bobleeswagger

> I just don't like the tone of mocking and condescension

Isn't it interesting? You'd think that tone would come more from the "flat-earth" side, but as I've gotten older I have noticed the most vehement opinions come from globe-earth side. It's like an antibody response to a virus.

Just take a look at the comment at the bottom of this thread, flagged and downvoted for _entertaining_ the idea that globe earth may be an illusion of perception. The Agent Smith effect [https://i.redd.it/dlhfz4az7oh41.jpg] is real, and this is a perfect example of it in the wild.

What a weirdly defensive reply for calling out your incapability to entertain an idea without believing it yourself.

Enjoy the matrix, friendo.

> I perceive (sense) a flat earth, but outside of my perception it is demonstrated to be a globe.

I like the word demonstrated. It helps to illustrate that it is wholly possible that the demonstration is an illusion, the same way it is possible that our perception is an illusion.

The COVID vaccine was designed to make an astronomical amount of money in a time of extreme inflation.

If it made society better by "preventing infectious disease" that was a side-effect.

Very cool, I don't think most folks realize how much this would help reduce favoritism and nepotism in the workplace.

I don't get the obsession with TDD. Maybe it's because I have been in the BI/DE space for awhile, but nothing is defined well enough to justify TDD in the first place. Everything is hobbled together and functional integration tests are much more important. Unit tests aren't going to catch when my CF stacks are broken. Good dev tools and architectural design are much more important in my experience.

I totally understand where TDD shines. When you have a well defined problem to solve, unit tests are the definition itself, and the business logic therein.

> I didn't say that there couldn't be negative disagreement.

> What's the problem? What's the actual problem?

You're not as personable as you think you are with such a confrontational attitude towards feedback on a website you support. The website is distracting to enough folks that it matters. Period.

I'm not sure I understand the weird fan crowd we have here for the site in question. This thread is rife with folks who are ecstatic to defend the author for exercising artistic license, yet incapable of understanding or receiving valid feedback on said artistic license. And these folks aren't even the author!

If you put it in public, anything is fair game.

> if you really care the tools are available to it yourself.

I cared enough to leave feedback for the author, I'm not going to go out of my way to read text peppered with distracting weeb shit. I don't expect folks to sift through my unusual interests to get to my points.

It's unusual that there can't be negative feedback about a website. Different strokes.

I want to read the content, but I can't. The website is too distracting. Is that a valid problem for you, oh great oracle?

> Do you know how many of the most powerful people on the internet are furries/otherkin?

what makes someone powerful on the internet?

Do most of the websites you browse look like this?

> someone tells you it's not "serious" because they haven't learned to browse a source tree

"Fuck this stranger for not learning something I know how to do!"

> COVID happened and we still haven't restarted partying the way we used to

Our reaction to COVID happened a lot more readily than COVID itself.

Playing pandemic has consequences, as it turns out.

$8 million in cash will always be $8 million in cash. "Stashed it away" is pretty vague but cash is cash.

Your reaction to and obsession with the word "woke" tells us all we need to know about your propaganda driven mind.

I don't even have a twitter account, by the way.

It's not about generosity, it's about substance.

There's no substance to name-calling a billionaire. The entire article is emotional drivel.

Keep back-pedaling, you'd have supported the same actions if they were done by "the good guys" that lost control of the company.

> Why is this hard to understand without bringing your politics into it?

Pot, meet kettle.

Ah yes, tell me more about how the exception speaks for everyone. Most folks playing Fortnite are casual gamers.

> Space Karen

> billionaire bozo

> comparisons to his Mother's death

Yeah, I had a hard time getting through it. At least, I don't get the point the author is trying to make.

Is this really a surprise given the direction social data has gone in the past decade or so? APIs will only remain public as long as they are useful.

Elon sees an upside to making the API at twitter more private, in order to maintain control over Twitter's direction. You can argue as much as you want for, or against this, but don't add noise and make me rake through it.

> I switch to my Mac laptop to play stuff like Fortnite.

Fortnite is about as casual as it gets. You won't rank very high in a twitch shooter like CS:GO (or keep consistent ranking) using a cloud gaming service.

Unless the GeForce now servers were co-located to your local ISP, it's hard to believe. Even then, you're adding quantifiable jitter to the equation on the order of a few milliseconds. It's noticeable.

> more about just making everything noticeably a bit worse.

Hit the nail on the head. ChatGPT will replace the wrong things, and probably create a world where we still need to solve problems ChatGPT has become attached to.

It's all noise, I can't perceive a signal at this point.

Most tech stacks are a liability, it's not talked about enough.

Sounds like your CTO and engineering leadership aren't owning the architectural issues that are preventing integration tests. I'm not saying it's easy, but there's a point where there are no excuses allowed from the owners.

If your microservices are hard to test you've designed shitty microservices. Period.

Whew this thread is rife with elitism. About git? To the folks sharing your difficulties with git, bravo.

To everyone who says they "don't get" how people could be confused or lost while using git, you are the reason why those folks are lost, and you're perpetuating the culture of elitism by playing dumb.

Git is hard as shit to understand unless you came from development before it existed, or you have had the luxury of trying other VCS professionally. Most people just know git, and it's confusing as hell if you have no reference.

Don't even get me started with how this has poisoned the industry on the whole: Proper VCS implementations with CI/CD are incredibly rare, even at places with world class engineering talent.

Author seems like they've been coasting and always found a way out when hard problems came up. This catches up to you.

Nobody said they wanted this, but I'd rather that than play with a bunch of cheaters.

If it can be done on exe's at runtime, it can be done on hardware attached to the computer. Signing things securely isn't a hard problem to solve, it's keeping people from attacking that signature that is hard. Something tells me the kids writing lua scripts as aimbots aren't quite smart enough to crack a proper signature implementation.

This is making me feel old. Totally agree it is difficult, but not impossible.

Logitech is the problem here for even allowing this in the first place. No CRC checks for mouse firmware or anything? It screams poor implementation. I will not be surprised if anti-cheat software starts banning people or companies like Logitech.

Kind of sad to see the number of threads and communities online encouraging this. The point of games is to have fun, when you cheat all that goes out the door.

Well designed architecture will always be the guard against fragility. I do think there is a lack of architecture design and technical design discussions that contribute to the current state of software fragility. There's too many tools contributing to the noise, and not enough tools reducing that noise.

Software is hard because it is the last 10% ... Hardware was the first 90%, but anyone with project experience knows how long the last 10% lasts.