vectorpush

I think VR will be a big success in the coming years, but I doubt it will make many inroads into music production and video editing. I've actually done a lot of music production and video editing work and the practical resolution on these devices is just nowhere close to where it needs to be to be worthwhile vs a multi-monitor setup. Of course the technology will get better, but it's a long way off with many technical hurdles on the horizon before substantially higher resolution systems will be viable.

It'll get there. It's a new technology and developers are still figuring out best practices as well as getting the hang of how to build quality experiences that will resonate with users. This process is further burdened by the fact that there's currently a bit of fragmentation among device capabilities (positional tracking, motion controls, "room scale") that heavily impact potential game design decisions. Not only that, but VR also has a slightly higher barrier to entry because 2d asset design is not an option (the relative simplicity of 2d game design has been a huge boon to the indi game community on every platform) as well as the fact that upfront hardware purchases are pretty much a must because it's impossible to emulate sophisticated VR features like motion controls etc.

> some of Podesta's emails were fucking weird

I don't think that necessarily qualifies as newsworthy. A "real journalist" would have read those e-mails, found them to be pretty weird, then did an investigation to determine if anything of merit could be uncovered before printing a story. If there were any journalists involved, the pizzagate story would have been a perfect example of "irresponsible journalism", i.e. projecting unfounded claims based on rabid speculation and "gut instincts", yet being unable to prove anything definitively.

> the fact pictures and video can be taken in real time, you can then come to a conclusion that is close to the truth.

Sure, but a live video stream of newsworthy events represents a minuscule fraction of social media "reporting" and isn't even really representative of journalism in general since it's usually just an ad-hoc video from a citizen who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Even then, the conclusions drawn from citizen videos are often extremely contentious either because they are incomplete or just poorly shot (perhaps with the videographer leaving their own hysterical or biased commentary as a narration of events)

> The MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant, social media and independent journalists who are on Twitter and various blogs are becoming more relevant.

I would hardly call this a fix. The MSM is certainly unreliable, but "twitter and various blogs" are even less so.

I didn't downvote you, but I'm guessing that a community of developers would be especially inclined to resent apologist rhetoric regarding a 70 million dollar software project that can only produce alpha software with no sign of being finished within the decade, especially because so many of us know what it's like to bust our asses on a tight schedule with limited funding.

I think the SC tech does seem impressive, but when compared to a game in a similar vein like Elite Dangerous, which took a lot of well-deserved heat for not quite meeting expectations, yet still managed to produce an overall fun game that engaged the community while it continues to improve, its hard not to feel like SC could be doing more to give the backers something other than tech demos.

An irradiated post-nuclear Earth is far more hospitable to life than Mars.

I have to admit that the world the movie depicts does seem quite prescient from today's perspective and the cinematography is excellent, especially those long single-shot scenes (and that particular scene towards the end of the film that other comments have alluded to), but I personally didn't find the movie to be as exceptional as others seem to. In particular I felt that the plot sort of meandered a bit throughout the middle section of the film and I also felt that the fertility pandemic theme was somewhat underutilized as a concept. Still, the movie is definitely worth a watch.

Navy SEALs are not superhuman. A single adult tiger would slaughter just about any unharmed human with near certainty, even a SEAL. Even armed with any weapon other than a firearm, the chances of besting a tiger and coming out without being maimed or mortally wounded is close to zero.

> Being rude to customers and coworkers will get you fired.

Being fired because you're rude to customers or coworkers is obviously not a free-speech issue, that is a "disruption to the work environment" issue.

> Being in the news for being a huge dick outside of work, like the ESPN reporter was (she was caught on camera berating a clerk) will get you fired.

Once again, not a free-speech issue. If your job is to represent an organization as a professional public figure and you tarnish your public image by acting like a dick in public, that is clearly a situation where you cannot do your job effectively and so it makes sense that you might be fired.

> You MUST own up and take responsibility for your actions. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility and accountability.

