deleted by creator

No one’s disputing the utility of wireless. But it’s not harming anyone to have a device with both mini-jack and bluetooth; the way it was for nearly 2 decades without any complaint.

or a adapter at greater than 20x cost

I would advocate for using each tool, where it makes sense, to achieve a more intelligible graph. This is what I’ve been moving towards on my personal projects (am solo). I imagine with any moderately complex group project it becomes very difficult to keep things neat.

In order of expected usage frequency:

1. Rebase: everything that’s not 2 or 3. keep main and feature lines clean.
2. Merge: ideally, merge should only be used to bring feature branches into main at stable sequence points.
3. Squash: only use squash to remove history that truly is useless. (creating a bug on a feature branch and then solving it two commits later prior to merge).

History should be viewable from log --all --decorate --oneline --graph; not buried in squash commits.

As a long time CRPG fan, I was not into it at all. But expressing that you didn’t enjoy it is wrongthink, and the rabid fans will downvote you to oblivion.

People Make Games did a 2.5 hour deep dive on it. https://youtu.be/JGIGA8taN-M I’m blown away by the amount of work they put into it. Just finished watching it. What a mess. I’m going to need some sleep while I process all of that.

eventually …

So after having watched that, I’m convinced that Robert Kurvitz and Aleksander Rostov were defrauded. I take what the studio employees are saying with a grain of salt. I mean, they are still employed so how can they possibly be trust worthy. Even if Argo wrote Cuno (god bless him). If Kurvitz was difficult to work under, it has nothing to do with the alleged theft of his share in the company. That People Make Games really leaned into his toxicity at the end of this doc kinda ticked me off. Like yeah he shouldn’t have to answer to that. That’s not the story. That’s a distraction. If the Estonian court doesn’t rule in Kurvitz’s and Rostov’s favor, they better have a damn good explanation.

I really don’t understand. Can someone divulge the circumstances or is this all just hearsay? IP law really isn’t all that complicated. Its been in practice for a long time, and generally things only need to go to court when one of the parties didn’t do some basic homework. If the court didn’t rule in the author’s favor I find it hard to believe the author didn’t legitimately give up their rights to that IP.

True, its not the best description of it. I was trying to land on something that would resonate with the type of person i thought it might appeal to, without fully explaining the thing. Maybe I failed lol.

Yeah there’s no track building. Each stage is a physics puzzle where you’re at some section of road, and there’s an infinite stream of cars. You’re allowed to make crude adjustments to verts on the road, in attempt to get the stream of cars to drive to some goal. The puzzles are very satisfying, and even when you’re not at a solution, its just fun watching the wagons fly into whatever direction your road positioning happens to take them.

Also its truly independent in the strict sense of the term. Solo dev, no publisher. Not that I have anything against small publishers.

Sebil Engineering has a really fun mechanic I’ve never seen before. Its like those Hot Wheels tracks you always wanted as a kid but your parents never got you, but even better. I guess its a traffic control game? Anyone have other examples of these?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Cool now I can actually check it out. Tried to previously but my connection failed about an hour into the clone. --depth=1 --shallow-submodules --recurse-submodules should really be given its own command in git. Not really sure why’d they choose MS as their host though.

deleted by creator

It reduces the probability that a drive by scanner is going to detect a vulnerable service. Camouflage isn’t a guarantee that you aren’t going to be sighted on a battlefield, but it’s still a good idea to reduce the probability of becoming a target in whatever ways you can.

If it reaches that mass, it’s going to bring all of it, minus corporate control. But we could still end up with a corporate host hoovering up all the user base anyways, github style. Embrace, Extend, Monetize.

True, but I see this quote repeated so often that it kind of bugs me. It seems to be used in a thought-terminating way. As if we shouldn’t criticize languages. As if they aren’t tools that are able to be improved upon, or they’re all made equal. But I’m sure Bjarne Stroustrup needs to fend off hostility and unfair criticism as much as any programmer with a successful language.

Big enough for what though? Big enough to take advantage of the amount of destruction these weapons create? They could have chosen a single isolated, near coast warship. Or even just dropped it near coast on no target at all. The important thing would have been the show of force, in order to deter further attack. Knowing the US had that capability might have been enough to end the war. But we didn’t try to communicate that we had these weapons, instead we used them.

I don’t get the “needed to” argument. They could have chosen military targets, but went straight for cities.