Note the Local Messages between 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And, yes, I did read the linked article and know they're claiming that 5.5's new efficient should make it break-even with 5.4, but the point stands, tighter limits/higher prices.
For API usage, GPT-5.5 is 2x the price of GPT-5.4, ~4x the price of GPT-5.1, and ~10x the price of Kimi-2.6.
Unfortunately I think the lesson they took from Anthropic is that devs get really reliant and even addicted on coding agents, and they'll happily pay any amount for even small benefits.
I feel like devs generally spend someone else's money on tokens. Either their employers or OpenAIs when they use a codex subscription.
If I put on my schizo hat. Something they might be doing is increasing the losses on their monthly codex subscriptions, to show that the API has a higher margin than before (the codex account massively in the negative, but the API account now having huge margins).
I've never seen an OpenAI investor pitch deck. But my guess is that API margins is one of the big ones they try to sell people on since Sama talks about it on Twitter.
I would be interested in hearing the insider stuff. Like if this model is genuinely like twice as expensive to serve or something.
Yeah and the increase in operating expenses is going to make managers start asking hard questions - this is good. It means eventually there will be budgets put in place - this will force OAI and Anthropic to innovate harder. Then we will see how things pan out. Ultimately a firm is not going to pay rent to these firms if the benefits dont exceed the costs.
Humans are needed to use agents and these agents are not showing to be fully autonomous and require constant human review. In fact all you are getting is a splurge of stuff, people not thinking deeper anymore and the creation of more bottle necks and exacerbating the ones that already exist in an org.
You sound like elon with the fsd will be here next year. Many cars have the self driving feature - most drivers don’t use it. Oh why is that I wonder.
You can't build a business on per-seat subscriptions when you advertise making workers obsolete. API pricing with sustainable margins are the only way forward if you genuinely think you're going to cause (or accelerate) reduction in clients' headcount.
Additionally, the value generated by the best models with high-thinking and lots of context window is way higher than the cheap and tiny models, so you need to provide a "gateway drug" that lets people experience the best you offer.
This was something I worried about after openai started building apps as well as models. Now all of the labs make no secret of the fact that they are going after the whole software industry. Its going to be hard to maintain functioning fair markets unless governments step in.
Sometimes I wonder if innovation in the AI space has stalled and recent progress is just a product of increased compute. Competence is increasing exponentially[1] but I guess it doesn't rule it out completely. I would postulate that a radical architecture shift is needed for the singularity though
> that devs get really reliant and even addicted on coding agents
An alternative perspective is, devs highly value coding agents, and are willing to pay more because they're so useful. In other words, the market value of this limited resource is being adjusted to be closer to reality.
Maybe that's true. But I think part of the issue is that for a lot of things developers want to do with them now— certainly for most of the things I want to do with them— they're either barely good enough, or not consistently good enough. And the value difference across that quality threshold is immense, even if the quality difference itself isn't.
On top of that I noticed just right now after updating macos dekstop codex app, I got again by default set speed to 'fast' ('about 1.5x faster with increased plan usage'). They really want you to burn more tokens.
>For API developers, gpt-5.5 will soon be available in the Responses and Chat Completions APIs at $5 per 1M input tokens and $30 per 1M output tokens, with a 1M context window.
1. Qwen is mostly coding related through Opencode. I have been thinking about using pi agent and see if that works better for general use case. The usefulness of *claw has been limited for me. Gemma is through the chat interface with lmstudio. I use it for pretty much everything general purpose. Help me correct my grammar, read documents (lmstudio has a built in RAG tool), and vision capabilities (mentioned below, journal pictures to markdown).
2. Lmstudio on my MacBook mainly. You can turn on an OpenAI API compatible endpoint in the settings. Lmstudio also has a headless server called lms. Personally, I find it way better than Ollama since lmstudio uses llama cpp as the backend. With an OpenAI API compatible endpoint, you can use any tool/agent that supports openAI. Lmstudio/lms is Linux compatible too so you can run it on a strix halo desktop and the like.
Which quants are you using? I had similar issue until I used Unsloth’s. I would recommend at least UD_6. Also, make sure your context length is above 65K.
I would recommend trying oMLX, which is much more performant and efficient than LM Studio. It has block-level KV context caching that makes long chats and agentic/tool calling scenarios MUCH faster.
If money is no object, then nothing else is worth considering if it isn't Codex 5.4/Opus 4.7/SOTA. But for many to most people, value Vs. relative quality are huge levers.
Even many people on a Claude subscription aren't choosing or able to choose Opus 4.7 because of those cost/usage pressures. Often using Sonnet or an older opus, because of the value Vs. quality curve.
Cost may or may not be a factor in my choice of model, but knowing the capabilities and knowing they will remain consistent, reliable, and available over time is always a dominant consideration. Lately, Anthropic in particular has not been great at that.
Unfortunately, like with the release of Qwen3.6-Plus, this model also isn’t released for local use. From the linked article: “Qwen3.6-Max-Preview is the hosted proprietary model available via Alibaba Cloud Model Studio”
anecdotally the quality of output isn't significantly different, the speed seems to be what you're really paying for, and since the alternative is free I'll stick to local.
With respect, maybe read the article? You're against it, because you didn't read what is being mandated and instead just invented worst-case scenarios instead. You're against your own Strawman.
The proposal is: batteries must be removable using commercially available tools, if the manufacturer requires specialist tools then they must provide them for free.
Essentially they're banning specialized tools, and mandating that repair shops and consumers must be able to purchase replacement batteries for "at least five years."
For context the iPhone was already altered to be compliant with this law and none of the issues you raised were notably worse in the iPhone Air, or 17.
This likely will eliminate specialist software to "sync" batteries, and non-standard screws/attachment mechanisms.
> The proposal is: batteries must be removable using commercially available tools
That's exactly what he's against, plus the premise "Making batteries removable prevents them from being waterproof, dustproof, and collision resistant". Which may be true or false, but not a straw man.
Thanks, and yes, exactly this. As I acknowledged in my comment, maybe phones can be made waterproof, dustproof, and dropproof while also being user serviceable. If there is a tradeoff, I'll take waterproof over user-battery-replaceable. Apparently conditionals make me a strawman...
It absolutely is a Strawman. There's no basis in fact for why using commercial tools instead of specialist tools would result in worse "waterproof, dustproof, or collision resistance." It is completely fictional claim invented whole cloth.
Again, multiple phones have already become compliant with this law and didn't lose or compromise any of those things.
So you OR they, will need to explain the basis for the claim, otherwise it is just a Strawman you're poking baselessly.
I guess the headline is what sets up the straw man -- I didn't think we were arguing about the narrower claim "all phones with replaceable batteries should be removable using commercial tools", just whether they should be replaceable at all. I still think it's reasonable to expect that mandating phones be openable would have tradeoffs in waterproofing, so your disagreement should be factual/historical, not about good faith.
Just background in case you don't know: Turtle WoW tried to turn Classic World of Warcraft into a Roguelike, but in doing so wound up creating a bunch of new mechanics, and a gameplay loop that was quite unique even relative to other Roguelikes.
So my position on this is; two things can be true at the same time:
- Turtle WoW violated Blizzard's copyright, tried to charge money for some services, and Blizzard are well within their legal (and moral) rights to shut that down.
- Turtle WoW is more compelling than anything Blizzard has done with Classic WoW in years, and they should be commended for that.
So it was foreseeable, just a shame for what was lost.
I think you're confusing this with Ascension which is a different server. Turtle was more like Classic WoW but with additional content that fits in as if the official expansions had never existed. So basically it's like Old School Runescape for WoW.
That's one of the things that Blizzard does so bad and private servers try to solve, which is previous expansion content:
Let's say you loved playing Battle for Azeroth. Later Blizzard launches Shadowlands, the content for BfA gets irrelevant, the raids are not doable anymore at the same difficult, the power creep feeds in. Even if you buy the expansion just to get the “feel” on how it was, it's impossible.
MMOs like GW2 and even SWTOR does it way better, in GW2 content from Path of Fire is still relevant in the gameplay of the current expansion, while their PvE/PvP content is done by all players.
I feel Blizzard should just keep per expansion servers up and people can play “over and over again” the same expansion as much as they like.