That's an oft repeated platitude that doesn't really add much to the discussion because just about everyone agrees with that statement. If one's actions are causing a disruption at work or bad publicity for one's employer, it's natural that those actions might jeopardize one's job. What I'm talking about is calling for someone to be fired after they say things you disagree with as punishment for saying those things; the distinction between that and the former is that the employer's actions can be justified without taking into account whether or not the employer agrees with the employees speech, at the end of the day if you're bad for business the employer is not obligated to endure the burden of your choices, however, when individuals seek to get others fired because they dislike their speech or ideas, that is antithetical to the notion of free speech.

I disagree. The cost of onboarding a new developer is negligible compared to the cost of picking the wrong stack for a project just because it might be the hippest tool at the time. An experienced programmer can pick up a new framework in a week or two tops and their ability to pick up the application code will have more to do with the quality and documentation of said code than anything else, but if you pick the wrong framework you'll be paying for it for the life of the project (or until you refactor with a new framework and write a blog post about why you decided to switch).

If the tools you're using cause your code to be inherently difficult to grok, then that is an engineering problem, but that has nothing to do with how fashionable the tool might be.

Threatening someone's livelihood based on their speech is about as antithetical to the idea of free speech as you can get (short of suggesting they should be arrested or killed for it).

It might be different in a situation where the speech reveals a critical incompetency for an important job (like a judge who suggests certain races deserve harsher punishments or an MD that suggests homeopathy is a viable alternative to chemotherapy etc), but in the general case, if we accept loss of livelihood as a consequence for uncomfortable speech it is a tacit endorsement of censorship.

Who cares? Fashion is not an engineering criteria, you shouldn't be factoring fashion into the question of whether or not a given tool is the right one for the job.

> A lot of the talk about it was "React is here to stay"

Unless Facebook has announced that they are abandoning React, this statement is as true as it ever was at any point in time.

There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideological boundaries. The criteria for obscenity on the left is sexism and bigotry, the criteria for obscenity on the right is blasphemy and criticism of traditions. If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech.

When it comes to the selective protection of free speech, accusing any particular side of hypocrisy only reveals the bias of your particular political perspective.

> Here we go again.

This type of rhetoric really irritates me. Here we go again, someone wrote some code and released it on the internet for free! How could someone do this to you? Excuse the caps, I'm not trying to be hostile, but this attitude really makes me want to scream:

DON'T USE IT!

> And now I'm thinking it's not good enough any more

This is your mistake. The fact that someone released their code on the internet for free has absolutely no bearing on the engineering quality of your existing code. You're suffering from a case of programmer vanity, it has nothing to do with JavaScript, it has to do with the fact that you're looking for problems to solve with this shiny new tool instead of looking for tools to solve a specific problem.

I could be wrong, but IMO, it most likely comes down to the fact that the admins happen to be human beings and these particular communities are just starting to grate on their nerves. Pages and pages of highly upvoted direct attacks rattled the CEO to the point where he thought it wasn't a completely insane idea to abuse his developer privileges to silently alter user content in an attempt to troll his critics. That is a pretty telling sign of frustration.

Whenever the admins make any changes, a certain sub-section of the site goes completely insane and spams the site with tons of threads about how the site is fucking terrible and how the admins are fucking idiots with the common thread among these rabblerousers being that they always happen to hate a particular group that is ruining the site and destroying the indomitable reddit free speech ethos.

Personally, I've always viewed reddit's approach to moderation as non-interventionist and not as something that necessarily enshrined the ideals of free-speech. That is to say, it all seemed more of a growth-hack than anything else; outsource moderation to individual communities and set a policy of non-intervention so that when people complain to the admins they can say something like "subreddits are owned and operated by users, don't complain to us", this formula scaled very nicely and reddit exploded into the behemoth it is today.

But now that reddit has become something of a cultural focal point on the internet, it's started to draw attention from the media at large and suddenly the operators felt a little embarrassed that they had to defend subreddits such as /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/jailbat, /r/niggers etc. So I imagine they just said "fuck it, it's more trouble than it's worth", and despite a month or two of banhammer-whack-a-mole with fuck-stupid-dictator-sjw-cunt-ellen-mao subreddits, the site continued to flourish, and all the free-speech purists finally woke up to the startling truth that reddit.com was really just an internet startup and not a platform to empower the oppressed masses...

