1: Roblox hosts your multiplayer gameservers in its pops for free, with a generous amount of free persistent storage and memory

1.a: Roblox handles scaling and SRE work for you for free - you're not going to be able to support millions of concurrent users yourself at that price point

2: when people buy robux on their phone the app store takes 20-30% of the dollar - but the player still gets 1 robux for each penny.

2.a: your game immediately is playable on iOS, android, PC, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation, questvr, etc etc - no fees for you to get this distribution.

3: Roblox pays out creator rewards - a redistribution of revenue - to experiences that reengage dormant users or are played by paying users even if your game itself has no purchasable items.

Roblox's economic model has a redistributive nature that isn't common in other economies. If you're just looking at the devex rate and not building on the platform you wouldn't immediately appreciate it.

Creators don't have to pay any hosting - Roblox will serve their content even if a game doesnt monetize their users for free.

The way this economical is thru the redistribution of games that do monetize their users

So one thing to call out here is that the assumption that DoW is working on specifically these use cases is not bullet proof. They simply may not want to share with anthropic exactly what they are working on for natsec issues. /we can't tell you/ could violate the terms.

It is also dumb that DoW accepted these terms in the first place.

Yes you can embed other languages however constraining evaluation costs is not a first class feature.

Alternatively consider that you are assuming the worst behavior of the public and the best behavior of the government if you support this and it should be obvious the dangerous position this creates.

Thanks for proving the point.

This isn't new. You just haven't been paying attention.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55615214

Or maybe it is fine when it happens to people you disagree with.

Quickly understanding the urgency/importance of the ask while communicating the impact it is having on the deliverable is the right call. Good business people work like this all the time. Seeing the discussion is a good learning opportunity for a junior.

Id like to hear the platform team's perspective on this. As it stands, it is a pretty sad state of affairs that such a prominent library in the ecosystem was made out to be the scapegoat for the adoption of a platform change. It is not a healthy thing to treat the library maintainer community like this.

If Sun was offering some technically relevant foundation for the smartphone era, it would have been able to actually have some adoption. They were starting from a leading position (obviously - see blackberry or Nokia), and in the space of 3 to 4 years they completely disappeared.

The Oracle v Google was specifically over copyright infringement concerning the Java APIs used in Android's original implementation (Dalvik/ART), not about creating a "J++" dialect.

Android never ran a JVM on mobile because it cannot be optimized for resource constrained devices a solution like DalvikVM was necessary. If you want to level critiques about creating fragmented dialects of Java I would recommend starting with J2ME. The only nice thing I can say about J2ME is at least it died.

The Android ecosystem was far too mature for Fuchsia/Dart to be successful without a very compelling interop story that was never produced.

As a technology Kotlin met Android's platform and community needs. Advocacy and politicking played a minimal, if any, role.

Adding a new http method is the only way to support something like this safely. If something in between doesn't know what to do with QUERY it can just respond with a 501.

Fun fact - GET and HEAD are the only required methods one needs to implement to be an http server. It is a pretty low bar :)

The paper's finding focuses on goal adjustment/flexibility being a functional response when encountering difficulty meeting a goal. Disengagement had correlations with impairment. Which probably tracks most people's life experience.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02312-4

| This interpretation aligns with our finding that dispositional flex- ibility, rather than more proximal disengagement or reengagement, more strongly predicts functioning. Notably, we observed a positive association between disengagement and impairment. Although this could reflect a ‘dark side’ of disengagement—where letting go of goals offers short-term relief but risks longer-term purposelessness and dysfunction11—this pattern was not evident in longitudinal or experi- mental studies. An alternative explanation is that the association is bidirectional, with impairment potentially prompting disengagement as a reactive strategy. Given these complexities, we advice caution in interpreting this finding and highlight the need for further research.

The fact that lax security has never caused them to loose billions of dollars of customer funds is just luck and paper covering passwords on a whiteboard.

Somehow I think Nathaniel Popper would have been able to put that fact directly in his NYT article instead of a throw away tweet if there was a material impact. Heck he wasted a paragraph quoting one of Coinbase's board of directors on the risks of unregulated exchanges like bitfinex versus Coinbase.

As I said, they have never lost customer funds in their custody.

Not saying it is untrue, but it is definitely true that Coinbase has never lost customer funds while operating in an environment with 0 safety nets and being one of the most lucrative targets.

This leak over customer data suggests that they should treat that with as much obsession as they do with their private keys.