ordinary

Women don't earn about 18% less than men (OECD median, 2008)[0] because a small minority of employers pay women almost nothing, but because the vast majority of employers pay women (or blacks, or handicapped people) slightly less. Just like laws that prohibit killing don't target psychopaths, laws that prohibit discrimination don't target the KKK; they (should) aim to change the societal norms that your average Joe McAverage conforms to. It's the distinction between institutionalized discrimination and the more intimate personal type.

_____

[0] The exact number is not really what's important here, but http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/57/40846335.pdf

The myth in "To understand C++, you must first learn C" is not that C and C++ are unrelated. The myth is that learning C helps you understand C++. The reality is that telling people to learn C first is an excellent way of getting them to write really bad C++ when they switch over to C++11.

    37. BEING BURNED UP IN UNPROTECTED RE-ENTRY (silly)

        Time: 
                probably a few minutes

        Available: 
                if you happen to be able to get into orbit

        Certainty: 
                about as certain as you can get!

        Notes: 
                Just go for a spacewalk in a low earth orbit, and
                decelerate enough to enter the atmosphere. You'll get a
                great view...

That said, there's a lot of information here that's very useful for the starting Elisp programmer.

(Unfortunately, the audio isn't great.)

This distinction between owning and licensing information didn't use to be necessary in the publisher's business model for popular culture, because the cost (and, equally importantly, the profit margin) of distribution was significant: authors made and continue to make far less than their publishers, with rare exceptions.

The cost of distribution of digital information is so low that consumers will do it for free (BitTorrent). And since the power of publishers primarily derives from their ability to distribute copies, that is what they attempt to preserve, even though they do a lot of other things that continue to be valuable in today's digital world, like financing and advertising. This (not entirely irrational) attempt to preserve a dated business model is in turn perceived by consumers as a clampdown on their rights, leading to a backlash to the established publishing industry and enabling the (so far limited) success of new services like Spotify and Netflix, which don't have to take into account any reconceived notions of what their business is. People associate licensing an ebook with buying a treebook, but they tend to associate streaming with borrowing a book in the library.

  function adder(x) {
    return function(y) {
      return x+y;
    };
  }

  var plusthree = adder(3);
  var plusnine = adder(9);

  plusthree(2); //  5
  plusnine(3)   // 12
  plusthree(4); //  7

Every time you call adder, a new closure is created, with its own version of x, so you don't have to do anything extra like creating an object to store it in. The language runtime takes care of all that boring stuff for you.

In an enlightened moment, (probably) Marc Andreessen proposed renaming LiveScript to JavaScript (despite the fact that the languages have very little in common), and joy was had. Sun got the JavaScript trademark (and passed it on to Oracle), and Netscape got a perpetual exclusive license to use it.

When JavaScript was standardized to avoid Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, Netscape refused to share its license, and so the official language was renamed to ECMAScript, after the standards body. When Sun was bought by Oracle, it also got the trademark, and presumably, Mozilla inherited the exclusive license from Netscape.

_____

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO1Wnu-xKoY#t=430

Even if it is natural, that doesn't mean it's desireable. That's just an appeal to nature.

While laws are an extreme method, they're routinely used to better ourselves, and even more often to better others. It's worked for (what we currently consider) undesireable behaviours like theft, smoking in public places, environmental pollution, seatbelt wearing, illegal parking, murder, and looking funny at cops. That's a pretty varied list, so why wouldn't it work for sexual objectification? I don't think we should use such a drastic approach, but it's not ridiculous, either.

_____

* Cowardly assuming we're all in the West.

That's because the people who think objectification of women is bad tend to also think objectification of men is bad. Those people don't want to live in a world of ubiquitous or or even just balanced objectification; they want to live in a world with none.

If you had a video of your attempt, or at least a screenshot of the ending screen, you would be either the #3 (if it was 3-draw) or the #7 (1-draw) Windows 95 Solitaire player in the world.

I agree with your point on maps. Diablo 2's focus on bosses over general farming was one of its weak points. The map structure would've been more important if Blizzard had made boss runs and general farming rewarding in distinct ways.

There are other things that I feel Diablo 3 did wrong, but my comment was getting dangerously long as it was: lack of build permanence (you touched on this), non-existent social features (slightly improved in the expansion), uninspired items (less so since the expansion) and badly tuned reward structure (I appear to be alone in feeling the expansion has not improved this aspect).

In Diablo 2, areas were randomized internally but externally consistent: the individual makeup of areas would be different every game, but the connections between different areas would remain the same.[1] This means that repeatedly exploring the same area remains entertaining for a relatively long time in Diablo 2. This is important, because as you say, items have a higher chance of dropping from certain monsters than from others. If you "have to" keep farming the same area over and over, it helps prevent boredom if that map is different every time.

