For me it’s definitely more about legitimacy, recognition and signalling to the market.

Meet -> Jitsi (Matrix also uses Jitsi as a plugin but I think they’re also working on a native Element solution too).

Devil’s advocating for the sense of completeness here rather than bickering, but wouldn’t two of the same compiler on two of the same machine with the same code still create the same output? That is to say, it is deterministic rather than stochastic but it just takes unpredictable variables into account when compiling?

I think the difference would be that a compiler will always give you something understandable and explainable even if it’s opaque, but an LLM is literally using RNG to generate its output, so could come out with something completely left field. If it switches to Chinese that’s one thing because you can just ignore that, but equally a hallucinated bug that looks right but is actually very dangerous could slip in instead.

They put way too much effort into the commentary, which they then released for free anyway as podcasts.

It’s still a good game, but I don’t think any of the 2008 gloss that made it a phenomenon survives.

Let’s start with Jallianwala Bagh to give them a head start.

This will be great if it helps fund Godot. Hard to argue it’s not a proper game engine now!

You walked so our games would run 🫡