@brad Just wanna say I love hearing you participate in the world of shell scripting in this episode
tar and gzip can kiss my ass
Please scream it louder. I never want to remember whether it's tar xvf or tar zxf or whatever the hell it is. I imagine you put the glob(*) in the wrong place and it borked ya? I like zip -r "folder" for its ease of use, but it doesn't compress nearly as much.
I actually did pack the archive "correctly," in that what happened -- every file in the world dir getting gzipped before it was packed into the .tar -- is expected behavior for tar when you use the built-in gzip support in the "normal" way:
tar zcf minesrv.tar.gz directoryname
After the stream, I found that instead tarring the directory to stdout, piping that to gzip and redirecting to file does what I actually wanted, which is tar the directory and then compress the tar file:
tar cf - directoryname | gzip > minesrv.tar.gz
You're right, it would be easier to just use zip or 7z or something that behaves mores sensibly. In general I'm with you though, it's remarkable how much it's helped my workflow to know my way around simple bash scripting, ZFS snapshots, and so on during this WFH situation where we're having to manage a lot of data by ourselves. I really need to find the time soon to do some live tests of the silly encoding setup I put together on my NAS (and do a video walkthrough of how it works).
Watching Brad continue to use his level 1 sword after collecting things that were significantly better was driving me crazy lol.
Yup, and then complain about getting "common swords".
I almost wrote something snide here, but instead I'll just point out a) nobody here has mentioned the sword I was using had two enchantment slots enabled as opposed to only one on the others that were dropping, which is why I stuck with it, b) you're kind of overestimating how much thought we put into details like that when we're just trying to get a video done, and c) I promise this kind of pedantic nitpicking is your favorite Internet content creator's least favorite kind of comment.
I wouldn't want to be in space with anyone other than Vinny and Brad.
Am I the only one that builds tractor ASAP and then goes around scrounging for batteries to power research, smelter, chem lab, etc?
I really wonder if the game uses a random seed to determine found item distribution -- the first time I played this back at launch, I was finding solar panels and batteries left and right, even on the starting planet. This time it seems to be nothing but wind turbines (and we're on a planet with little wind).
@bathala: We've had some major video publishing issues going on today. Due to an odd confluence of circumstances it may be a day or two before mine is up.
@enfo: I've seen enough people mention this that I've been listening for it when I edit the show every week, but I can't hear it. (Hope my hearing isn't going.) My Yeti is plugged into a 15-ft USB cable that's threaded through a bunch of other cables and powered electronics so I guess it could be picking up some interference?
Weirdly, haven't seen anyone mention this about any other video stuff I'm in, just the Bombcast, so I wonder if it's something that only the Google meeting is picking up.
@brad: That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it's within everybody's right to protect and profit off their IP, big or small, multinational corporation or indie dev... just that when companies are overprotective, consumer experience goes down, and in this case the dream of widespread affordable cloud gaming takes a hit, and services like Stadia become the future of cloud gaming - which is why consumers are upset.
I can't pay full price directly to a dev for their game and play it just because I want to play it on a cloud computer? Because game developers want to make money and have it quantified in a spreadsheet, they'll forego the reach and money that comes with extending their customer base to everybody who can afford $5/mo? The future sucks.
My apologies, I think I read more into your comment than you meant after the tone of the discussion around this has gotten pretty heated. People have been calling for a boycott of the dev in question, which is quite an overreaction.
@mason_pat: Yeah, it's definitely more reasonable to insist that small indie devs sit on the sidelines and not complain while a massive multinational does whatever it wants with their work.
@toxicantidote: Yeah, I suspect the terms of the publishing contract signed by people submitting content to these storefronts will just end up changing. Depending on how small the pool of IP holders are that are vocally resistant to this, I could see those terms actually being made non-negotiable for all but the largest AAA studios. The value of this service to its customers, the storefronts, and the service provider comes from it being a service that's as comprehensive as it is convenient. If the VM service provider has to wrangle its legal team to make a phone call to every person that writes the equivalent of a 'Hello World' application, or in every instance that someone submits a texture pack mod to the Steam Workshop, then this clearly isn't going to work.
This hits the nail on the head -- the situation needs to be accounted for contractually, both upfront going forward and retroactively for games that are already out. You can bet Microsoft has been weaving their plans for xCloud into their business arrangements with developers. The fact that Nvidia didn't button all this up before their soft launch is frankly a little embarrassing.
@brad: I'm honestly a lot more worried about a precedent being set that leads to Activision, EA and Bethesda each having their own streaming service you need to rent, in addition to buying the games, in order to play their games, than I am worried about a game developer not getting a cut off of someone who already payed for their game, playing that game.
I don't care about this particular case. I have no plans of ever becoming a customer of this NVIDIA streaming service. I just don't want every provider of a streaming service to also have to be a middle man for your games.
If this is what you're looking for (I think everyone is), you definitely want the aggregate services like Geforce Now to proactively to make arrangements with developers that both parties can live with.
I also want to push back on your claim that graphics cards aren't involved in the transaction involving customer, developer and Geforce Now. I think a remote graphics card (real or virtual) is actually exactly what someone would be paying NVIDIA for. You seem to have a fundamentally different understanding what the service is they provide, and I would appreciate it if you could explain what that is, rather than falling back on the size argument, which (while I'm sympathetic to little guys getting screwed over by big companies) is entirely unpersuasive, to be honest.
This isn't about the technical process of building out datacenters that will let you spin up VMs to run Steam in. That tech is mature enough and anyone can do it given enough resources. The problem is when you're a massive corporation doing it, and you slap branding on it, advertise it, and charge people a fee to use it. Now you're building a business, and at Nvidia's scale and given the huge opportunities around streaming, a business that could end up being worth enormous amounts of money. Absolutely nobody on the planet is going to be okay with their IP being used to build and promote a business like that without having some say or involvement in how their work is used, let alone even giving permission to use it in the first place. That's not how the games business works or has ever worked.
@aktivity: There is definitely a good object lesson in the nature of "ownership" of digital games here, and I get why people are uncomfortable with the situation, but I'm going to keep banging the drum that their anger is misdirected, and that Nvidia has it well within their resources to make this particular case a non-issue.
I'm certainly not an IP lawyer, but I don't think the legal precedent has been fully hammered out on these sorts of murky ownership issues in the context of digital subscription services. But there does already seem to be plenty of legal distinction between a physical product that you buy and take possession of vs. an intangible "product" that only exists in an abstract digital state, which makes comparisons to embedded or handheld devices somewhat flimsy. That's still a physical computer you're buying to run the game on.
To offer another example, anybody remember Bleem? Remember what happened to that?
Brad's comments