> the game is about eventually building thousands of the new item.
I disagree that you need significant amount of thinking ahead. At the beginning spaghetti belt is fine, as you have little resources and you don't have the luxury of overbuilding. Once you start getting "bigger" and into more complex designs you can just leave what you already built how it is and build the new stuff somewhere else.
By the time you need to produce thousands of pieces of an item you can probably prepare a blueprint that builds the whole factory in a click.
My approach to factor.io is built on phasesw
1: build ad hoc infrastructure for the specific material that I need, close to the raw resources
2: prepare blueprints for specific resources, so that if I need more of something I can just build an extra factory. I make the blueprints so that I can compose them, like input belts on one side and output belt on the other. such "factories" are almost self contained, as in they get only a subset of materials (plates, plastic and stuff that involves liquids) and produce all the intermediate materials. This leaves some optimizations on the table, but simplify the logistic. Use trains to fetch resources from far.
3: compose the blueprints of the previous step to make "megafactories" with stations included. While at step 2 input and output of the factories are belts, at this step the input/output are train stations for specific material (with proper names, so I can add a new factory and trains will start delivering materials right away)
Of course my approach is not the only possible and probably not even efficient. I play for fun, with no care for the time it takes, as long as the time spent is enjoyable.
You can certainly build with a main bus, and segmented factories doing what they do in perfect Nilaus city blocks. It's quite like perfectly designed and planned code; though you run the risk of it becoming just a blueprint plopping game.
But it (for me at least) is so much more fun building the spaghetti and making things work, refactoring as you go, and expanding organically.
What is released under MIT (or BSD) will stay under that license forever, so it cannot "be closed anytime". The owner can change the license, but that will affect only future developments.
Permissive licenses sometimes allow sublicensing, which allows changing of the license, and does not require source code be made available when changes made.
IOW, this is de-facto closed source distribution.
What happens when a company decides to add their own secret sauce and release that version only, or what happens tons of slightly incompatible, closed source variants pop-up, what happens upstream decides to not release future versions' source code.
We have seen it all, and we'll see all of them again.
> Permissive licenses sometimes allow sublicensing, which allows changing of the license, and does not require source code be made available when changes made.
If I own the code, I can redistribute that code under a non-GPL license any time I want to (or not release changes at all). The GPL license that I grant to you on my code only affects what YOU can do with it. Consider the common practice of dual-licensed GPL code (a very common strategy for FOSS libraries to extort license fees).
And yes, an MIT license permits sub-licensing. Which is a good thing. (So does GPL). Maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you meant re-licensing.
> What happens when a company decides to add their own secret sauce
Then you use the old code without the secret sauce.
> what happens tons of slightly incompatible, closed source variants pop-up,
The same thing that happens when tons of slightly incompatible GPL-licensed variants pop up.
> What happens when upstream decides not to release future version's source code.
GPL does't help with that either.
> We have seen it all
To be perfectly honest, coming to Linux world, I find the various creative strategies to extort license fees for GPL code to be extremely distasteful. Off the top of my head: Juce: three dozen dual-GPL- and GPL-incompatible (not-for commercial use without paid license) libraries and tools with no upfront documentation on which libraries and tools are distributed under which license. You have to download them one by one to find out which license they are distributed under. Ubuntu: withholds (currently) 21 security fixes unless you pay for a license! Reaper, which is GPL-licensed, but demands that you purchase a license when you run it; sources are available but are impossible to build. GPL libraries that require use of non-GPL services in the cloud. Seems much more like a dystopia to me.
All I want is for people to be able to use my code. For whatever. And I am grateful to those who have provide code that I use under equally generous terms. And not at all impressed by somebody who added four hundred lines of code to a huge MIT-licensed library, and licensed them under a GPL license. (It took me less time to rewrite from scratch than I spent trying to get a fix pulled into the GPL project).
> Permissive licenses sometimes allow sublicensing, which allows changing of the license
No! Sublicensing simply means that there can be a chain of licensing, e.g. author —— Linux distribution —— end user. Not that the middleman can change the license.
(It's actually irrelevant in Germany, because consensus in our legal community seems to be that there is a direct licensing relationship between author and end user, even if they don't know each other and never interact)
And even Rubio, who you would expect to take an expected diplomatic approach, is now talking like Elon and JD, with "say thank you" bullying. Pretty shocking.
> And even Rubio, who you would expect to take an expected diplomatic approach,
Rubio is a longtime political opportunist with no diplomatic experience or background and a history of knuckling under to Trump specifically. I’d expect him to be a consummate yes man as long as he is in the Administration (and I wouldn't expect anything the Administration might decide to cause him to leave, no matter how out of line with “expected diplomatic” norms), and its very clear the tone the Administration has decided on from the top.
