product pictures [0] indicates that the thing acts as an Ethernet bridge. It probably exposes itself as a USB-C gigabit Ethernet device to the machine it's plugged into.
Page four of TFM [1] supports this theory.
Also, this functionality is called out in the product listing and in the manual. I'm over here laughing my ass off because OP got so frightened by this clearly-documented feature that they immediately threw the thing in the trash, rather than first investigating to see if the source of the network traffic was the machines plugged into the device.
I'm not an expert on this, but know enough to know the KVM doesn't need its own IP. In fact, the KVM I replaced it with provides ethernet to both my machines (at the same time) without getting its own IP.
The manual, as OP said, does not offer any explanation, why the device might show up with an additional MAC/IP at the upstream switch port, and which services it might offer. OP sounds knowledgeable enough to be able to exclude the possibility, that the additional MAC/IP could be from one of the PCs, like e.g. when playing with VMs using an internal bridge in the Hypervisor.
Maybe the device has a bigger "cousin" device, that includes "control via APP", and this feature was not properly/fully disabled on this one.
Yep. I've been through almost exactly that, and know many other folks who have. If you're working in the US or other places that don't have really good labor regs, "RTO exemptions" are temporary, no matter what you're being told today.
Though, in my case bullet #1 was more like
No more remote hires. However, we will more than backfill the folks quitting or being laid off in the US and the EU with folks in India and China. We hope you enjoy the in-office synergy when communicating with your new teammates who are literally half a world away!
It’s amazing how much intense of a Scrooge McDuck vibes we’re getting from the MBA executive class.
Crank the screws, tighten the belt, offshore, increase profits at all costs. The next generations are going to have it rough since these elites have intentionally hoarded prosperity at the expense of their countrymen
> But if you were in a management position when WFH started, you would've seen velocity go through the floor and stay there.
I spoke with my manager about this. This wasn't true for our team, and it wasn't true for any other team in our (fairly sizable) division. I didn't give a shit about any other group, so I didn't ask.
If your employees are spending their days fucking around instead of working when they're working from their home office, I'm here to tell you that when they were in the corporate-leased office, they were browsing Reddit on their phone or off on yet another coffee break to "get the pulse of the office". Slackers and shirkers are gonna slack and shirk, no matter where they are.
The thing to do is to fire folks who aren't doing enough to justify their pay. That's something that hasn't ever changed.
> in case this is not sarcasm... tech managers != tech leaders.
I agree that being management doesn't make one a leader. Anyone who has been in the industry for five, ten years knows that a leader may or may not have a management title.
However. It has been the fad for many, many years now for Management to call itself Leadership. [0] This makes it slightly ambiguous, but not at all incorrect to refer to the "management class" as the "leadership class".
[0] I guess their little, tiny, incredibly fragile egos got overly bruised by the years of derogatory commentary aimed at clueless managers, and they -because of their tiny, inadequate brains- decided that A Big Rebrand would change the nature of reality.
> So now we get to the present day where the solution to that problem is to not let [people who have in their possession a government-issued ID] on the plane.
Some of us still remember how internal checkpoints and the demands for government-issued traveling papers were used in some countries to restrict the travel of and collect persons of interest. The fact that we didn't go "Papers, please!" to folks traveling within the country was once a point of pride. You're suggesting that everyone who wishes to cross the country in less than a week must be in possession of Federal identification papers. [0] You do understand that it's totally legal to have zero identifying documentation other than your boarding pass, right?
Exactly one thing prevented (and prevents) another 9/11: reinforced cockpit doors that lock from inside the cockpit. Everything else that has been done is extremely expensive theater that wastes our time and energy, and empowers authoritarians.
[0] Ubiquitous computerized systems and internetworking means that traveling papers no longer need to be handed out to the traveler. If someone's either of interest or banned there's no need to notify them, you can just snatch them up at (or turn them away from) the checkpoint.
And, like, I want to mention here that the hijackers who successfully wrecked three airliners and murdered everyone on board (including themselves) passed all security screening. We knew who they were! If we had had internal passports in 2001, that would have changed nothing at all.
AIUI, these folks were armed with box cutters and a willingness to kill themselves, everyone on the plane, and everyone in the building they intended to crash into. Folks regularly get knives through TSA screening. There have been numerous official reports about the fact that TSA failed to find > 90% of the weapons and explosives federal red-team employees put into their luggage.
The only thing that has stopped another 9/11 is reinforced cockpit doors that lock from inside the cockpit. Had the cockpit doors been solid and locked, those hijackers would have gotten the shit beaten out of them by passengers and those planes would have made safe emergency landings.
At least in California, it also requires one to present significantly more documentation. Last I checked, it also goes into a central Federal database, whereas ordinary State-issued IDs do not.
If I'm going to get a damn passport, I'm going to get a passport that lets me leave the country.
> What is it with America and laws being pushed off indefinitely?
For this specific regulation, it's illegal to prevent someone who passes physical security screening and has paid their fare from boarding a plane.
So, if FedGov didn't provide a mechanism that they could point to that technically doesn't require passengers to present ID to board domestic fights, then they're still technically compliant with the law.
That's why TSA hasn't been able to just say "Fuck you, you don't get to fly if you don't have a federally-issued internal passport.".
> For this specific regulation, it's illegal to prevent someone who passes physical security screening and has paid their fare from boarding a plane.
Cite? Not that I'm doubting, just never heard this mentioned during the last news cycle around REAL ID when it "went in to effect" months ago. I didn't really look in to it any further as I've had a compliant ID for long enough it expires next year plus a passport so it didn't affect me.
Gilmore v. Gonzales (2006) sort of dealt with this. Dude wanted to fly, refused to present ID, refused the heightened security check, was told he couldn't fly. He sued, it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that because the heightened security check was an option, the claimant's freedom of movement was not restricted.
There's a bunch of case law about freedom of movement, which is pretty radically protected in the United States. Not only can the federal government not put up unreasonable impediments to interstate travel, individual states and even private companies can't, either. Since American's aren't required to have ID (interestingly, this might be more political than legal, I can't find any case law enshrining the right to not have ID, just a lot of public outcry and backpedaling any time it's suggested), requiring one to travel interstate would be a significant impediment.
From the "What are the criteria for eligibility and nomination?" section of the "Game Eligibility" tab of the Indie Game Awards' FAQ: [0]
> Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.
It's not about a "teeny tiny usage of AI", it's about the fact that the organizer of the awards ceremony excluded games that used any generative AI. The Clair Obscur used generative AI in their game. That disqualifies their game from consideration.
You could argue that generative AI usage shouldn't be disqualifying... but the folks who made the rules decided that it was. So, the folks who broke those rules were disqualified. Simple as.
[0] <https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq>
reply