How on earth are these metrics defined even somewhat objectively? How is it justified that countries such as China, India, and Russia occupy only one point despite being stunningly diverse polities? Why are all 'traditional' values rolled into one category? Why are 'survival' and 'self-expression' considered opposite extremes?
I hung around #lichess on freenode (where the wonderful dev team exists, including the founder Thibaut) a lot at the time (and I still do) and I was more or less definitively told about concerns of further splitting the userbase. The most recently added variant (Racing Kings) is not terribly popular, and they've made a commitment not to remove variants once they're added, so I appreciate the caution, but something in my bones told me then (which was about two years ago now) and still does that S-chess would be SUPER popular.
There's a variamt of chess created by GM Yasser Seirawan wherein he seeks to stoke the heady flames of tactical attacking chess where he introduces two new pieces: the hawk (which moves like a bishop + a knight) and the elephant (which moves like a rook + a knight). The problem is, there's absolutely nowhere to play it online! I wish I had the skills to build a site/mod lichess to make it work, but lichess isn't interested in adding new variants. If anyone's looking for a project...
People particularly love attacking chess (possibly because expert, constricting, prophylactic chess is a slower burn and takes more skill in a lot of cases to appreciate), and with that being said, it's interesting because chess is sort of the opposite of that Sun Tzu quote: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
If you're a strategic chess master but you can't see tactics, that mastery doesn't matter and your opponents take all your pieces. If you're likely to get ground down in an eighty move game but you can sniff out an attack on your enemy's king, you can usually at least get a shot at doing that and crush your opponent.
The reason (in chess at least, which is what I'm familiar with) is to encourage more women to play chess, to close the gender gap formed in the first 150 years centuries of international organized chess.
In my opinion, World War II started on September 18, 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, because 1) the Chinese and Japanese didn't stop fighting until 1945, and 2) it had much the same spirit as the following conflicts. Admittedly, this subjective timing stuff is awful fuzzy.
My point was that the 'average' computer user is easily bewildered by many things, and using an IRC client isn't especially difficult compared to them. Using a link to a ready-made config for a web IRC client is easy and relatively painless and doesn't require any additional magical insight and fairy dust by a group of Silicon Valley dreamers. The use cases for Slack is arguable an Euler diagram circle exactly on top of those for IRC, a slightly different one than those for FB Messenger or Skype. Slack is redundant/bloated because of IRC, Messenger isn't.
No regular person ever renames files.
No regular person ever uses a browser that didn't come with their system.
No regular person ever properly navigates an average website without help.
Your point is?
I'm sure he used said language in a provocative and mocking manner, not because he was actually racist or racially insensitive. I'm sure the stress and pain of the situation didn't help him choose his words thoughtfully.
There is no mention of, or stated process for, secession of states in the Constitution. In Texas v. White:
"Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."
That assumption is correct, founded deep within the well-tested parts of our current understanding of physics.
When the work required to brute-force a cipher in a sane timeframe doesn't exist (or even couldn't fit) within the bounds of the observable universe, (if the crypto works as intended, which, to be fair, is a big if) brute-forcing is safely axed as an avenue of attack.
Of course, on these scales, if you really want to, you could connive and threaten your way into having a backdoor installed. Or you could spy on the victim and steal their laptop, with the key decrypted and in memory. Or you could beat the key and password out of them. Brute-forcing shouldn't be the most pressing of anyone's cryptographic worries.
I think it's wrong to call it poorly written because the programmer only accounted their C preprocessor code for ~99.99% of desktop and mobile operating systems. The diminishing return for avoiding this approach is so impalpable it hurts.
Windows, OSX/iOS/BSD, and Linux/Android literally are everything anyone ever uses, within rounding error.
We need to stop classifying whole swaths of ideas as junk because they sound too similar to 'conspiracy theories'. This dogma is unspeakably harmful to the truth and is easy to cultivate by those on the other end, by those who would be served better if the opposition were bearers of tinfoil, not bearers of bad news. Most of it is bullshit, sure, but most people are indeed 'sheep' (for lack of a better word), they don't do any sort of digging to figure out the truth for themselves. Whoever gets to them first earns the right to spread their own opinion, since the first opinion is the hardest to change.
I absolutely agree. When I watched this for the first time ~6 months ago it was crazy how much of this relatable oh-so-familiar stuff was taking place before I existed, the central date of March 31, 1998 being about 3 months before I was born.
Programmers these days stand on the shoulders of giants, most of them still living and breathing. And it is a priceless gift that it is so much easier to learn this craft when you're starting out.
It is a huge mistake to be the smartest person in a room, so I seek out people who floor me, people who are good at what I want to be good at. The Internet, built by our heroes, allow us young programmers to talk to our heroes as if they were people, and I suppose that helps us to discover that that's all they are.
Edit: If you enjoyed this, another personal-story-tinged entertaining-but-technical diamond I can recommend is a book about id Software, Masters of Doom.
It doesn't glorify it, it clearly shows the effect such behavior has on one's personal/family life, and how it can all be in vain anyway. It's clearly a crunch-is-problematic message, if not an anti-crunch message.