Natanael

Then you call FSF as an expert witness and watch them tear them apart

The license explicitly allows you to change how it is displayed as long as the new attribution sufficiently identifies the prior author(s) and remain discoverable

FSF has already called out OnlyOffice (just without naming them) and says GPL doesn’t allow it.

Additionally you’re not allowed to claim you’re using GPL if you add impermissible additions to the license

Fun fact - GNU / FSF doesn’t let you claim it’s a GPL variant if you have added claims to it. If you say it’s GPL then others gets to assume it’s GPL proper

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to licensing@gnu.org for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

As for attribution requirements;

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/gpl-compliant-legal-notices-author-attributions

However, requirements to preserve notices could conflict with user freedom.

Please note that “copyright notice” is a notice that contains: the word copyright (or the © symbol), the year of first publication of the work, and the name of the copyright holder. Any other information is not part of a copyright notice

In summary, people who modify programs released under the GNU GPLs can still change where and how an interactive program displays those notices. For example, if the original program put these notices at the bottom of every page, someone modifying the software could conceivably remove those and have them appear only on a single “About this software” page.

Apart from some specific situations, logos are neither “legal notices” nor “author attributions” as normally understood.

Putting trademarked links or logos in the program’s interface and explicitly declining a trademark license thus gives the trademark holder a way to stop uses harmful to their reputation, balanced by the users’ option to remove the trademarks in order to distribute modifications freely

AGPLv3 only requires preservation of attribution but not full branding

They don’t ever do more than 4 predicted frames per 1 full frame, and usually just 1:1

Somebody made a whole-ass video about it a while ago, and there’s essentially two notable examples in video games.

One where there’s a chase scene where you’re the protagonist controlling your car but seen from the perspective of the antagonist (from the camera perspective you’re chasing yourself), the other is a horror game where you see yourself from the perspective of your dolls (which you carry and place)

Edit: the video I was thinking of (but it doesn’t actually have this specific example, I found that later)

https://youtu.be/mC8QoRa8y_Q?is=4jOUa2Mdm65ACV8y

That other game; https://store.steampowered.com/app/2526310/Out_of_Sight/

Considering everybody talking about using these things in war it has the benefit of not being a suicide beacon visible to instruments for many many miles, unlike the microwave transmitters everybody else here want to carry with them

Also see;

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/09/powering-drones-with-ultra-thin-flexible-perovskite-pv-cells/

If you actually want to extend the lifetime of high performance autonomous drones in the field then it’s more practical to do battery swaps

Yeah devs apparently saw it didn’t use internal engine data much at all

Those efficiencies are for large senders and receivers. When you have to make it small for a drone the numbers gets worse.

None of those make continous evasive maneuvers. All the things you mention works because the flight path is fully known in advance and you have full synchronization and ability to lock orientation. None of this works on a drone in urban environments where you’ll constantly lose line of sight.

Dude I’m not talking about heat I’m talking about literal about the literal MW receiver’s physical LOCATION on the drone body AND THE ACTUAL PROPULSION IN FORM OF MOVING AIR, because the receiver has to be large, and oriented to the sender at all times, which means there are orientations in which it will block at least some propellers from pushing air physically downwards, unless those also are built to extend far out AND CAN TWIST THEIR ORIENTATION TOO

(remember that propeller flight obeys the laws of Newton, pushing air down keeps you up and if you tilt your drone to align with the microwave center then you must tilt your propellers or you’ll be flying sideways, unless you put receiver on a gimbal in which case it’s stupidly complex and you now have to adjust airflow across non-blocked propellers when the receiver is below some of them)

You can not win an argument by misunderstanding the counterarguments. You lose by not even being able to imagine how a drone actually flies physically in the air, not to mention your lack of ability to just read

Not to mention that you didn’t even ask yourself what happens to a microwaved power transmitter in war. Guess what? It gets targeted and destroyed in seconds. You’re dead now. Bye.

And you can’t even make a drone swarm work. Either you have a dozen transmitters (lol good luck) or a phased antenna array in which lol fucking lmao that thing will spew out heat losses and get banned from operating near any remotely populated area due to radio interference

If you think that’s not practical, wait until you see something microwave powered trying to make quick moves. I want to see what you think it will do when it suddenly has to pass through an urban environment with a ton of obstacles. Are you gonna MIMO the damned microwave beam!?!?!? With millisecond trajectory updates!?!?!?

Not mention that a microwave power transmitter in war will die faster than any mobile radar station because it’s so god damned trivial to detect and lock onto, you’re losing that bullshit in seconds of turning it on

The only scenario where this wouldn’t be total bullshit is perimeter monitoring drones flying a fixed path, where you for some reason really don’t want to have to have multiple drones in rotation (which honestly doesn’t make much sense either but at least that’s just 80% BS instead of 100% BS)

Somebody hasn’t played Zelda and it shows

Has already been done

https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/solar-powered-drone-design-2025/

The only two metrics that matter here are W/m^2 and weight.

You can’t make a reasonable microwave receiver lighter than solar film and efficiency peaks around 50% in FIXED installations and you can easily assume less than a quarter (under 10%) when the target isn’t just moving, but is also changing angles and distance (you’d have to put the receiver on a gimbal like for cameras) and now it’s also interfering with flight (propeller airflow, unless you do weird propeller geometries or tilted body flight

Tldr DUMB

Microwave power transfer only make sense between distant fixed line of sight locations with minimal infrastructure available. On earth that’s literally just island mountain tops. Even then it’s easier and cheaper to still just install solar

On the moon, it would basically just mean you have one big generator and everything gets powered by the sun when in sunlight and switch to microwave from the generator when in shadow, which is pretty much the only configuration that even make sense

The microwave receiver will not be small or efficient

Solar power is still more practical

No but you’re paying for it to have that capacity

Also the real goal with it, like with the Deck, is to set a standard for what hardware games should run well on for the next several years, and to give PC manufacturers a target for what to match or improve on.

And I definitely hope that wake from controller can get standardized as a result from this (Bluetooth LE 5.5 extension anyone?) because you’ll see other manufacturers try to build it into their machines too

Also just generally revamp Bluetooth HID profiles for latency

“the cool S”

Literally, search that and you’ll find it

Alignment table memes with good/neutral/evil and lawful/neutral/chaotic