"Trump Tells Europe to Buy American Arms to Keep NATO Strong". [1]
"U.S. President Donald Trump complained Thursday that his country's decades-old security treaty with Japan is nonreciprocal, as he steps up pressure on allies to increase defense spending and buy more American products." [2]
We're not increasing defense spending to appease Trump though. We're increasing defense spending because we realize a need for strategic independence from the US. Because for the comming 4 years, it's obvious that the US won't be a reliable partner, and might even be an adversary.
It makes no sense for us to buy American if we need strategic independence from the US.
> IMO there's a strong chance US would heavily restrict/limit F35 operations against RU. Because one shot down F35 by S400 let alone anything shittier completely evaporates narrative around 5th gen (and what that entails for IndoPac)
Israel's F-35 have being going in and out of Iran's airspace with impunity, so no, I don't think that is going to be an issue.
"Von der Leyen outlined the five-point plan at a critical time for the future of Europe's security.
One of them is a proposal to suspend strict budget rules to allow member states to ramp up "their defence expenditures without triggering the excessive deficit procedure," Von der Leyen said.[1]"
> Taken together, the PPP and Russia's domestic production capability
What does exactly Russia produces ? Most of GDP of Russia comes from export of natural resources [1]. This is by design: raw material extraction can be managed even by corrupt friends of the government even with a lot of "inefficiencies"; meanwhile higher level production is left to languish on purpose since it would be a potential vector for others to gain wealth and power (most of the oil infrastructure in Russia is serviced by western tools, for example).
Up to a few years ago I would have added weapons to the list, but it seems to me that they can't produce quality weapons anymore, there are very few moderns Russian weapons in use in Ukraine, for example.
Sure, but this is HN, and we get a lot of The Case For Nuclear Power articles coming through, and startups building micro reactors that everyone thinks are very cool- me too, honestly- but I think that the case against gets given short shrift, or can turned into a strawman.
The consequences of a nuclear incident are very high, and can be more or less permanent for an area. It's a lot to ask for a technology to be absolutely resilient to mismanagement or even sabotage.
> The consequences of a nuclear incident are very high, and can be more or less permanent for an area. It's a lot to ask for a technology to be absolutely resilient to mismanagement or even sabotage.
Accidents happen, you cannot eliminate completely the risk, but that is fine as long as you minimize the risk. People died because of wind power [1] but since the event is quite rare we don't ask ourselves "how do we stop wind-power-related disasters".
In the case of Fukishima, only one person died directly because of it. About 2000 more deaths can be related to the nuclear accident, for example because they were displaced and living in worse conditions [2]. Since this is the kind of event that every few decades (we have to go back to Chernobyl for something similar) I would say that it is not a reason for worrying.
For comparison, that is 1/10 of people that died in Japan because of the Tsunami that caused it, and it is less than the number of people that die every year for traffic accidents in Italy, so if I was Italian (wait, I am!) I would be more worried about the road traffic than a nuclear accident.
It could be an advantage for the US, but it looks to me like a liability for Russia, since they don't have enough manpower to guard it.
In case of war between China and Russia I could easily see Chinese invading large swaths of lands without any meaningful opposition. Populations in eastern Russia are treated more like than colonial subjects than regular citizen, so I don't think they will mind too much a new overlord.
Assuming they had the troops to get there, they cannot move all of them to the border with China and leave the western front unguarded
I disagree that you need significant amount of thinking ahead. At the beginning spaghetti belt is fine, as you have little resources and you don't have the luxury of overbuilding. Once you start getting "bigger" and into more complex designs you can just leave what you already built how it is and build the new stuff somewhere else.
By the time you need to produce thousands of pieces of an item you can probably prepare a blueprint that builds the whole factory in a click.
My approach to factor.io is built on phasesw
1: build ad hoc infrastructure for the specific material that I need, close to the raw resources
2: prepare blueprints for specific resources, so that if I need more of something I can just build an extra factory. I make the blueprints so that I can compose them, like input belts on one side and output belt on the other. such "factories" are almost self contained, as in they get only a subset of materials (plates, plastic and stuff that involves liquids) and produce all the intermediate materials. This leaves some optimizations on the table, but simplify the logistic. Use trains to fetch resources from far.
3: compose the blueprints of the previous step to make "megafactories" with stations included. While at step 2 input and output of the factories are belts, at this step the input/output are train stations for specific material (with proper names, so I can add a new factory and trains will start delivering materials right away)
Of course my approach is not the only possible and probably not even efficient. I play for fun, with no care for the time it takes, as long as the time spent is enjoyable.
reply