FFXIV's level/stat sync system is also pretty cool for keeping the older stuff playable long past its original release, players get levels and stats and skills scaled down to the max level appropriate for the content
4-player dungeons still end up being a bit of a faceroll, but it's definitely possible to wipe on the 8-player bosses if mechanics are not observed
I found it very unfun. You end up in dungeons with a subset of the abilities you're used to. It felt especially bad, when leveling, if I queued for a random dungeon and got into a lower level one shortly after acquiring a new ability.
I don't know much about FF. But a thing with WoW is that new release often brings a significant rework of many game mechanics; they might squish everyone's level; edit stats for millions of items; rework class talents and abilities, sometimes even bringing up the whole new approach to the talents.
So while just scaling down characters is technically not hard to do and there's tech in WoW for that, it's never the same as playing previous expansion. And players want genuine experience.
And preserving all the old mechanics for 12 of expansions would present a whole new class of challenges to a team. WoW is a huge game. They already plagued by lots of bugs.
In FF, the system is very simple, and indeed is not trying in any way to give the original experience. You can sync to a level 30 dungeon, and your character will be scaled so it has the exact abilities it would have today as a level 30 class. Stats from gear are also scaled down by some formulas that still try to take into account the quality of your gear relative to the current best possible.
But this system exists for an entirely different purpose than a TBC server. It exists mostly to make sure low level content is still full of players, so that new players going through the story or players leveling up new classes can always find parties for dungeons. It also helps break the monotony of doing the same few current dungeons/raids all of the time
Note that in FF you have to do the huge main story quest on any new character before you can really access the latest content, regardless of how much you might level, and the main quest also involves runs through most dungeons. I should add that normally people only do this once on one character, since you can level all different classes (called jobs) on the same character - you can be a level 90 robe-wearing black mage if using a staff, and then you equip daggers and become a level 31 ninja in leather armor, or an axe and become a level 67 tank warrior.
WoW has been doing this for like a decade. A lot of the old expansion content gets level scaled for new players, many dungeon groups get scaled to the same level, some of their time travel events have scaled old dungeons up for current players, etc.
You clearly haven't played WoW in a decade, judging from this comment.
> Even if you buy the expansion just to get the "feel" on how it was, it's impossible.
You don't buy previous expansions after a new one launches - they roll into the base subscription. After Shadowlands released, buying BfA separately wasn't even an option.
> MMOs like GW2 and even SWTOR do it way better
“Keep every expansion fully relevant forever” sounds nice until you think through what that actually means for an MMO like WoW. You would either fragment the player base across twenty years of content or turn gearing and balance into a complete circus.
Imagine your best-in-slot trinkets from the current raid and Siege of Orgrimmar, your tier set from Dragon Soul, the weapon from Hellfire Citadel. Try organizing a group when other classes need gear from Icecrown Citadel, The Everbloom, Argus and Ahn'Qiraj.
The point of "current expansion content is relevant" is that it funnels the player base into a fairly narrow area of the theme park. That is important, because if you spread out the population over 20 years worth of content, you risk making the world feel incredibly empty, which is a death sentence for a theme park MMORPG.
Blizzard’s actual approach is much more sane: older content comes back in controlled ways. Timewalking reopens older expansion content with scaling and relevant rewards, and Mythic+ seasons already rotate older dungeons into the current endgame pool. Midnight's Season One, for example, features dungeons from Wrath of the Lich King, Warlords of Draenor, Legion, and Dragonflight.
> You don't buy previous expansions after a new one launches - they roll into the base subscription. After Shadowlands released, buying BfA separately wasn't even an option.
They took so long to make that decision, at least they did right?
> “Keep every expansion fully relevant forever” sounds nice until you think through what that actually means for an MMO like WoW. You would either fragment the player base across twenty years of content or turn gearing and balance into a complete circus.[...]
That's your opinion and you are free to have them, but not your "own facts". GW2 do an horizontal progression that you do not need to farm gears between expansions or even major patches, if you play high-end content in WoW, you must know that with every new raid launch in the same expansion, players need to grind a lot to still be relevant.
You also already know, if you really play the retail currently, that how much "services" are offered for people to get like "AOTC" with gold because it's inhuman how much gear grinding to be able to do that achievement and collect it's rewards.
> Blizzard’s actual approach is much more sane: older content comes back in controlled ways. Timewalking reopens older expansion content with scaling and relevant rewards, and Mythic+ seasons already rotate older dungeons into the current endgame pool. Midnight's Season One, for example, features dungeons from Wrath of the Lich King, Warlords of Draenor, Legion, and Dragonflight.
Have you ever question yourself why are there so many private servers? As someone who plays them on and off an argument that always come is "I just want to play that expansion over and over again, and choose which one". And not play a "mix of retail and classic content in a timed gated window".
My "wow credentials" so you stop assuming wrongly: Mythic Raider (never really got Cutting Edge, what I did most was in BfA) and Mythic+ Dungeons (multiples KSM) ;)
As a current (albeit casual) player of mainline WoW, I think its biggest problem is how hard it's locked itself into the idea of what an expansion should be. Every expansion has more or less followed the TBC playbook: higher level cap, new landmasses and instanced content, total gear reset.
Of course it's going to become impossible to keep everything relevant when they keep stacking the tower higher for decades.
There's no reason why an expansion couldn't expand on what's already there instead of throwing everything out. They could for example do an expansion that fleshes out current zones that could use more love and expands the game horizontally. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the TBC model, but even if they'd just gone with a repeating pattern of "horizontal-vertical" with expansion releases they'd have a lot less content to try to juggle.
Why not just buy it then? It reminds me of Valve’s treatment of Black Mesa, which made the community love the company even more. It’d be hilariously easy for Blizzard to spend some money on the thing and just buy the devs out, fans love you for it and it builds good will with a fanbase. Corporations can’t see past the legal aspect of things I guess.
Valve is run by one guy (so far as I know) and he's only accountable to himself. Since he's got pretty much everything he wants from the arrangement, he has no problem with spending money on what most companies would consider cost centers and turning them into something bigger.
Activision Blizzard is run as a publicly-traded company. 86% of it is held by institutional investors [0] who are never satisfied. Most are managing portfolios of assets which are, in turn, often backing retirement accounts held by individuals. There is no ceiling because of factors like inflation, "executive incentives" that the board proposes, and the ever-increasing demands of retirees. If they can get another nickel out of the business, they'll absolutely go for it.
So really, it's about the mindset of the people making the decisions.
That article on Investopedia is from 2021, before the Microsoft acquisition. Activision-Blizzard is no longer a publicly-traded company and instead a subsidiary of Microsoft. Whatever Microsoft wants under this arrangement is what they'll get from now on.
Though the ownership of most large publicly traded companies more-or-less follows the same pattern. You have:
* the people who got in on the ground floor (typically executives) who are given stock options as their compensation, who have a plurality of the shares. Maybe majority holders, maybe not.
* institutional investors who typically use shares to back retirement accounts, whether they be acting for individuals or larger clients like pension funds
Because they're arrogant, and have critical stakeholders. The fact that someone else took their assets and made a better game runs counter to the story that they're the best in the business.
Arrogant yes but don't forget greedy. Call of Duty is absolutely destroyed brand. Unplayable solely by ridiculous amount of battle passes and stupid fantasy skins.
Also don't forget that around a decade ago they also acquired King, the makers of Candy Crush Saga. They've been all-in on the "get players to pay for extra stuff" for a while now
HL's engine GoldDrc was originally a mod for Quake. Team Fortress Classic was based on a quake mod. Counterstrike was a HL mod they bought out. Portal was a student game they bought. Dota 2 was based on a WC3 map. Left 4 Dead was a mod made by Turtle Rock while working on CS:CZ (so, yet again a mod, although a mod based on their own engine this time and build in house). Underlords was based on a Dota 2 mod.
Deadlock is original, but based on characters and lore from the game they made from the WC3 map.
Deadlock and L4D are arguably the only true original creations.
Valve knows their bread is buttered by outside creation using tools and platforms they can provide and then fold in if it catches their attention.
> HL's engine GoldDrc was originally a mod for Quake.
GoldSrc is based on Quake 1 code with valves own modifications and a little Quake 2 added in, if I remember correctly. I wouldn’t call that a “mod”, they bought a commercial license for the engine and made a game with it.
You’re trying to use this to say that valve are unoriginal? I really don’t think that’s a criticism you can lob at the half life series.
