oo1

It’s a donation so you’re never going to have perfect pricing everything down to the nearest penny or remunerating each person-hour worked. I think It’s about something rough and ready that is better than nothing. And it’s all goverened by morality anyway . . .
so doomed to failure on that side.

Buy hypothetically a simple principle with reasonable administration cost, like each 3 months, each node shoud add up all donations, slice off 25-50% , split it equally among their top 5 or 10 most important dependencies - just guess, and maybe swap from quarter to quarter if if there’s doubt. There’s some wiggle room there for small projects to do less and large over funded projects to do more.

Each node in the network could follow a simple rule like that, making a limited number of transactions each time period ,and you’d probably end up with quite a complex outcome after a few iterations (years).

The real trick would be having enough nodes in the network that actually enact such a simple rule. (Apart from having enough donations flow in to the consumer level projects of course).
But enough nodes and enough inflow and the fractal would work for you - roughly.

THe speed is an issue, the more often you settle up then quicker people see money, but the more the admin cost.
But even doing it quaterly is not slower than doing nothing.

Such a model is not something anyone will be securing bank loans off though, so if that’s the point then you probably need a paid licensing / service model of some sourt maybe Canonical and redhat.

Someone tried “April & Bob” once, but MS excel converted it to date.

When I buy a turnip from the grocery store I don’t have to pay the farmer directly.

If I donate to debian, that I depend on , then debian (morally) should disburse some of that donation to the linux kernel that debian depends on.

-y

First you draw an “S” . . .
then you draw a more different “s” . . .

yeah, i like the game and even i can see its hyped in articles and on forums.

every time someone article has the word “polished”.
it has tonnes of quest bugs, these type of games always do.

the ui is remarkably good - for this type of game, on steamdeck controller; but it’s not a slick ui.

there’s always tradeoffs and compromises. complexity of quests leads to bugs, complexity of player choices leads to analysis paralysis/tyranny of choice and cumbersome ui.

yeah, nostalgia for me.
the other larian games didn’t register with me.

“gooeys”

i’d only play a ranger if it came with a miniature giant space hamster.
“go for the eyes . . .”

if by better you mean, more fun, i think that’s slightly up to you.
you can have just as much fun with a more constrained character who keeps losing dice rolls - it might be harder work though.

that’s something I’ve noticed about bg3 (only 1-2h in) vs the old ones and even ps:torment.
in most of those you can continue the dialog and usually circle back to the other choices.

in bg3 its seems much more like, you say one option you’re stuck with it - which seems much better.

i’ll be interested to see on the replay - but i guess itll be up to me to play it differently.

The format doesn’t bother me too much.
json can be great for sure.

But I reckon some people could still bung a load of unnecessarily complex layout and aesthetic data in there, and potentially screw up the data structure and still make it harder to access than need be.

I accept that, if the json is structured logically, it should handle both substantive and layout data, and probably easiest to get to either the content or the formatting.

yeah, substance > style.

the content/facts/information is what should matter, make it accessible. share it.

let the audience access it however best suits them.

I’m too young to die