I like the idea. Hell you wouldn't even need co-op at the start if you can implement a decent pathfinding AI and be able to swap between tank/turret. Would even be a bit more depth since you'd have to think about both things and make decisions when to swap.
I should have perhaps phrased that differently as: If I desire end-to-end encryption but I do not want to be a conduit for nefarious activities then what are the options? Surely there is a spectrum between facebook messenger and a total secure, end-to-end encrypted chat client.
I was only talking about function code. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that if you opt to leverage other AWS services that those are things you would ultimately have to replace but those decisions have nothing to do with serverless.
Most of your points are not relevant to my original statement of the code being generic - they are talking more about the architectural decisions. If I want to use DynamoDB I can do so in EC2 or Lambda, serverless doesn't dictate that. You also seem to believe one chooses Lambda because of complexity reduction and that's not really the only reason. I can very easily port a node/express API backend that connect to RDS to any other cloud provider. What about serverless makes you think that's not the case?
FWIW I haven't hit any scenario out of the basic services that localstack couldn't run locally. I even have it executing Terraform on localstack as if it was AWS (without IAM which is indeed a problem when I forget to create/update policies)!
I disagree. Every AWS Lambda function I've ever written can be ran as a regular node/python process. The lambda-specific part is miniscule. If I wanted to run these on Azure or Google only the most inconsequential parts of the function would need to be changed.
I'm almost thinking it will lead to ROI being less at the end. As they filter everyone through nice funnels ultimately they restrict reach such that "new customers" are less. Once that happens they will come back out to target "other people" not in their finely tuned categories and effectively be about where we are now. If roofers are my best customer as a hammer manufacturer and I market solely to them at some point all hammer manufacturers will come to the same conclusion and they will be fighting for the sole segment.
I've found focusing on the hardest problems first when enthusiasm is high nets the best results as the difficulty over time of remaining tasks coincides with waning enthusiasm and fatigue. Focusing on small tasks first and delaying large problems has the opposite effect - unless there's not enough context to complete the larger tasks without completing smaller parts first.
That's an interesting take as news organizations are not nonprofits. They are only businesses. The government is supposed to be acting as the central source of good information not a collection of for-profit companies. The issue we face now is our government is manipulating messages for political gain and the media is manipulating filters to further viewership both of which feed upon each other. I don't see how you place no blame on the government here.
With no skin in the game, I could just as easily counter with:
Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.
Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
Time it takes to build something is not even remotely the best metric for value or ease. Programming is never a box and things that took one afternoon to write at first could be thousands of lines long a year from now. To me this is as horrible as advice as it is to use dependencies for everything.
If it was discovered that the laws of nature prevent a species from expanding into the universe through whatever mechanisms plausible, what would that do the idea of free will? Does free will require unbounded possibilities or would an upper bound rethink our idea of the universe?
Fair enough, though I would say if these stores are on a spectrum tilting towards "barely open" or "on the decline" that it doesn't provide a useful counter-argument for the overall sentiment which is that malls are and have been dying. That being said I haven't been to any of the ones you've listed in my adult life so would have no idea their status.
I will concede that there are thriving malls in existence in the same way that stores that closed in one area of the country thrive in others. Not sure what that says towards malls as a whole but imagine it would trend to being viable in only a subset of the country.
I should have qualified that KOP was the largest mall I knew of which is why I called it out. I did forget about Springfield mall which is still alive I assume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promenade_at_Granite_Run is turning into a classic shopping center which was my closest mall growing up. In Pittsburgh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_III_Mall is getting turn down, Ross Park Mall is declining and Robinson Town Center was half empty the last time I was there ~5 years ago. I can't speak to malls I didn't frequent.
Although "still open" isn't exactly saying much either on your end - how many stores are empty? Are they on the decline?
Is it even possible not to "keep them in abnormal environments that affect their behavior or physiology"? Putting a rate in a cage alone is an abnormal environment for a rat.
I would have assumed malls were already on the out prior to COVID - I assume this is just accelerating the timeline? I think every mall the knew of growing up and in college is no more except for the largest (Kind of Prussia). Did your Malls usage also include stripmalls?
Seems like a fundamental truth of Capitalism: privatization and ultimate destruction of anything that can be monetized. Certain things are impossible without money and to make money to have to generate or consume something which leads to a never-ending cycle.
I fail to understand how an open roadmap would make you less likely to buy a product. If you compare two products with the same current feature set but one has an open roadmap and one has none - are you saying physical access to a roadmap would deter you from buying that product and instead buy a product that has no roadmap?
Agreed. I think people do tend to forget jQuery's primary use and greatness came from masking browser inconsistencies and exposing things that just weren't even possible with vanilla JS. Necessity for that type of thing has waned but someone coming into jQuery now or in the last couple years I could see the disdain if they weren't around when making your JS work in all browsers was ridiculously hard and time-consuming. It was a very, very good and useful segue tool that has run its course.
I've often wondered what would happen to the jobscape if employers spent more to keep people then they do to hire their replacement. If jumping ship was always a pay cut, what would that do to both the company and employees?
I disagree. Without getting to know the language you end up just memorizing commands which is akin to doing the same thing in school to pass a course but getting nothing out of it in the long run.
Seems like this should be directed at the particular packaged and not the ecosystem as a whole? I do feel the pain of "I just want to try this out" and it's assumed I have webpack and all the other tooling already setup to do so, though.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment as a whole as there's pretty consistent design patterns for things like routing, http requests and responses and user roles and permissions across many languages and frameworks both large and small. Your point holds when you start digging into more niche things (like form handling) but even if using frameworks you don't have to do any of that stuff if you choose not to - it's there if and when you need it. Things normalize because access patterns dictate that. Bucking that trend because your app doesn't need that _yet_ is a slippery slope that leads to exponential increase in time as your app gets more complicated since your framework lacks core features that you have to go back and build and risk breaking other things you've already built. If you abstracted that away to avoid that then you are already thinking like a framework, so what's the point?
I would tend to think if you built your own framework the right way you would end up looking a lot like... an existing framework. If you build it the wrong way then it would look like an interwoven mashup of code that you would have no remembrance of if you came back to it after a period of inactivity. If you are not confident you can do the former _in a production environment that isn't just a side project_ then I would argue that you shouldn't until you can.
Why is it that free speech extends to organizations? I'm all for free speech but outside of individuals and nonprofits I'm struggling to think of good reason it should extend to corporate entities.