GoldSrc is a continuation of Q1 engine but it's development is of separate lineage even from Q2 and it was a fully licensed agreement. Setting and ideas are all original for HL.
TFC is a re-imaging of TF from Q1 but it's codebase is separate from Q1 TF.
TF2 is a sequel developed in-house.
HL2 is a series of sequels developed in-house.
EDIT: Portal has the same core developers and the same game mechanics, but both the setting and script are Valve original.
Sure, Steam pivoted their path of a game developer studio to a game publishing house but that's doesn't mean they never did anything themselves.
I feel like every large public corporation inevitably turns into a rent seeking parasite. How do we build a system that has more calves and fewer blizzards? How do we incentivize that?
You gotta give capitalist first principles and ideals and policies the boot. When you can use money to buy anything and earn money without practical limits, gaining access to more and more capital at any and all costs, even at the cost of everybody else's life and freedom and rights, is the natural result.
Valve is very much a capitalist company though. Gabe Newell is a billionaire, he owns six yachts, and Valve practically invented the concept of the loot box. So if the question is "how do we get more Valves and fewer Blizzards," it doesn't seem clear to me how giving capitalism the boot helps.
It can be done if the culture is deeply deeply rooted in long tenured employees. I think of Apple, while an imperfect example, I feel like Steve jobs would be happy with where they are right now culturally. Obviously, he doesn’t deserve all the credit having had a large team of people but he largely drove a strong intentional culture as a leader and he carefully selected and fostered other leaders who would carry it forward.
Honestly I'm not sure, but I suspect it's because for Gabe, Valve is his iterated prisoners dilemma
He's got to take care of it or no more yachts
Though part of it just might be helpful knows and respects hit market, at least well enough to understand them, I vaguely recall he left Microsoft to start a game company after seeing how much people fell head over heels with games and thinking there was value there
And don't forget open source games. Before going for the indies, I'd suggest downloading and winning all the available major open source roguelikes. And after that, start creating mods/patches for those. Once you're done with that - and not too old of age - maybe think about spending some money on games again.
I am ok with billionaires that provide some multiple of billions of dollars worth of value to society. I use steam all the time, it's pretty consumer friendly, and it gives me a lot of relaxation. I'm good with him having a lot of money.
DOTA is an interesting reference here because it also was originally a modification of a Blizzard game. Maybe Valve should hire the TurtleWoW people to make a new MMO for them (maybe called TurtleWhoa"?)
In blizzards case, mmo's are a huge time sink and not many have people have time to commit to multiple titles. Acquiring a competitior and maintaining it would see subscribers leave their main offering (which has been optimised for microtransactions and engagement) and splitting the player base.
They used that argument for years to avoid doing WoW Classic, and then it was wildly successful when they finally did. Seems to me like the inability to consider how they could work this into their ecosystem is yet another indicator of how far they've fallen since the golden era.
They still hate Classic and can't stand that players prefer it, because it is less profitable per user. This is why they've done almost nothing with Classic+ despite players clamoring for it very loudly.
I really think it is ego. Blizzard is the king of MMO makers, they can’t do anything wrong in their own eyes. They have the data that shows that people want to just play alone and care about the story above everything while completely refusing to acknowledge that the game never was about either of those and that game play style only rose up later as the MMO part got lost.
If Blizzard was to hire the turtle team and add all their content into a real classic plus experience that would be admitting that Blizzard is incapable of doing that faithfully and if it got popular then that raises even more questions about Blizzard and their C suites decisions
Also with Valve. Pretty much everyone who was going to buy the game already had it. So allowing something new really didn't impact their revenue in any significant way. With subscription games this is really not true.
People played Turtle because it was a superior experience to the paid official classic offering. It had properly balanced classes, tons of new, high-quality content, real support staff instead of bots with sub-5 minute wait time for service, policing bots properly instead of ignoring them. Blizzard could offer this quality of service but chooses not to.
How is that supposed to work when the main product is nostalgia? It's a mod for people who think the first-party expansions aren't true to the core of the original game - how could an independent game with completely new IP ever have the same draw?
You really can't compare this to something like DotA, where the original engine and IP was basically set dressing for the new game built within it. People were primarily interested in the mechanics - which is why DotA-the-game and League of Legends were able to become so popular.
It can work. Old School RuneScape runs almost entirely on nostalgia, but the community voting system they have for introducing new content keeps the game alive and fresh, even after 20 years.
if the main product is nostalgia then it’s a derived work and you don’t get to claim moral superiority.
if they created genuinely novel mechanics that can stand on their own then they should do that.
Like you said, DOTA2 was a 1:1 mechanical clone but built from scratch without relying on Blizzard IP. League of Legends was a spiritual sequel with new IP.
Almost all fan projects that get shut down are 99% derived IP and 1% original. That will never fly. Nor should it.
Instead we get every game reinventing the wheel a thousand times. They all end up similar, because the base takes all of the effort to create, so the innovation on top ends up essentially being noise.
No many hit games started as mods. League of Legends is the one that immediately jumps to mind, but I know there are many more coming from Quake and Doom mods etc.
League's Wikipedia page describes it as "inspired by Defense of the Ancients, a custom map for Warcraft III." I believe they also hired some of the core Dota devs to work on League. I guess if you want to be pedantic it was a custom map, but that was more a consequence of WC3 lacking support for mods. They ended up having to work around a lot of limitations to make Dota work in the custom map framework.
They hired a former dev, guinsoo. At the time when LoL was announced dota was being developed by icefrog for a few good solid years already. Most of dota's popularity happened during icefrog's years. Icefrog later joined valve and helped create Dora 2.
These games used the GoldSrc engine. Any game built on this engine gets called a mod. But this is not what most people actually think of when people are talking about mods. Rust is not a mod of Unity. These are game engines that people built a game using.
>DotA
This was a custom map. Not a mod.
>LoL, HoN
These were built on in house game engines and were not a mod.
Counter-strike was definitively a mod, you had to install it in the same folder as Half-Life and start it with 'hl.exe -game cstrike'. It became a standalone game later with the retail release.
Calling DotA just a custom map is a bit of a stretch. That was merely the packaging. These "custom maps" had various scripting capabilities that made them more than just some terrain.
Also custom maps are mods by definitions anyways, with the exception of games where the creation of maps is a component of gameplay.
I mean, to those who played them, 'custom map' is basically just a term of art indicating the things you said. In the parlance of the mid-2000s WC3 scene, you would call them custom games or custom maps.
Or, if you were slightly older, you might call them UMS, as they were in Starcraft. Short for "Use Map Settings", indicating that the game logic should come from the scripts and triggers in the map file rather than the built-in logic for ladder games.
They all started out as mods to games. DotA specifically was a Warcraft 3 mod and ended up making Blizzard change their stance on such things because they lost such a massive IP to a different company. PUBG started as an Arma 2 mod and TF was a Quake mod. All the mendioned games effectively have their origins in mods for other games and likely wouldn't exist (at least in the form they are today) if that weren't for that, is what they presumably were indicating.
It was a "hit game" while it was still a mod. They were able to find investment to graduate to a standalone game because they already had a player base in the tens of thousands.
Rocket League was a sequel to Super Sonic Rocket Powered Battle Cars which was a totally new game but born from the studio building VehicleMod for Unreal Tournament.
We're talking about hit games created specifically as a sequel to a hit mod of another game, and communication to the community of the hit mod that this is where the developers are going, and that they should move to the standalone game if they want to thank the developers for all that unpaid work they did on the mod over the years.
Turtle WoW was also porting their fork to Unreal Engine 5 [1] but that got cancelled ~6 months ago due to a Blizzard lawsuit.
For anyone unfamiliar with WoW, private servers have been a thing for most of WoW's history. It's unclear to me where the source code came from. I've heard different stories (eg from Chinese servers) and also that it was a greenfield development reverse-engineered from the client. All of this was a copyright violation of course and Blizzard have shut down such servers in waves.
WoW originally released in 2004 and has changed every ~2 years with an expansion and the game now is vastly different to what it was originally, which is now called "vanilla". In the 2010s there was a lot of people calling for what became "classic WoW". Most private servers used an early version of the game (either vanilla or one of the first 2 expansions). A lot of people argued that game was more fun at that time and all the changes since have made the game worse.
This issue just didn't die and the game director was famously asked (by a still unidifentied fan AFAIK) if there were any plans to re-release the original game and he famously responded with "you think you do but you don't" at Blizzcon 2013 [2].
