Git is not a blockchain. Most importantly, it’s not distributed. There’s a singular git server that all git clients for that repository connect to and use as a source of truth.

It is unfortunate, but there is also reason to be optimistic. It’s clear that they want to make use of existing items, especially under-utilized ones from previous releases. It’s something that they’ve repeatedly talked about over the past year. It’s even one of the design principles from Jeb’s internal handbook. Take copper: added in 1.17, used for brushes in 1.20, and used for copper bulbs, doors, grates, and trapdoors in 1.21. They even briefly played with copper horns in Bedrock. Or tuff: also added in 1.17 as a totally useless block, with variants fleshed out in 1.21 that makes it surprisingly useful for building. Not to mention the crafter and potions of infestation/oozing/weaving are entirely made from existing items, or the new paintings that don’t require any new items at all. Even completely new items are tried to have as many uses as possible from the start: wind charges have tons of different applications. I think Mojang has been paying attention to this trend for longer than most of us have, and we’re finally starting to see it shift how they approach update design.

ChatGPT makes you a 10x developer, so using it for one year is like ten years of experience ^/s

Indie studios do in fact exist. I haven’t bought a game from a major publisher since… uhh… well, I guess I bought Portal for $1 last year, does Valve still count as a major publisher?

On the other hand, spontaneous generation was very much still a thing at this point, so a lot of the basic rules of the world around us were really not worked out yet

The difficulty of sending patches or reporting issues to the Linux kernel is a feature for them, as it keeps less-experienced devs from wasting maintainer’s time with garbage requests. For most projects it’s a bug.

This isn’t KYC, it’s “prove you’re a human”.

SVN, and whatever that thing Microsoft was doing once

The version of Community Points used on r/CryptoCurrency

Likely only Reddit can say. I don’t think Reddit was ever trying to make money off Community Points directly (in contrast to their NFTs), but rather to boost engagement. Whether or not it did, and by enough to offset the costs of starting and maintaining the system, we’ll likely never know.

Sex workers is a more broad term though, is there a term for sex workers who have sex with customers?

Nobody here is arguing from direct information, just implications of vague statements. Here’s where they spell it out in more detail:

https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates.1482750/

Q: How are you going to collect installs? A: We leverage our own proprietary data model. We believe it gives an accurate determination of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project.

Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game, will that count as multiple installs? A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs. (Updated, Sep 14)

Note the update there. They completely walked back their previous answer:

Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data.

Which has lead to a lot of confusion. It seems like their “proprietary data model” is focused on another point, which is preventing install spamming. Or maybe it’s also about reinstalls, even though they “don’t receive end-player information” so that was impossible a few days ago.

Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input.

This is really important. The particular case tried a very difficult argument, that works created by machine have copyright regardless of human input, which no serious copyright experts thought would work because it’s been pretty comprehensively litigated that human creativity is required

They also tried to argue the much more plausible theory that the prompt had creativity, and that the copyright flows down from the prompt to the AI-generated work, but the type of suit they brought didn’t permit that argument. That theory still needs to be litigated, and while I would be a bit surprised to see it work, it’s entirely possible it will. So I’m not ready to say all AI-generated work is PD just yet.

Of course, regardless of if what comes out of the AI is PD, you can make enough modifications to a PD work and create something you can copyright. Many people are doing enough “touch-ups” to AI art that the final product is potentially copyrightable. Amusingly, the better the generator, the less the human has to do here, and the weaker the protection becomes.

It’s called the “US Patent and Trademark Office”, so they must be basically the same thing, right‽