+1 to this. Let's say, in an alternate universe, beloved Evernote had 1000x as many users as this dying crappy app still has in ours. It could easily top this rating because for hot/popular tools there will inevitably be unsatisfied users, too, even if the general sentiment is 99% positive.

We are already - as in today - doing this with friends while playing Valheim, the process is semi-automatic with me in the middle as the admin, though.

We make 10+ gameplay changes a day in our custom kitchensink mod that steers everything. 70%+ are bugfixes (we have plenty of mods that conflict/are buggy), the the rest are QoL improvements, small new features and rebalancing. If we see some playstyle is too strong or boring, we spice it up the same or the next day. Mobs too weak/strong? Update the same day. A ton of performance fixes with actual in-game benchmarking. All this while I keep playing.

I built sort of an automatic modding pipeline (including public release and all) with parallel test game clients + servers used by LLMs to develop and test the changes and then merge before releasing a new mod version. We have had very few issues, I'm still shocked how reliable this is. They follow guidance well and test everything in real game clients on wipeable clones of our live world and our actual characters. Josh has a bugged chest at his place? The LLM will reproduce it, develop a patch, yes, but then also log in as him to his actual in-game base and test the fix using game inputs + OCR. At the end I get a .html page report on each change with screenshots and technical details if I ask for them. I don't care if it takes 4h to do a simple fix because it's not my time and game stability is critical. And up to 8 of them can work in parallel, so there isn't a bottleneck caused by excessive testing/re-testing.

I think this will be the future of gaming for many sandbox/easily moddable games. It's a bit too technical at the moment for regular players to handle the updates and models' quirks, but we're only going up from here. Just crazy.

This is a strange question because you could learn Dockerfile syntax in a single night. There are only 18 directives, and the average Dockerfile uses like 6 of them. 90%+ of Dockerfiles is just "run this shell command" and "copy this file into the docker image". The only time it flirts with complexity is multi-stage Dockerfiles, but 90%+ of Dockerfiles are a single stage.

https://docs.docker.com/reference/dockerfile/

> The only time it flirts with complexity is multi-stage Dockerfiles, but 90%+ of Dockerfiles are a single stage.

And multi stage builds are just a directed graph short hand for having separate intermediate dockerfiles. There’s nothing special about them either.

If I had to pick one thing that is tricky for someone new to docker to understand, it’s how the filesystem state is cached using the previous state, the env, and the raw command text.

Indeed, the one mistake I keep seeing new people make when writing Dockerfiles is writing them in a way that doesn't optimize for caching. For example, they'll copy their code into the container first and then start installing packages and dependencies. It's an easy mistake to make because the end result is still a functional Dockerfile, they're just wasting time and stressing the poor package servers unnecessarily.

Or multi-container compose files with atypical networking, or troubleshooting daemon permission issues.

Docker is much more than memorising a handful of Dockerfile directives.

I think the key thing for a university student is to get the big ideas down: what is a container exactly, how does it work, how does it differ from a VM, what assumptions does it make about what you're running (and how do you run something that doesn't fit that pattern), why do images exist in layers and how are layers implemented, what are the performance benefits/tradeoffs, etc. etc.

When I was learning Docker I can't tell you how many people would describe it to me by analogy to a standardized shipping container, and start going off about shipping container dimensions and supersized cargo ships and trucks and railcars... and finish by smiling beatifically, like they had just explained the whole thing in a masterstroke. Let's... uh... not do that. :-D

In a problem set, the student might learn a bit about dockerfiles or docker-compose.yml... but only, I think, so they can try building and running a container of their own!

I'm gonna be real with you. No one needs to know docker syntax. Most engineers just copy and paste chunks of Dockerfiles around anyways.

Docker syntax is one of those things that just immediately falls out of my head when I close the editor. I don't care about it at all.

Even better: there are many, many tools that build OCI images without using the Docker syntax. I haven't hand-written a Dockerfile in at least six years.