This just wouldn't die. There was one particularly famous private server called Nostalrius that got shut down by Blizzard but Blizzard ended up bringing that team in and by 2017, Blizzard announced Classic WoW [3], which launched in 2019 and for several years seemed to have more players than the current version of the game (called "retail") although that's tapered off now.
So Turtle WoW fit into a long history of wanting to play the original game. There's also a movement called "Classic+", which is to fork from the vanilla version of the game and make changes from that. Turtle WoW probably fit into the Classic+ model.
>For anyone unfamiliar with WoW, private servers have been a thing for most of WoW's history. It's unclear to me where the source code came from. I've heard different stories (eg from Chinese servers) and also that it was a greenfield development reverse-engineered from the client. All of this was a copyright violation of course and Blizzard have shut down such servers in waves.
It was explained to me, a long time ago, that WoW's traffic was originally unencrypted and a lot of it was reverse engineered from packet captures. Thats now roughly a standard and while people cant sniff modern games, they can just go back to the old mechanics and the old netcode clones are still good.
That was something an old WoW guy told me while he was setting up a local WoW server in college but it feels good.
Implementing a WoW classic server is actually fairly easy. The game client comes with the entire engine, art, music, and quest content. The server is basically a fancy IRC server, taking client events and rebroadcasting them to other clients.
Even many of the events are implied, like how regular attacks continue at a fixed frequency once started, so other clients only need to know when the player started attacking and whether they are still in range, and player run speed is a constant so a player running in a straight line doesn't generate additional events.
I even suspect the dice rolls are coming from a shared RNG that each client maintains independently, but haven't researched it.
This is how WoW classic was playable over a 33K modem.
Offline, the client knows movement, graphics, statics (the world mesh, excluding the location and functionality of npcs, doors, plants, etc.) and some localized text. Almost all the gameplay logic is server-side.
There are multiple private server implementations. Blizzard does not hunt them. They are on github, you can run it in your basement and play with bots and some friends. I don't know if that presents a copyright violation, but as a matter of fact, Blizzard doesn't care enough to even submit a DMCA to GitHub.
Funny fact that both Blizzard and GitHub nowadays owned by Microsoft, so in the end, Microsoft hosts private server code for its own game.
But if you're taking this code, host it on a powerful server for everyone to join, integrate shop to extract money from players, advertise it as a separate game. That's basically running a company which extracts money from Blizzard IP. That crossed the line.
I'm not the one to protect Blizzard, but in my opinion they're doing the right thing here. Turtle WoW attracts players who could be paying subscription to Blizzard and play WoW Classic.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but GP called it a copyright violation and my understanding is a "clean room" reverse engineering for interoperability was fair use and not a copyright violation.
Yes this does threaten Blizzard's business model so I understand why they'll go after Turtle, but that doesn't mean we have to care or let them prosecute Turtle for Contempt of Business Model.
Now, if Turtle used Blizzard's WoW trademarks to advertise and make money, I fully agree that violates their _trademarks_ and can be litigated as such. But if Turtle somehow didn't do that (and still sold access to their compatible WoW backend), I'd be interested to hear if that is somehow still a copyright violation.
> my understanding is a "clean room" reverse engineering for interoperability was fair use and not a copyright violation
To my understanding, reverse engineering algorithms and interfaces is not a copyright violation since those cannot be copyrighted (i.e. fair use is not relevant). However, a WoW server also distributes e.g. quest texts, which most certainly are copyrightable, since the collective of all quests is comparable to a fantasy novel.
In backend terms (which isn't really relevant in court but helps illustrate the division), every WoW server is said to have a "core" that contains the gameplay logic (netcode, movement, hit rolls, object interactions, etc.) and a "world database" (item names and stats, NPC names and stats, quests, etc.). The core might be considered a collection of clean room reverse engineered algorithms, which aren't copyrightable. However, the world database is full of copyrighted material, and a server distributing that data to clients will violate Blizzard's copyrights. You could avoid this by deleting all of Blizzard's stuff from the world database and writing your own content, but it's not relevant here since Turtle WoW didn't do that.
So it's similar to Defence of the Ancients that resulted in DotA and other MOBAs. It wonder if they'll be able to create a version of this with the new mechanics/gameplay loop but with different art/assets.
1) Create a new IP with the knowledge they have from Turtle WoW, create a similar game and market it
2) Contact Blizzard, apologise and maybe be brought into the team to develop updates for Classic or Retail
3) Drop the whole thing, leave the project and disappear
Would be great to see #1, but I'm more expecting #3
It is not similar at all. DotA was a completely different game from Warcraft 3, Turtle WoW is just Vanilla WoW with extra content. The core gameplay is the same.
> Blizzard are well within their legal (and moral) rights to shut that down.
Legal rights, sure. Moral rights, you're gonna have to explain yourself, because I see no moral objection here. Culture advances through remixes, and while we can grant artists some exclusive period to profit through their work, we're not morally obliged to let them have a stranglehold on culture forever. People of my generation might not want to hear this, but Classic WoW is a retro game. We, here in 2026, are as far from WoW vanilla as WoW vanilla was from Ultima II. A year from now, replace Ultima II with Ultima I. A year from then, replace that with motherfucking Rogue itself! Morally speaking, Blizzard^W Activision^W Microsoft can go eat their own ass.
Oh yeah, I remember when they abandoned it for years, third party servers revived it, Blizzard realized they can make money off it and shut the third party servers down.
I am curious, can you elaborate more on these Roguelike features and mechanics. Its up for 1 more month, i might be interested in trying them out before it shuts down.
The comment above is completely wrong, and Im not sure how they got that misconception unless it's an AI fabrication (although it doesnt read like AI)...
Turtle WoW had nothing rougelike about it at all. It was the normal classic WoW experience with added content. I suppose you could say it did a lot different from other roguelikes... because it wasn't one at all
By that logic, I should be able to sell Taylor Swift merchandise and music without asking her, but only if I make it myself. I'll call it Turtle Taylor Swift and charge a little bit less than official Taylor Swift merchandise and music. I'll record a mix tape with her songs on it and sell it as a 'new' album.
I mean they use the same game client and assets / quests on the server. It is stolen material. On top of that you can pay for it, they have a business model based on intelectual property from another compagny.
I'm all for private servers, I even started playing WoW on one before playing retail, but Turtle crossed the wrong line and fucked up bad, they deserved what happened. You don't fuck with an IP big as Warcraft like it or not.
> publishing information deemed harmful to state interests
Is the charge, which I think kind of speaks for itself. Full on: "You embarrassed us, straight to jail."
In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest and shared by the media then we'd reflect on if our routing is safe/correct and make proportional changes for safety. Not a big deal, nobody is fired, life moves on.
I feel like actions like this are going to hurt the UAE themselves, because how can you improve if there is no dialog? No information to even start a dialog? A lot of hard conversations are NOT going to be had because I guess it is a state secret?
The UAE doesn't have a self-advancement culture, it's a capital-backed monarchy that imports pretty much all of its research and production; in other words it piggy-backs on the knowledge produced in other societies. There is no advancement through dialog in the country itself.
Everything in the UAE is about being perfect. It's part and parcel of Arab culture, especially for the Gulf Arabs. Nope, we can't do any wrong, we're excellent individuals, we're an exceptional society, we're a remarkable nation. Every business deal is a fruitful deal, every investment is a multibagger investment, every project is a successful project, every Emirati/Gulf Arab professional is infallible. Normie government bureaucrats are addressed as "His/Her Excellency" even.
In such an environment, don't expect any introspection into failures or any risk-taking capacity. Because everything has to be perfect.
Dubai at least took a beating in 2008, and has since taken a more cautious and guarded approach than before. Abu Dhabi, Doha and Riyadh continue to take very cavalier attitudes - they're all ah so very perfect.
It's not just the UAE, it's pretty much all of the Gulf states. They're essentially a less obviously extreme version of Turkmenistan, or something like late-1930s Germany where everything looks prosperous and OK provided you walk very carefully and don't see some of the things that are happening.
Ukraine does it to avoid assisting Russian damage assessment and targeting efforts. Avoiding embarrassment is not really part of the equation, especially when they need to push for more international support.
They want to make it so Iran doesn’t know if they successfully hit that Oracle data centre.