Until they banned another subreddit.

Who cares? Reddit is a private company, they can set their own standards for moderation. For several years now I've seen this non-stop obsession with lambasting reddit as a shit-hole and a left-wing echo-chamber and a shit company run by amateurs and SJWs.

Who cares? The overwhelming majority of redditors subsist on photos of animals and drawings of video game characters. Just leave if reddit isn't friendly to your particular proclivities. If you hate fat people, liberals, feminists and BLM activists there are many places on the internet where you can find common cause.

While I agree with you that the democrats are wrong to be pushing this type of conspiracy stuff, I totally disagree that it wouldn't be "mainstreamed" if the tables were turned. Fox News is mainstream, Rush Limbaugh is mainstream; it's totally plausible to see this kind of nonsense being "mainstreamed" by the segments of the media that favor the narrative of the story.

> However, Blacks being racist against whites is an odd statement, like homeless people being classist against the rich.

I get what you're saying, but this just isn't a very pragmatic perspective. It's clear that white people have major hegemonic advantages over minority groups, but at the end of the day, the left (of which I am a part) needs to acknowledge and reject the damaging effect this kind of rhetoric has on racial discourse. As an extreme example, a statement like "fuck white people", is clearly racist regardless of who is saying it. It is difficult to fight racism if we give casual observers ammo to reject the left as hypocrites. This doesn't mean we have to pretend that the impact of racism affects all groups equally, but in order to see progress we must condemn hateful speech in all forms instead of dismissing it just because the speaker hails from a disadvantaged group.

I am an immense fan of BOTNS, it is perhaps the most cherished novel in my collection, several years after reading it I still haven't read another novel that has impacted me in a similar fashion (recommendations are welcome), however, while I don't object to your analysis of some of the book's themes, I think your connecting it to current political events is a pretty huge stretch and really only accurate in a somewhat superficial sense. Still, I can't say enough good things about that book so have an upvote.

I don't agree. He has nothing to gain by doing so and the general public has pretty favorable views on marijuana.

I'm not really sure what your point is. If OAuth integration is a requirement for your project then its your responsibility to test it across the platforms you intend to support and that's a universal truth no matter what development stack you're working with.

> Then you need to debugger your code, compiled code, sourcemap files, compiler, compiler options, the layer and layers of configuration JSON scripts and mobile browser.

This seems like you're deliberately trying to make things sound way more complicated than they actually are. If there is a bug in the code on a certain platform, you examine the bug on that platform and add the appropriate feature detection code to fix it. There is no need to debug the compiler and every other tool in your stack, it all compiles to javascript at the end of the day and assuming you're not running a minifier in development, 99% of platform specific bugs are readily apparent and almost certainly the developer's fault (i.e. not the tool's fault)

In what way is what I said presumptive?

I understand that, that's why I said "impeached AND forced to resign" :)

I agree with you, but I think she needs to be indicted if the e-mails prove her to be culpable. Ideally she will win the election, and if the e-mails prove damning she will be indicted and hopefully impeached and forced to resign, leaving Tim Kaine to finish off her term, which IMO would be the best case scenario for the country.

Many would argue that the events as they unfolded have actually vindicated their conspiracy theories by suggesting that Clinton has coerced Ecuador through treats or bribery. Personally, I think this is absurd but this is a common position.

edit: %s/treats/threats

What would a "new market" on Mars really look like? Living on Mars would be extremely harsh for the foreseeable future, inhabitants would be struggling just to meet their basic needs for many, many, generations and the life of a successful Martian entrepreneur (in terms of material wealth) would be comparable to an American pauper.

That seems like a somewhat entitled mindset. The job market is what it is and if you don't work hard to stay competitive then you'll fall behind, that's just the reality of a high paying desk job in today's economy. We'd all love to do rewarding work for great pay with a healthy work/life balance, but it's just a fact of life that this type of opportunity is not in abundant supply.