I had a look at wikipedia, and it seems that there are conflicting studies about this:

This view was largely unchallenged until the late 1980s. Since that time, several studies have shown that transitioning from walking to running actually resulted in an increase in energy expenditure, while other studies have supported an energetic benefit from the transition. In the time since the energetics optimization view was first challenged, a number of mechanical, kinetic, and kinematic factors have been explored to explain the transition. Weak to moderately strong correlations have been found between several variables and the PTS, but work from a variety of researchers in the 1990s and 2000s agrees that ultimately it is fatigue and discomfort (or imminent fatigue/discomfort) in the tibialis anterior and other dorsiflexor muscles of the ankle that is the primary stimulus for the transition from walking to running in humans

When you walk faster and faster and faster, there is a point in which you automatically start running.

Really? for me, this does not happen. If I actually want to walk faster and faster I begin walking super funny (the steps become wider and wider while still maintaining a foot always on the ground) and it becomes harder and harder to increase speed beyond a certain point when my muscles cannot move any faster. If I want to switch to running I need to consciously switch to running, it only takes me a split second to decide to switch, but it does not happen “automatically”.

When I want to reach a certain speed, I make a very quick decision on what’s the most comfortable (or sometimes, socially acceptable) way (run or walk?) and based on my internalized experience I do that… but it’s not on the level of a reflex like removing your hand from fire, but rather closer to reaching to get a glass of water with your hand and tracing a comfortable path with your arm. I expect the better you know your body the closer you’ll be at making the right call, just the same as there’s people that sit with good posture and people that sit with bad posture, I find it strange that it would be an “automatic” thing. I’d also guess that a person that’s more used to marching would be more comfortable walking at faster speeds, whereas people that are not used to marching will switch to running much earlier because they aren’t used to walking fast. And vice-versa, someone who’s not used to running might take longer to switch… this might also depend on the state of their joints, if the person is overweight, etc.

Here’s a way to look at it: if you try to walk a long distance at a very high speed, you’ll get exhausted, but if you run the same distance at that same speed, you’ll be less tired.

I feel I’m missing something because this seems contradictory with the previous statement. If you are at a high speed but you don’t “automatically start running” and can walk, then that would mean you are below the switching threshold. And you said that under that threshold walking is more efficient, so shouldn’t it make you less tired to walk?

I feel the kind of “exhaustion” I get from walking is fundamentally different than the “exhaustion” from running… walking too fast for too long can make my muscles hurt but it does not make me lose my breath the way running (even at low speeds) does.

AFAIK, Voxelibre was renamed from “MineClone2” which was a fork from “MineClone” which is a different game than “Minetest game”

Also, afaik, “Minetest game” is still the name of one of the games (and it used to be shipped by default with the engine, though no idea if that has changed and they finally don’t include any games in the initial download).

As far as I remember, holding fire while moving will make SuperTux run. Similar to the popular platformer which-must-not-be-named from the NES (which likely only did it like that because the controller had only 2 buttons).

SuperTux Advance

For reference, this is the github: https://github.com/KelvinShadewing/supertux-advance

It uses a cross-platform engine (Brux GDK), in theory you just run game.brx from the Brux engine. Is it really Windows only? …that’d be weird for a Tux game.

oh sorry, maybe that’s why I got downvotes. Just to be clear: I was talking about it being “bleem.net” vs just “bleem”.

That rebranding does not bode good, imho.

To me, one of the things that make emulation interesting is that it’s released from DRM. If it turns out it’s an attempt to lock things to an online platform you might as well just play many of the retro indies that are available on Steam.

True. Same for Android. I feel some form of that should be part of the approach. Splitting it carelessly would likely either:

A) result in no real change: ie. instead of allocating budgets within Google, they’ll just exchange money through deals and partnerships, as separate companies, but still having pretty much the same relationship between projects and level of control (Android & Chrome would continue favoring Google interests, even as independent companies), and they’ll keep being monopolies each within their own fields (I don’t see how that’s being addressed with the split).

B) result in independent projects that push for monetization and shady schemes to try and be profitable on their own (although, to be honest Mozilla has proven that being non-profit is not a shield against this either). This actually might be a good thing if the enshittification manages to get people to switch away from Chrome to a better alternative… but I wouldn’t be so sure of that (both that they would move, or that they’d choose a better one …as opposed to say MS Edge which has just as bad of a ruler).