But they also want to make it so foreign investors don’t get scared off by the prospect of their data centre getting blown up. Obviously investors will avoid the area so long as missiles are flying - but by coming through the conflict "unscathed" will let them bounce back fast. Likewise with tourism.
Which of these is the bigger motivation? Hard to say. But I gather most drones have cameras, so I imagine Iran have a pretty good idea of where their drones are striking.
They are more likely to get funding from EU if they can make it look like they can win the war.
Which of these is the bigger motivation? Hard to say. But I gather most drones have cameras, so I imagine Russia has a pretty good idea of where their drones are striking.
I think the main EU fear is ex-soviet countries fearing they are next if Ukraine falls. So Ukraine should not necessary win, it should mainly bleed Russia and not loose. An eternal standstill is probably best, realpolitik-wise (To be clear, I am not happy with this analysis).
True. As far as EU BigPowers are concerned, they know Ukraine has lost the war but don't really care if Ukraine is being destroyed and Ukranians are dying, as long as they kill as many Russians too.
It astounds me that even in 2026 people are still regurgitating this standard-issue Russian propaganda canard about "Ukraine already lost the war", consciously or subconsciously. While the war is going on, you can make equally vacuous claims that "Russia already lost the war" with about as much cause.
Ukraine is fighting for its survival against a fascist and colonialist invader that aims to end its nationhood. The final outcome is unclear.
The real tragedy is that intelligent people like you buy the EU propaganda that "Ukraine is winning this war" without truly understanding what is happening on the ground.
The stark facts are simple - nearly 20% of Ukranian territory has been strategically captured by the Russians. Ukraine has no real chance of getting it back. Ukraine's counter-offensive has failed twice. It cannot launch any more counter-offensive because it doesn't have the men - any counter-offensive by recalling men from other parts of the frontline would weaken the defence line. So any new counter offensive launched needs to really bloody the Russians to completely back off, or the whole frontline will collapse and Ukraine will face a complete military defeat. Whatever Russian territory Ukraine had occupied has been recovered by the Russians. In case Ukraine doesn't accede to Russian terms, Russia has also been working on a plan B that entails systematically destroying Ukraine's industrial infrastructure (demilitarisation through de-industrialisation - https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/94244 ).
All Ukraine does now is to launch drones and missile attacks at Russian infrastructure for western and social media PR (as it is the only way EU will keep funding Zelensky's government and the war), while it is forced to retreat in the frontlines every week as the Russians slowly keep advancing.
>The real tragedy is that intelligent people like you buy the EU propaganda that "Ukraine is winning this war"
All depends on your victory conditions, tovarish.
>In case Ukraine doesn't accede to Russian terms, Russia has also been working on a plan B that entails systematically destroying Ukraine's industrial infrastructure
You don't seem to be following this war very closely. Short of nukes, Russia has already done everything it possibly can, including trying to freeze old people in their flats during cold snaps, multiple times. They've been targeting industrial infrastructure since day one, but interestingly what's been changing is that Ukraine is increasingly playing that game too, focusing on demilitarizing Russia by targeting its defence industry and increasingly taking its oil exports offline. Turns out two can play this whole de-industrialisation game. It remains to be seen who succeeds, but things aren't looking as good on this front for Russia as they did in 2022 or 2023, that's for sure.
>All Ukraine does now is to launch drones and missile attacks at Russian infrastructure for western and social media PR
Well and also to do things like take 46% of Russia's oil export capacity offline just when oil prices were soaring. You know, small trifles.
>while it is forced to retreat in the frontlines every week as the Russians slowly keep advancing.
Slowly is doing all the heavy lifting here, to borrow a common AI slop refrain. Russia is now losing more men per month than it can recruit, somewhere in the vicinity of 30-40 thousand. Ukraine is extending the drone kill-zone to 30+ km from the so called "front line" (more of a zone). It produces millions of drones and is at the forefront of a drone revolution in warfare. In other words, its demilitarization is progressing swimmingly, but for the minus sign.
> All depends on your victory conditions, tovarish.
The break with factual reality in your post is enlightening. As is the misinformation of Russia "running out of men" when that is the situation Ukraine is facing. There is no "victory", is the point. There is no path to defeating Russia without a nuclear war. That Ukraine can bring about the economic collapse of Russia is a delusional fantasy.
You are just lazily "no u"-ing and projecting at this point, and your uninformed cheerleading of Russian fascism is profoundly uninteresting, so there's nothing further to discuss with you. You're either a Russian Z-bag, or one of those tedious people who make up their minds on a topic they mistakenly think they mastered and then shut themselves off from contrary information. Case in point, the hilarious timing of you saying the Russian economy isn't nearing collapse, when it's one of the main topics of discussion on even on Russian TV and press. Which of course, if you're the second type, you can't watch/read.
What is clear that you have no understanding of either superpower politics, military capabilities or how economies work. You are clearly one of those shameless EU cheerleaders who don't care about Ukrainians getting slaughtered and their country destroyed, as long as they "weaken" Russia in the process.
I don't think Ukraine lost. They surely did a lot better than anyone expected. Right now, I'd say it can go both ways, with Ukranian deaths vs Russian economic crash and hurt for their rich class seeming the main determinaters. If Putin drops dead, if the rich feel enough bombs exploding in Moscow, .... Then Ukraine wins
They have lost depending on the parameters you use to judge the war - I see 20% of Ukraine territory occupied by the Russia, Ukraine having no real military capability to launch an effective counter-offensive (due to lack of manpower), 75% of their industrial infrastructure is destroyed or lost to occupation. They are only surviving and fighting based on the charity of the EU. And their only hope of victory is based on the fantasy that EU is selling them - that once Russian economy collapses, they will "surrender". Even if an economic collapse were to happen in Russia (ala of USSR level), which I don't see happening, Russia will absolutely not end the war in any manner unless their military goals are achieved. Ukraine in NATO means NATO nuclear missile will easily be able to reach Moscow within minutes. Zelensky is a fool to keep ordering strikes deep inside Russia because every successful strike (with unsophisticated drones and ordinary missiles) inside Russia makes the Russians realise how militarily vulnerable they will be Ukraine were to join NATO, and so they will do everything to prevent that. (And let's not forget that Russia is a nuclear power - Ukraine cannot militarily win this war until NATO joins it).
Obviously investors will avoid the area so long as missiles are flying - but by coming through the conflict "unscathed" will let them bounce back fast. Likewise with tourism.
Definitely with tourism. FOAF flew through there a week or two back and said it was very much business as normal at the airport apart from slightly longer queues, otherwise it was the same as it was before the shooting started. This in a country that had been targeted by something like 2,500 dones and 500 missiles.
Its almost like the idea of nations and representative government have been co-opted by sinister forces to advance an agenda that doesn't serve the people.
Perhaps its time humanity evolve beyond this foolishness?
>In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest and shared
OTOH, anyone remember "loose lips sink ships?" Beyond the famous poster, it was backed up by robust censorship laws.[0][1]
You might say it's different since we were at war, but this ignores how the threat model and immediacy is very different in the UAE vs here in the (geographically well protected/isolated) US.
Battle damage assessment, especially if it's timely, is critical information in any conflict. This is especially true for modern drone-based / hybrid asymmetrical conflict.
Loose Lips Sink Ships was itself an information management scheme to avoid informing the public.
The Germans didn't have spies collecting rumors in the US. Nor did they need them during Operation Drumbeat (the U-Boat attack on the US coast). The US was completely unprepared for Drumbeat. They had no harbor defenses, no convoys, inadequate and unprepared coastwatcher and patrol services.
The point of the censorship is to not cause panic among the public as they realized how badly the US was losing. Drumbeat was worse for the US than the attack on Pearl Harbor was, both in terms of lost ships and number of Americans killed. It was about controlling embarrassment for the Navy. American ships were blowing up and sinking within eyesight of shore. Vacationers were finding dead seaman washed up on the beaches of Florida and New Jersey. The military did not want these events turning into major media events.
And to the extent that the censorship was justified, yes, at the very least we were legally in a properly declared war.
Ironically, there was one time the media did cause a massive problem that could have affected the outcome of the war.
The Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to Pearl Harbor after the battle of Midway and managed to learn from some indiscreet senior commanders that we knew where the Japanese fleet was because we cracked their codes.