LLMs have not loved the needle here in my sphere, it was already bouncing off of the zero on the gauge.

edit: this isn't to say the syntax is good or bad (though there are several questionable parts of it) but extremely simple, and concise enough that you can just look up literally any command with great ease. It's surely a large part of its success, for better or for worse.

I find the Dockerfile syntax easier to use than any if the tools that generate it indirectly.

If you're going to fully delegate something so trivial as Dockerfiles to slopmachines, why go to university at all? You don't need to learn anything if you delegate everything to the slopmachine.

I don't think I've seen a less accessible *font* in my life, including all the dark grey on black and yellow on white ones. Those are hard to read, but this one makes my eyes hurt, they actually started to hurt after I tried reading it despite discomfort. How come? Reading random text for 10 seconds can cause people physical pain? I wear glasses for near-sightedness and slight astigmatism, I wonder if it's related, and if people with 20/20 vision experience it differently.

I thought it was me, I literally think there are things that should no longer be acceptable and this font is one of them. It serves no purpose and I would like to ask medical professionals if it is potentially harmful.

Edit: While fuzzy or blurry text itself is highly unlikely to trigger an epileptic seizure it is a major cause of optical strain, headaches, and reading barriers across various accessibility needs. Given the amount of screen time we all incur in our daily lives, I do not see why this should be a "thing".

And I got reprimanded by some rando pretending to be a mod for my previous comment. What is actually going on here?

You guys are saying this on a website which puts light grey text on light grey background.

My site shows black with yellow background and white text boxes. Highly visible. Maybe you're referring to dead comments? There are options to hide those.

I'm sorry, what is your username again? I can't read it, because it's tiny light grey text on a light grey background.

Controversy shouldn't give me cataracts either.

and tiny buttons

It hurt for me too. I stopped reading it because it gave me a serious headache.

Not a font. The VHS line striping is just a repeating gradient applied over the whole page:

    main::before { 
        background: 
            linear-gradient(rgba(18, 16, 16, 0) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.25) 50%),
            linear-gradient( 90deg, rgba(255, 0, 0, 0.06), rgba(0, 255, 0, 0.02), rgba(0, 0, 255, 0.06) );
    }

The red glow is a red text shadow applied to every element on the page:

    :root { 
        --text-shadow: 2px 0px red, -2px 0px var(--glitch-color-2);
    }

Surprisingly, the glitchy logo is also done with CSS, with animations over two different versions of the text overlain atop one another:

        explorator.dev        
        єӿƿłøгⱥʈøг.ᑻ

I know this because the first thing I did when I got to the page was hit F12 to bring up the debugging tools and turn these styles off so I could read it. :)

I have 20/20 vision and this presentation hurt my eyes. I'm glad my browser has "reader mode" to normalize things like this. I'm not trying to yuck someone else's yum. I simply appreciate the technical ability to read someone else's post in a way that doesn't cause discomfort.

I had to stop reading the first paragraph because of how bad it is.

this font is the stupidest thing ive seen in ages

Paying for an account doesn't opt you out by itself, right? Has he stated anywhere that he actually opted out? But if not, then I also don't understand why OpenAI's communications about this have been so vague, they could've just said that he didn't opt out, using those chats in training data follows their ToS and that's it (whether that's "fair" is a separate discussion).

We don’t need to guess, OpenAI pretty much indirectly they had the chats in their data set. OpenAI responses are the most suspicious part of that whole controversy, the fact they do not provide straight answers is not a sign of a good faith actor here

There has been no statement either way, as far as I could find beyond them only using commercially available models, though given Alpöges employer, I'd be surprised if they didn't opt out. In any case, for such work, ZDR or self-hosting seem to be an absolute must now.

Unless OpenAI can show that training was permitted, this will erode the limited trust that many users have had in such toggles and may lead to further, uncomfortable inquiries.

This is what TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt and similar software do already: you have two passwords to your encrypted drive, one shows the real data, the other one a whole another fake drive with whatever you put there. Additionally, there is no way to forensically prove that there is hidden encrypted data present and that there's a second layer: you have plausible deniability.