In Diablo 3, the internal layout for each outdoor area is always the same, and even indoor areas are relatively static, compared to Diablo 2's. After a while, you know the best way to maximize efficiency, which encourages people to repeatedly farm one area, but this is a double edged sword: once you know what the most profitable way of playing the game is, playing any other is much less attractive. This actually reduces the range of (rational) possible actions in the game, inducing boredom more quickly. In addition, some of the best areas to farm in Diablo 3 are the dungeons. These are (smaller and optional) sub-levels within areas. Each area had fixed dungeons in Diablo 2. In Diablo 3 areas can often spawn 5 or 6 different special events, while it has only 2 or 3 (fixed, just like the areas themselves) spots for such events. This adds another layer of randomization: you need to be lucky twice: once to find the dungeon and once again to find the item in the dungeon.[2]

Something else that changed between Diablo 2 and 3 is the way item affixes are randomized. In both games, magical items can spawn with certain properties, and those properties have stat ranges. You might find a Short Sword with the Red prefix, giving +1 or +2 damage. In Diablo 2, the best items (Uniques, Sets and Runewords) had fixed affixes with random stat ranges: you might find a Tyrael's Might with anything between +20 Str and +30 Str (in addition to have a dozen other affixes), but that it would get a significant +Str roll was guaranteed. Even the worst Tyrael's Might was a great find. Relatively casual players would be happy with any stat rolls, while true Diablo 2 addicts would make do with nothing less than a +30 roll. Such a perfect roll could (and still can) increase the value of an item by a factor of 10 to 1000+,[3] even if the objective difference between a random roll and a perfect roll is fairly small in the grand scheme of things.

In Diablo 3, this was thrown out the window. Legendary and Set items get some fixed affixes, but even if you got the best item in the game and perfect rolls on the fixed affixes, you still need 1-3 other affixes to get a genuinely good item. In addition, the stat ranges were much wider. Immortal King's Tribal Binding could get +30 or +200 Str, and with the right random affix, all the way to +300 Str.[4] This makes the relation between gear cost and power fairly linear. You might have to find half a dozen Tribal Bindings before you got one worth using. In addition to finding the dungeon, and then the item, you also need to get good affixes on the item, then get good rolls on your affixes. Finally, in some slots, the best items in the game were not Legendaries, with their half-random setup, but Rares, with fully random affixes, which instead of 1-3 good affixes, need 5 or 6. It is no wonder then that players were unable to find their own items, and were forced to turn to an auction house, where they were primarily supplied by bots and gold farmers (unknowingly, but still).

Blizzard tried to address some of these issues in the Reaper of Souls expansion. Here's a few examples relating to the above points:

* Enchanting was added: allows you to replace one of each item's affixes with a different one (only one affix per item, but you can repeatedly change the same affix until you get one you like), reducing the impact of random affixes.

* Rifts were introduced: random dungeons with random monsters and a random boss at the end, which are generally slightly more efficient than just farming normal areas.

* The auction house was removed, reducing the impact of bots and farmers, allowing an increase in the drop rate. Trading in general was removed as well, making it impossible to turn to third-party trading sites (as was common in Diablo 2).

* The stat ranges on affixes were reduced, lessening the dependence on highly random items. Many Legendary items got unique Legendary-only affixes that (when combined in clever ways) make them far better than fully random Rare items.

Overall, this has significantly improved the game, but having played Diablo 2, Diablo 3 and Diablo 3 after the Reaper of Souls expansion, I can't help but feel like these are in the end just patches on a fundamentally flawed design, and that some of those patches actively prevent it from becoming better. Diablo 2, on release, was a bad implementation of a great design. This allowed it to be improved over the course of almost a decade (sporadically by modern standards, but impressive at the time). Diablo 3, on release, was a mediocre implementation of a bad design. Blizzard improved the implementation (at significant cost, to the point of forcing them to postpone the expansion), and details of the design, but it is still only a good implementation of a mediocre design, and improving it much further strikes me as uneconomical, to put it mildly.

_____

[1] For example: http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/maps/act1.shtml

[2] It's worth pointing out the two different types of randomization in games. One is the type the player can influence, like which area to farm and whether to play solo or in groups. The other is forced upon players, like what affixes your drops have or whether a dungeon spawns in a given area. Players tolerate the latter to much higher degree than the former.

[3] Filled with jargon, but: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=59979863&f=52. Look at Hellfire Torches for a typical desireable item, and Black Hades for an extreme example.

[4] These are the post-expansion stats, but it illustrates the principle, which is much reduced, but still very much alive: https://us.battle.net/d3/en/item/immortal-kings-tribal-bindi....

Same for the 10: Adding up the space between the characters (2.3m), the width of the 1 (0.8m, just the vertical line) and the width of the 0 (3m) gives us 6.1m, yet the outside measurement is 6.0m.

Am I missing something?