The reporter published the story in the Tribune. It was pure dumb luck that the Japanese never noticed the story. Roosevelt wanted the reporter and Robert McCormick brought up on espionage charges, but Admiral King asked him not to prosecute because the Japanese didn't seem to notice the article but they'd definitely notice the trial.
This ring was broken up before the US was even in the war. Operation Drumbeat began after the Pearl Harbor attack at the end of 1941 but was most intense in early 1942. There was lots of Bund activity in the 1930s and prior to Pearl Harbor but very little afterwards.
But also, even if there were Bund spies in American ports was unnecessary and unable to provide tactical information to the German U-boats. Unable due to practical limitations of communication. Unnecessary because the US was so ill-equipped for the battle. For instance, the Bund wouldn't have been able to report on the movement of convoys because there were no convoys.
The US still had charted aids to navigation light up, and cities weren't blacked out allowing the submarines to sit off the coast and see US ships silhouetted against the city skyline behind them. A German submarine sailed into New York harbor using a tourist map as a chart!
Germany not only had spies, there were multiple (albeit failed/foiled) sabotage attempts by Germany on US soil.
Part of the issue the US had is the very large (significant percent of the population) 1st gen German immigrant population. There were concerns they would sympathize.
What was actually happening is many of these immigrants were there to get away from Hitler and Germany as it was at the time, so Germany found most of its attempts stymied instead. But they did try.
Mostly your post is just about the side-issue of whether (in 20/20 hindsight) the censorship in the USA was justified. However this ignores the fundamental double-standard toward the USA vs the UAE. In 20/20 hindsight the UAE censorship may turn out to be justified, or not, however we don't know yet.
> And to the extent that the censorship was justified, yes, at the very least we were legally in a properly declared war.
Didn't I (preemptively) respond to this already?
"You might say it's different since we were at war, but this ignores how the threat model and immediacy is very different in the UAE vs here in the (geographically well protected/isolated) US."
In the UAE these laws are (equally) "proper" and "legal," so I don't see how the presence or absence of a formal declaration of war makes any difference here, or meaningfully responds to my point above.
Legal process is important when you're curtailing people's rights. Although I guess if you're going to argue that the regime is already despotic and lawless that's.. a valid argument that I concede to?
Iran is going to be getting constant satellite date. They not only have their own satellite surveillance systems, but also will be getting support, probably covert, from a variety of other countries which also have robust satellite networks.
This is solely for "domestic" (which extends well beyond the UAE) PR purposes, and I expect the US is actively encouraging these countries, behind the scenes, to keep losses under wraps.
Feet and inches level precision matters. This is why these kinds of videos are tamped down because they can show how close or far off target a strike was, and is extremely valuable training data.
Additionally, seeing who responded, the agencies they are associated with, and their faces matter as well.
The UAE is an authoritarian state, but this is how most states operate during a state of war. Even Ukraine tamps down on videos and social media being shared of incidents based on the likelihood whether or not it would expose operational details.
Spy satellites do have precision in the feet and inches. Resolution tends to be in the sub-foot per pixel now a days. But nowhere near this resolution is realistically needed since precision munitions tend to have precision in the tens of meters, and all that really matters is whether you're hitting your target or not.
Another way you can see clearly that this is for "domestic" PR and propaganda purposes is that the US government has also compelled US satellite footage providers to censor the entire region. That is providing absolutely zero information to Iran, but is a desperate effort to pair impair the public's access to footage that would either confirm or reject various narratives around the war. I say desperate because Chinese commercial satellite imagery firms continue offering full access to footage of the warzone.
The US is even telling satellite firms which language to use, which is loaded with propaganda. For instance instead of speaking of locations being destroyed they're being compelled to say things like "Imagery shows the structure largely collapsed with debris covering the building footprint." I'd say it's 1984, but it's all so painfully ham-fisted that it's far more Brazil. [1]
It's not in the interests of the UAE to improve. There's the (possibly misattributed? but topical nonetheless) quote by the previous emir of Dubai:
> My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel.
They want to prolong the Land Rover phase as long as possible.
Foreign residents cannot criticize UAE or its government and monarchy in any way, under threat of prison and/or torture.
How is that complicated to understand? It's a brutal regime with a fake Monaco to attract rich tourists, influencers, investors and prostitutes, but the moment you fall in disgrace in the eyes of the authorities, you're done.
> ‘I was beaten and tortured’: how a British father and son made a fortune in Dubai then became wanted men
Note that they did not "publish" the picture. They shared it in a private group. This is 1984 kind of stuff. This will hurt Dubai's brand way more than any kinetic attack from Iran.
Dubai's brand (before the war) was "you're welcome to come here to make money, but criticize the government and you're out". I'm sure there's a ton of young influencers who don't know the first thing about the place to not have internalized it, but I remember a spate of articles and books about 15 years ago of Westerners falling afoul of the local laws and losing everything.
Yeah, tbh people not scared by stories of people as wealthy and white and Western as then being prosecuted for kissing their unmarried opposite sex partner on the beach or falling out with the wrong person are not going to be worried about how wartime paranoia interacts with airline employees
There are a lot of things that I would expect to hurt Dubai's "brand" but people still travel there. I don't understand why anyone would travel there in times of peace, let alone during war. You don't even need it for connecting flights.
> In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest
You'd absolutely get detained by authorities in Ukraine or Russia for sharing consequences of airstrikes on critical infrastructure. I'm sure other countries would do the same (not that it's good).
A large number of those tend to be vetted. Additonally, frontlines level videos do go through significant vetting and some form of MDM is used on personal phones in the frontlines.
Additionally, on the Ukraine side as well as the Russian side, civilian strike information isn't deemed critical from a NatSec perspective as plenty of Russians and Ukrainians lived on both sides of the border and still have relatives on either side, so both assume the other has granular level knowledge of non-frontline spaces.
obviously, countries have ways to determine BDAs for their attacks, but you don't have to give it to them for free. The concept of oversharing is lost in the age of social media.
> Is the charge, which I think kind of speaks for itself. Full on: "You embarrassed us, straight to jail."
That's exactly it, and the UAE admits it. The Atlantic covered this last month.[1]
Dubai uses influencers as part of their strategy to market Dubai as a safe place for rich people. There's an influencer visa. There's a government Creators HQ office to help with relocation and permits. Dubai requires an “Advertiser Permit”, which include a ban on publishing anything that “might harm the national currency or the economic situation in the State.”
The BBC showed several influencer videos side by side, all with the same message: "Are you scared? No, because we know who protects us."[1] They're as on-message as Sinclair in the US.
So is AlJazeera, now. Earlier in the war, attacks on Dubai were reported. Now, they don't seem to be, although coverage on hits outside the UAE is good. AlJazeera is run by the UAE government.
The UAE has been cracking down on this for a while, according to Bellingcat.[3] "Think before you share. Spreading rumors is a crime."
The hits on the Burj Al Arab hotel, the Fairmont hotel, and Dubai's airport were too big to hide completely, but UAE authorities did take action against people who posted videos. That was back
in late February - early March. News of later hits appears to have been successfully censored.
It's public interest of Dubainers of not to expose any problems, as the premise of the emirate is built on loose money, loose rules and high life and this kind of money is first to flee in the case of hiccups.
You are providing confirmation of a hit to the enemy as well as the state of the area after the explosion. This is valuable intelligence used for target lists on future strikes. Such information is also used for determining air defense coverage and estimating hit rates.
Open source intelligence is a very high priority in modern war. Social media provides massive amounts of free intelligence. For instance, a few secret US bases in Afghanistan were mapped using Strava data from runners.
there are two sides, such as how photos can stress citizens and act as propaganda, making them harmful to state interests, ultimately it is their country and their rules, not yours, regardless of how much you disagree with it
you are also missing the elephant in the room, whatsapp's claim of end-to-end encryption is a lie
The actual text from the article implies that OS exploits compromised the device.
"The UAE government owns majority holdings in telecom companies Etisalat and Du. This gives security services the power to observe all communications on their networks.
"The Arab state has also used the Israeli-developed software Pegasus which allows agents to listen into private calls and read messages, even if they are shared on encrypted apps like WhatsApp,.
"The spyware can infect a device even without the user activating a link - such as via a WhatsApp call, even if it isn't answered.
"Once inside, it can access all WhatsApp messages, logos and contacts."
I don't think that means anything as the author of the article almost certainly has no clue about anything but what the Government there told him. They're just quoting general knowledge and speculation by other equally-uninformed third parties.
