jallen_dot_dev

> What do they do with the leftovers?

Gather them up into a ball, then flatten them into a new wafer using a rolling pin.

Why doesn't the monopoly employ the same cost-saving measures for even bigger margins?

> kid

He's a 32 year old man.

Yeah that's not very typical, I'd like to make that point. These ships are built to very rigorous maritime engineering standards.

All of that is true of a digital dollar, too.

I don't think so. It's not like we have a branch of the military dedicated solely to maintaining the dominance of the USD. It protects our national security interests as a whole. The fact that it also scares everyone into using the dollar is just a bonus.

And while there are police dedicated to investigating financial crimes involving dollars today, we would still have them. They'd just be investigating crimes involving BTC.

> Bitcoin replaces these things with servers and decentralization.

This is totally absurd. We would still need police and military even if the USD stopped existing and we switched over to Bitcoin. You cannot replace them with servers because servers can't protect a nation or enforce laws.

> The fact they do other things is not important.

It is important, because it means they must exist anyway. So it makes no sense to factor in their cost if the cost would still need to be paid regardless of which financial system we use.

> The question is will there be a way to mine more difficult problems using less power. That is the only way bitcoin power usages stops growing (slowly).

That's not how it works. The whole point is to spend power (work).

If there was some breakthrough that allowed finding hashes with 10x less electricity, then the network wouldn't burn 10x less electricity. It would instead find 10x more hashes.

No, the company becomes more valuable after the raise. It's more slices of a bigger pie == each slice is the same size as before.

> why would a company ever do a stock buyback if changing the amount of issued stock didn't change the price?

The company used its cash to buy its own stock. Fewer slices of the same pie == each slice is bigger than before.

Compared to a 9-5 in tech? Which is what they're suggesting instead.

What is the point of moralizing?

I guess it's technically possible a malfunctioning machine could output literally any string of bits.

The chances they would just so happen to look exactly how a particular emulator wrongly displays them, and do so over and over, is virtually zero.

I did a quick search and it appears the law sets a minimum of about $20 per hour. So I guess DoorDash considers there to be about 40 minutes of "active time" per hour?

Also, employees cost more than just their salary.

> If a reseller buys the ticket, and then sells it again to the end user, Ticketmaster gets paid twice.

So basically scalpers are being paid to be the scapegoat so Ticketmaster can make more money, at the expense of artists and fans.

Or that a store would put it's vanilla ice cream in a separate case in the front and all it's other flavors in another in the back, instead of putting all it's frozen foods together in the same area for logistical reasons.

> and still achieve separation of HTML/JS.

Why is this important to maintain? People have been complaining about this since the beginning, but I've never seen anyone actually articulate what the problem is.

Typically something like an elevator wouldn't be modeled with physics (mass, velocity, etc.) its movement would just be hardcoded. And of course games without a physics emulator wouldn't do that either.

My understanding of the patent is that two objects that are normally subject to physics (the player and a platform), when the player stands on an object the player's physics are disabled and the player's position is just copied from the object.

But, like, there's no way this hasn't been done before.

> The functionality seems at first glance to be a given for any game with a similar environment, but according to an observation by naoya2k, what makes Nintendo’s solution unique is that there are no physics working between Link and the dynamic object. Since both the character and object use physics, the most straightforward solution would be that Link moves together with the moving objects he is on top of as a result of physics (such as frictional force), but Nintendo apparently decided that what works better game-wise is Link being given the same movement that the object is performing, without any physics working between the two.

No way this is the first game to ignore the player character in physics calculations. I'm pretty sure in GTA3 you could climb onto the roof of a car and not slide around as the NPC drives and makes sharp turns.

You are cutting your TAM by at least 50%.

I've never heard that term before, usually such coins are called shitcoins. And while I'm not denying SBF did that with his coin, he certainly didn't pioneer it; XRP has been doing it for years before SBF got into crypto.

> does this prevent them from being sued for any of it, where they could have been successfully sued otherwise?

As I understand it, anyone can sue anyone for anything. What matters is convincing a judge/jury that you have been wrongfully harmed by the defendant. So if someone can make a good enough case for damages stemming from this data collection, then they can successfully sue.

This doesn't prevent them from suing, but it makes their case significantly weaker if the defendant can argue that the user agreed to have their data collected.

This is only the case if you're the sort of person who is unsatisfied or anxious while there are goals you haven't yet fulfilled. A mentality of "my life will begin once I've achieved X" which is a terrible way to go through life. Otherwise what is wrong with having an endless series of goals to work towards?

> why would anyone lend money and not do it themselves?

Because there are regulations that limit how banks can invest deposits.

I know you're being sarcastic, but it's shocking how many people think he's actually a genius and all his missteps are really galaxy-brain maneuvers we just don't understand yet. Like, there are millions of them.

> This is featured the first time you ever bring up the software keyboard and then never again.

In other words, a behavior that something like Driver.js can help you achieve.

To be clear, the FTC is warning all online influencers and not specifically those who receive free board games to review. It'd be wild if the FTC thought the problem of board game reviewers not disclosing this was big enough and egregious enough to warrant special action against them.

This is just an excuse for ignorance and the annoying habit people have of repeating something they heard but don't understand.

I think it's right to correct it because when people misuse this phrase, it isn't gaining a new meaning--it's making it meaningless. Why apples? The comparison to apples adds no information or nuance.

Like when there's a story about police corruption, and someone says "they're just a few bad apples, not all cops are bad." Again, why compare them to apples? Why not just say a few bad cops?

This isn't words/phrases changing meaning, it's losing meaning.

Is it even correct to automatically update the year? Shouldn't the year be whenever the work was created or revised? Which could be set at build time.

Another advantage of setting it in the build is it'd show even without javascript. If I disable JS, no copyright statement at all appears on the page. So if it was really necessary to declare your copyright, then would it mean anyone who disables JS can freely infringe?

I agree just leaving the copyright out of the footer would be best.

"pledges to support Godot financially" doesn't mean they'll give all of the money they raise.

If anyone has right to be upset about how W4 Games is spending its money, it would be the people who gave it that money. But I doubt the VCs are upset, because the money is going to building a company that might return on their investment.

I honestly don't get the outrage.

The main complaint (setting aside the preamble about bugs and feature delays) is that Juan (creator of Godot engine) raised $8.5 million for his company W4 Games and is now asking for donations to support Godot. W4 Games has the mission statement "strengthen the open source Godot ecosystem by providing companies with the commercial products and services they need."

Now from reading this post, I assumed the money was raised by some sort of crowdfunding and that backers may have been led to believe they were supporting Godot directly. And now they are being asked to donate again, and the money they gave previously is going to some private company.

But no, that's not the case. I looked up the press release[1] and the money was raised from VC firms.

So this guy is mad that Juan is not using the VC seed money he raised for a Godot-related company to fund Godot directly.

This seems like completely overblown and misplaced anger.

[1] https://w4games.com/2022/09/13/w4-games-raises-8-5-million-t...