I hope that by then they'll have better solutions than an internet browser, and that their devices can interpret and render the data received in the best way possible without relying on code or style sheets from the publisher.
200 years ago we thought that we would certainly have cold fusion today (at least I just asked ChatGPT, that's what it says ;) ).
Well more than 10 years ago we thought that we would have autonomous cars in 5 years.
Nothing says that AI can ever do more than generating convincing and eloquent bullshit (which is not always wrong in a quite impressive manner, I agree).
Cold fusion is new concept within science, it's never been proven to work or be possible (my laymens interpretation). Whereas humans being able to decipher the Firefox code base, as per the example, is no more than an extremely complex set of 'calculations' and functions in our brain - which, with enough time and resources, can be replicated by a computer or sorts.
One is an idea for which there is no ground to base it on, the other is an existing thing which can be recreated. Quite the difference.
> One is an idea for which there is no ground to base it on, the other is an existing thing which can be recreated. Quite the difference.
Really? For all we know, maybe next year someone discovers fundamentally new laws of physics that enable cold fusion, and we will never have autonomous vehicles.
You can say that you like the other guess better than mine, but you should still realize that it is just that: a guess. Wanna see guesses that turned out to be completely wrong? Just check what companies like McKinsey predicted 10 years ago. They just have no clue, but somehow made a business out of it.
You might get disqualified by some automatic process that filters on length. Nobody will most likely read those couple of sentences anyway. And ironically, if they do, they might think you're lazy for writing only 2 and would rather go with the guy that has a longer cover not AI-generated.
That is actually AI generated, because people thinking they can easily differentiate between them probably also think they are immune to publicity.
It's not unheard of to be applying to 50+ companies in the hopes of hearing back from 5. It's not a couple sentences - if you wrote three sentences per letter, thats 150 sentences.
Nobody is saying every employee of Unity is for the pricing changes, but yet here we are. Almost like what really matters is what the highest level of the organization want.
I still refuse to believe that's the right interpretation. That can't be real. Are you really going to owe more to Unity every time a user uninstall/reinstalls your game? If they want to play in their main PC and their Steamdeck?
Completely abolishes the incentive of pushing free updates too. You don't want to make new great features that would push people to re-download your game.
> We are introducing a Unity Runtime Fee that applies to certain Unity subscription plans based on per-game installs across any Unity-supported game platform. Creators only pay once per download.
> An install is defined as the installation and initialization of a project on an end user’s device.
You made me remember the Matias keyboards I bought. They are nice indeed, but I'll never buy one again and I'll always recommend against them for what you pointed out: the quality build is horrible.
I got one that broke after a month, I got a replacement (still had to pay like 50 euros of tax because they shipped from outside of europe) that also broke after a month. In both cases some keys started typing twice.
Or at least it could do so, but may choose to force humans to fix those errors instead as payback for copilot.