That only works if you assume that Meta is lying about the E2EE. But earlier you took this very event as evidence of that fact, hence it seems you're begging the question.
Someone else has pointed out that it isn't legal to offer E2EE services in the UAE and so Meta intentionally compromises it in that market one way or another. They don't seem to be hiding that fact though so it's hardly an elephant.
> E2E is illegal in the UAE, and Meta has only advertised E2E in countries where it can operate E2E freely.
From my experience, the no-advertisement claim is untrue. I've used WhatsApp with several users in the UAE. The end-to-end encryption notice appeared on my side (as always in user-to-user communication).
> All chat apps that operate in the UAE need to store data locally with full access given to the UAE's Telecom and Interior Ministries.
Do you have a source for that claim?
Compromised endpoints, monitoring accounts or unencrypted cloud backups are far more likely to be the source than hidden deals or large conspiracies where many people need to keep a secret.
The UAE's Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) passed in 2021.
Any internet service that is used by UAE residents has to store data domestically within UAE borders.
Assuming zero days are being used to enable mass surveillance is much more conspiratorially minded - once a zero day is used, it's often detected within days and patched.
But wait, you sourced the trivial part of your claim (a law exists), but not that WhatsApp breaks E2E. The encryption part is the important part, right?
I'm no expert in the UAEs data protection law, but I did not immediately find any reference for a mandate for government backdoor access to encrypted content.
Also: compromising endpoints obviously does not require zero-day exploits. Otherwise, I'd assume, the services of the surveillance industry (Pegasus, Cellebrite, etc.) would be far more expensive.
There is probably no large conspiracy where Meta breaks E2E for a government and nobody involved ever leaks it. The more traditional threat is probably service blocking where users get pushed to less secure alternatives that the government can more easily monitor, like Russias new government messenger.
Even personal chats are publicly not E2E encrypted.
There are other insidious ways you can publicly and openly end E2E encryption (I think backups might do that).
Essentially, while WhatsApp may not be lying their default 1 to 1 chats are E2E encrypted, it makes sense to use it as if it weren’t because it’s so easy to disable it even with their publicly disclosed information.
Wrong. Both WhatsApp and Signal group chats are E2EE.
Telegram group chats are not. Even 1on1 chats aren‘t E2EE on Telegram by default.
Also, reporting is an issue: If a member of the group "Reports" a message to WhatsApp, a copy of the recent messages in that chat is decrypted and sent to WhatsApp for review to check for terms-of-service violations.
> In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest
In peacetime, definitely. In war time, there's a necessary balance to be found between “information as public interest” and “providing free battle damage assessment” to an adversary.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of jailing people for pictures, but we cannot ignore the importance of intelligence in modern combat with ubiquitous precision weapons.
People have similarly been arrested for filming air defense at work in Ukraine, and again it makes sense because giving away key sensitive information for social network cred isn't something you want in a country suffering from a military aggression.
These days when you hear "most of the world.." used as a kind of indirect appeal to common-sense legislation, you just gotta wonder what or who they are talking about anymore.
Its a strange beautiful notion though. That there is some grand consesus out there somewhere, in The-most-of-the-world, where laws are just and rational, where states-of-exception only exist in the kitchens and the classrooms. I just know one day the barrelman will cry out, and we will know we have reached the-most-the-world.
When did Americans care so much about the poor laborers from India? Honest question. The United States is well known for funding a genocide and protecting pedophiles. Do you think they or the people who live there care?
> In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest and shared by the media
Perhaps, but increasingly not here in the US, which used to consider itself the leader of the "Free World".
Trump thinks nothing of declaring journalists terrorists and threatening to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations that are embarrassing him.
It'd be nice if we could say this is just Trump, a bad president gone gaga, but the Republican party supports him, so unfortunately this authoritarian control of the media seems to be becoming normalized.
I'm not American. America didn't even exist when most of the core social concepts I referenced were popularized, and it certainly wasn't in the 20th century.
Also, very self-telling, that I said "UAE should do better for UAE's own future sake" to which you responded: "you want to take away UAE's sovereignty!" Hmm, very odd, that.
That's a lame attitude. There are local models that are last year's SOTA, but that's not good enough because this year's SOTA is even better yet still...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, local models are "there" in terms of true productive usage for complex coding tasks. Like, for real, there.
The issue right now is that buying the compute to run the top end local models is absurdly unaffordable. Both in general but also because you're outbidding LLM companies for limited hardware resources.
You have a $10K budget, you can legit run last year's SOTA agentic models locally and do hard things well. But most people don't or won't, nor does it make cost effective sense Vs. currently subsidized API costs.
I completely see your point, but when my / developer time is worth what it is compared to the cost of a frontier model subscription, I'm wary of choosing anything but the best model I can. I would love to be able to say I have X technique for compensating for the model shortfall, but my experience so far has been that bigger, later models out perform older, smaller ones. I genuinely hope this changes through. I understand the investment that it has taken to get us to this point, but intelligence doesn't seem like it's something that should be gated.
Right; but every major generation has had diminishing returns on the last. Two years ago the difference was HUGE between major releases, and now we're discussing Opus 4.6 Vs. 4.7 and people cannot seem to agree if it is an improvement or regression (and even their data in the card shows regressions).
So my point is: If you have the attitude that unless it is the bleeding edge, it may have well not exist, then local models are never going to be good enough. But truth is they're now well exceeding what they need to be to be huge productivity tools, and would have been bleeding edge fairly recently.
I feel like I'm going to have to try the next model. For a few cycles yet. My opinion is that Opus 4.7 is performing worse for my current work flow, but 4.6 was a significant step up, and I'd be getting worse results and shipping slower if I'd stuck with 4.5. The providers are always going to swear that the latest is the greatest. Demis Hassabis recently said in an interview that he thinks the better funded projects will continue to find significant gains through advanced techniques, but that open source models figure out what was changed after about 6 months or so. We'll see I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to settle down with one model and I'd love it to be something I could self host for free.
> I completely see your point, but when my / developer time is worth what it is compared to the cost of a frontier model subscription, I'm wary of choosing anything but the best model I can.
Don't you understand that by choosing the best model we can, we are, collectively, step by step devaluating what our time is worth? Do you really think we all can keep our fancy paychecks while keep using AI?
Do you think if you or me stopped using AI that everyone else will too? We're still what we always were - problem solvers who have gained the ability to learn and understand systems better that the general population, communicate clearly (to humans and now AIs). Unfortunately our knowledge of language APIs and syntax has diminished in value, but we have so many more skills that will be just as valuable as ever. As the amount of software grows, so will the need for people who know how to manage the complexity that comes with it.
> Unfortunately our knowledge of language APIs and syntax has diminished in value, but we have so many more skills that will be just as valuable as ever.
There were always jobs that required those "many more skills" but didn't require any programming skills.
We call those people Business Analysts and you could have been doing it for decades now. You didn't, because those jobs paid half what a decent/average programmer made.
Now you are willingly jumping into that position without realising that the lag between your value (i.e. half your salary, or less) would eventually disappear.
I guess we will need to wait and see if AI can remove ALL of the complexity that requires a software engineer over a business analyst. I can't currently believe that it will. BA's I've worked with vary in technical capability from 'having coded before and understanding DB schema basics and network architecture' to 'I know how the business works but nothing about computers'. If we got to the point in the future where every computer system ran on the same frameworks in the same way, and AI understood it perfectly, then maybe. But while AI is a probabilistic technology manipulating deterministic systems, we will always need people to understand whats going on, and whether they write a lot of code or not, they will be engineers, not analysts. Whether it's more or less of those people, we will see.
> If we got to the point in the future where every computer system ran on the same frameworks in the same way, and AI understood it perfectly, then maybe.
They don't need to all run on the same frameworks, they just need to run on documented frameworks.
What possible value can you bring to a BA?
The system topology (say, if the backend was microservices vs Lambda vs something-else)? The LLM can explain to the BA what their options are, and the impact of those options.
The framework being used (Vue, or React, or something else)? The AI can directly twiddle that for the BA.
Solving a problem? If the observability is setup, the LLM can pinpoint almost all the problems too,and with a separate UAT or failover-type replica, can repro, edit, build, deploy and test faster than you can.