Stock Android does not have tools to do that verification. Just verify it from the desktop and then send it to your Android device.

But I don’t see how verifying the apk signature would help if your concern is that “you have bare to none knowledge how it works”. The only thing that would fix that would be if you actually learn how it works.

Luckily, unlike other stores that are closed source and actively and purposefully hide from you what they do, F-Droid is open source, so anyone can go to the repo holding their source code and learn how it works, or build their own themselves, as long as they wanna spend that much effort.

The “.net” makes me think it would be some online service that runs on remote servers or ties you to some online platform without any real gain other than just to increase their level of control over the customer.

I’m ok with not considering it “public good” when something has a license that sets conditions and it’s under Copyright of a particular private person/entity. But if you do need to ask consent to a private party for the use of something in a derivative work of certain conditions, then I don’t think it makes sense to call it a public good.

Yes, that’s why im saying that this kind of problem isn’t something particular about this project.

In fact I’m not sure if it’s the case that the builds aren’t reproducible/verifiable for these binaries in ventoy. And if they aren’t, then I think it’s in the upstream projects where it should be fixed.

Of course ventoy should try to provide traceability for the specific versions they are using, but in principle I don’t think it should be a problem to rely on those binaries if they are verifiable… just the same way as we rely on binaries for many dynamic libraries in a lot of distributions. After all, Ventoy is closer to being an OS/distribution than a particular program.

Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.

I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it’s to their advantage to be associated with “open source” even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.

The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it’s not clear what term to use. Already “free software” can be confused with “free as in free beer”.

That discussion concluded essentially the same thing I said: that both the OSI and the FSF have essentially the same conditions and that “merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source” (sic).

Don’t police perfectly innocent and common use of language please.

Using “open source” for all kinds of source, regardless of how restrictive its license is, is definitely not a common use of the term.

People aren’t gonna start using “open source” like that just because a few people find it more convenient for the marketing of their projects. To me it sounds like they are the ones policing to push for a particular language standard against what people commonly use, which is what makes language prescriptive, instead of descriptive.

I guess it’s better than not providing any source code. What’s wrong is calling it “open source” when it isn’t.

VVVVVV and Anodyne are some examples of “source available” games.

According to the definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open source” also requires free redistribution. See the first point (emphasis mine).

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

It also requires freedom to distribute modifications:

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

CC-BY-NC-ND is not “open source” (both due to the NC and the ND), it’s more of a “source available” type of license (when applied to source code). The difference between “free software” and “open source” is more ideological than anything else, they both define the same freedoms, just with different ideological objectives / goals.

I think that was already done a while ago with Swanstation libretro core.

That’s ok if we are talking about malware publicly shown in the published source code… but there’s also the possibility of a private source-code patch with malware that it’s secretly being applied when building the binaries for distribution. Having clean source code in the repo is not a guarantee that the source code is the same that was used to produce the binaries.

This is why it’s important for builds to be reproducible, any third party should be able to build their own binary from clean source code and be able to obtain the exact same binary with the same hash. If the hashes match, then you have a proof of the binary being clean. You have this same problem with every single binary distribution, even the ones that don’t include pre-compiled binaries in their repo.

True. Though I don’t think we would be in a hurry for this one, both Mindustry and Shapez have similar concepts and are already open source and quite good.

Yes, I don’t think it’s just about the execution of Win32 code, but also the possibility of MS using marketing techniques and dirty manipulation methods to give themselves advantages within the Windows platform to sway the general public to their store in a similar manner as how they push their browser, their MS Teams communication platform, their One Drive Cloud Storage, their search engine, their data-collection tech, their assistant, etc.

Content curated by “the core geeks and nerds” might appeal to “geeks and nerds”, not to those consumers.

They want “consumer” content. And if one day they get tired of it then I doubt any amount of “steak” would have stopped them leaving anyway, since that was never what they were looking for. It’s not like reddit has to be the only place they visit in the internet, nor is the internet their only source of consumption. Just because you go to a snack bar does not mean that’s the only place you go for meals.