Among the classics I read, this was the only one I did _not_ like. It's an interesting read if one enjoys the setting of a whaling ship of that period. The story itself, I didn't find engaging at all.
552 karma · joined May 11, 2013
The first time I got to try using a telescope (the day a friend bought one), the very first object I saw was Saturn and seeing the rings with my own eyes was a very different experience than knowing they exist or having seen picture of them.
However, that very society/system has made a tradeoff that they will maintain a certain level of taxation which would allow them to maintain a certain level of services.
This does not seem realistic.
As for their systems being "behind", the xbox and playstation motion sensing controllers came _after_ the Nintendo Wii made them popular. The Switch came with a new idea of a console which is both a handheld and one connected to a television. The 3DS came with a lenticular 3D display. Unless you measure being ahead/behind in the sole axis of computational power, they are setting trends and taking gaming to new places.
They are a serious pain when it comes to how they hound fanmade products which might feature any of their IP, have a substandard system for online play, or a poor developer experience but being of sub-par quality is definitely more in microsoft's department than Nintendo's.
Why did you feel they shouldn't sell hardware?
This is the most materialistic online forum I've been to where I'd not be surprised to see someone declaring that he is building an app to help the hungry homeless folk on his street. There are people reading this who probably already wonder what's wrong with building such an app and that it will scale better than an individual taking food to them etc.
That said, I appreciate that there are fewer clickbait headlines here than most other popular places on the internet.
One could claim "I have never been there since I was an infant" but it falls on the people rendering the service to verify the facts.
I can see why people are upset (and I don't like the warmongering nation) but many of these complaints are not really well considered in my view.
So, if anything, their parents are to blame and not these folks who had no choice in the matter.
Speaking of overpowering, I used to walk a German Shepherd at a shelter many years ago. He wasn't well trained and in the beginning he used to tug at the leash with all his might. He was rather strong and not being dragged along was a good challenge for any adult human. This was despite the fact that he had only one hindleg. Eventually I taught him to walk without a leash. However, I will never forget him because he demonstrated to me how strong dogs are. It is not hard to exert control over them but if it has to be via physical means, it is not easy.
I assumed "off leash" because if he can run off even when on a leash, then it's worse than I imagined.
If you genuinely care and believe you can make a strong case, I suggest talking to them.
Could you elaborate and perhaps point towards what makes you think this way?
I ask because I have worked in a rather large corporation which had to implement massive changes to ensure they were being more respectful and careful towards user data. In my experience, the GDPR made them take it seriously which was otherwise ignored as it allowed them to profit off being negligent about these things.
Also, it's a bit like food handling and storage related regulations for restaurants. While it might seem like a pain for the guy running the restaurant, it helps reduce the risk the consumers could otherwise face.
Of course, given that on two wheels, one is not as safe as on four (and also being enclosed in a metal frame). So, naturally the good riders will find ways to ride safely and that includes riding at appropriate speeds. The ones who aren't good/safe riders are not likely to ride for long.
- Do not fall in love with any ideas. Once you have a couple of people play-test something, if it doesn't appear to be fun, be ready to discard it. A lot of things sound good in theory but generally don't work in practice. Some things will work with some changes but you should always be ready to let go of something and move on.
- For gameplay, keep the implementation as simple as possible. It might be tempting to implement a "generic/abstract" idea of something to get a clever implementation which works for many cases (which do not yet exist). Please think about the kind of bugs the resulting complexity could cause and whether they would be a pain to debug. Simplicity of implementation also makes it easy to refactor it later if you feel that it needs to be changed.
- Do not underestimate the work that goes into "finishing" the product. Once you have the basic concepts of the game working, you'll need stuff like UI, save/load/replay, high scores etc. This is not overly complicated but it's not trivial either. If you want to implement save/load/replay features, you may want to think about it in advance.
- I do not at all like Unity and love Unreal (no connection except unhappy and happy user respectively). However, just pick the one with which you will be more comfortable developing.
Again, I wish you luck and hope you have a lot of fun and learn a lot from your efforts.
However, if someone were to ask my advice on which programming language s/he ought to learn, I usually point to python as its easy to begin and unless the goal is to get into game development, financial institutions or something like that, where C++ is the dominant language, I do not recommend it. It takes a lot of time before the complexity begins to disappear from one's mental model of the language. After that point though, one can see why it's a solid language.
I have yet to see recent news of them bombing other countries, kidnapping people from around the world and destabilising regions around the world.
In truth, I'd rather have neither of them bullying others but if I had to choose, I think the less violent bully is a better choice.
Whose?
Excellent, goodbye!
For making things clear, however I'm not done and will leave quotes from your original post here:
"Theft of resources to a point of detriment is always violence."
"Destroying the ecosystem which Farmer John uses to grow his apples, so that you can have more apples, is violence.
Overfishing in or near territories to the point of resource scarcity is 100%, always violence."
I see no qualifiers there and this does conflate the two concepts.
What, from the post you are replying to, leads you to this? If it was not an intentional misrepresentation, I am curious about the line of thought leading to this.