Like I already said, if[1] you're now able to build or enhance a system without actually needing programming skills, why are you excited about that? You could always do that. It's just that it pays half what programming skills gets you.
You (and many others who boast about not writing code since $DATE) appear to be willingly moving to a role that already pays less, and will pay even less once the candidates for that role double (because now all you programmers are shifting towards it).
It's supply and demand, that's all.
--------------
[1] That's a very big "If", I think. However, the programmers who are so glad to not program appear to believe that it's a very small "If", because they're the ones explaining just how far the capabilities have come in just a year, and expect the trend to continue. Of course, if the SOTA models never get better than what we have now, then, sure - your argument holds - you'll still provide value.
First, making sure to offer an upvote here. I happen to be VERY enthusiastic about local models, but I've found them to be incredibly hard to host, incredibly hard to harness, and, despite everything, remarkably powerful if you are willing to suffer really poor token/second performance...
As an American, I always hear all these weird stories about New York and its subway system. All the random busker type nonsense, the petty crime and the “mugger wallet” type jokes. Not to mention the major crimes that make the news.
I’d rather not deal with it? Yes I know roads are dangerous. I’d still rather not deal with the expected culturally imposed insanity that the Japanese curiously seem to lack.
The weird stories, about anything, are nonsense; sensationalized to either be emotoinally compelling or even active disinformation to serve some political end (especially about American cities, especially about NYC.)
It's just induced fear. Just go to NY and ride the subway. Millions do all the time without any problems, without a second thought. It's really no problem and amazingly convenient. (Busking is people playing music.)
Of course some crime occurs among millions of people but so do lottery grand prizes and heart attacks. I've been on many subway rides without experiencing one crime or even seeing one, and much other public transit.
And when you do, you'll know what to think of the stories and people who tell them.
> It's extremely common for there to be human shit in the train cars, and lunatics going nuts
Where does that come from? Not from your experience. You've never been on NY subways, clearly.
I've never seen feces - and anyway, how could you tell if it's from a dog? Did you examine it? Take it home and test it? It's one of the stories that maybe is slightly plausible, and which yields such strong disgust that rationality is overwhelmed and it makes a sensation - perfectly constructed misinformation or urban myth. Like waking up in a bathtub with a kidney missing.
'Lunatics' is such a loaded (and hateful) word you'll have to specify what you mean, but the occasional person talking to themself is harmless and completely uninterested in you (thus the conversation with themself) - I have never had any problem with such people on public transit or elsewhere. They are the most vulnerable people and compassion is the appropriate response.
As I wrote above, the stories are nonsense and it's induced fear.
I actually am speaking from experience, I saw both of those things my first week in New York. It's really not uncommon, I find it hard to believe that you've never run into shit/barf, usually when a car pulls up that has nobody in it, that's what's in there.
And this is all to say nothing about the decrepit state of the stations and cars themselves.
I've also been to Japan and experienced their trains. It's in such a different league that it's almost comedy.
> It's really not uncommon, I find it hard to believe that you've never run into shit/barf, usually when a car pulls up that has nobody in it, that's what's in there.
NGL this isn't surprising on Japanese trains either. Especially around last train. It's not super common but you see it from time to time and you just use a different car and report it to the staff next time you see someone.
I lived in NYC for many years. Bodily fluids and liquid left on seats, litter, gag-inducing smelly people, people having episodes and screaming, all common enough to see on a weekly or monthly basis as a daily commuter. I have not been to Japan but I can't imagine they have the same level of antisocial behavior
So not "extremely common" as the commenter upthread said.
> liquid left on seats
As in, something spilled?
> litter
Lol. Only on a weekly or monthly basis?
> gag-inducing smelly people
I think some people are looking to be judgmental.
> antisocial behavior
That's taking it pretty far; it's easy to ignore these things which are almost always harmless - none have ever affected my life. Maybe being judgmental and (for some) hateful is the real and dangerous antisocial behavior - the consequences have had real and awful consequences for many.
You can plug your ears and accept riding run-down trains full of shit, litter, puke, and threatening mentally ill people, in the name of not being "hateful," or as a society you can choose to have dignity and not put up with that.
Now the personal attacks; I'd rather ride with the person who talks to themself than the person telling me what I must think (or else I lack dignity!) - which of course is what they think.
> not put up with that
That's a bit controlling, insisting the world and other people must be your way. Freedom means something very different. No wonder you don't like NY.
Those stories would be accurate on BART in San Francisco. I used to ride that every day to/from work and at other times. The non-rush-hour times were the worst actually.
I've never lived in NYC, but from visiting, their subways seem safer (and also work much better).
> All the random busker type nonsense, the petty crime and the “mugger wallet” type jokes.
Most of this is stories. Yeah there are buskers but tbh I like buskers. Music in the public square is a plus not a minus even if it's not my personal preference of music.
Subway crime rates are around 2-4 incidents per million rides. There was a spike during covid and it started to rapidly trend down afterwards. That corresponds with economic desperation during that period pretty cleanly.
But that 2-4 incidents per million rides is roughly comparable to the crime rates at gas stations, etc. The difference is that density is lower so you just see it less often. It happens just about as frequently but you are less likely to witness it because you are less likely to be present when it happens to somebody else at a gas station.
> I’d still rather not deal with the expected culturally imposed insanity that the Japanese curiously seem to lack.
Trust me Japan has just as much of an issue with crime on rail. Arguably they have higher rates but the Japanese police often just don't consider sexual harassment or sexual assault a serious crime and would rather brush it under the rug or otherwise deal with it outside the criminal system to avoid harming the abuser. (ex: an incident that I'm familiar with: "oh we gave the guy who assaulted you on the train your address so they could mail you a hand written apology note instead of charging them with assault")
And the "wacky in your face" crime (intoxicated, mental illness, etc) is still very much an issue in Japan but it's cracked down on by police in places that tourists frequently visit during the day and otherwise everyone just expects it so people who live there don't really mention it to tourists.
I mean hell look at Shibuya Meltdown for some of the more mild "funny" examples.
The only real difference between the NYC metro and the Japanese metro is that it's louder because there's not a social norm to limit talking on the train (until people are drunk ofc). Otherwise it's all the same shit and you see it all when you start commuting.
Yep, and I just made a recommendation that was essentially "never enable Opus 4.7" to my org as a direct result. We have Opus 4.6 (3x) and Opus 4.5 (3x) enabled currently. They are worth it for planning.
At 7.5x for 4.7, heck no. It isn't even clear it is an upgrade over Opus 4.6.
> Over the coming weeks, Opus 4.7 will replace Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6 in the model picker for Copilot Pro+.
> This model is launching with a 7.5× premium request multiplier as part of promotional pricing until April 30th
TBF, it's a rumour that they are switching to per-token price in May, but it's from an insider (apparently), and seeing how good of a deal the current per-request pricing is, everyone expects them to bump prices sometime soon or switch to per-token pricing.
The per-request pricing is ridiculous (in a good way, for the user). You can get so much done on a single prompt if you build the right workflow. I'm sure they'll change it soon
Yeah it seems insane that it's priced this way to me too. Using sonnet/opus through a ~$40 a month copilot plan gives me at least an order of magnitude more usage than a ~$40 a month claude code plan (the usage limits on the latter are so low that it's effectively not a viable choice, at least for my use cases).
The models are limited to 160k token context length but in practice that's not a big deal.
Unless MS has a very favourable contract with Anthropic or they're running the models on their own hardware there's no way they're making money on this.
Yeah, you can even write your own harness that spawns subagents for free, and get essentially free opus calls too. Insane value, I'm not at all surprised they're making changes. Oh well. It was a pain in the ass to use Copilot since it had a slightly different protocol and oauth so it wasn't supported in a lot of tools, now I'm going to go with Ollama cloud probably, which is supported by pretty much everything.
Manage the budget not the impl. Top down decisions like "use a cheap model" risk optimize for the wrong things. If we lose 90% cache hit on the expensive models to context switch to a cheap one, there's no savings. Set the budget, let the devs optimize.
I don't know how you guys are not seeing 4.7 as an upgrade, it just does so much more, so much better. I guess lower complexity tasks are saturated though.
https://developers.openai.com/codex/pricing?codex-usage-limi...
Note the Local Messages between 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And, yes, I did read the linked article and know they're claiming that 5.5's new efficient should make it break-even with 5.4, but the point stands, tighter limits/higher prices.
reply