zen928

this is a bit of a mischaracterization of what's being claimed in the post, all they were saying about binary sizes is that their updates have resulted in SMALLER binary sizes when compiling compared to the previous versions, i.e. they're noting an improvement. nowhere on this page nor any linked from it do they claim they make "small binaries" (that i can find! could be wrong), and you even had to click through their example dedicated to noting this improvement to find the 58mb number you keep mocking.

if you wanted to argue that point, I'd suggest you compare the other solutions that exist today to compile nodejs projects into single executable binaries to be able to have a discussion on why you consider their progress lacking. it's a reasonable point that disqualifies a lot of use cases for these types of tools, but I don't think the conversation was framed from that perspective.

That's because you aren't viewing it in the proper context and think that the result of the action is isolated. I can't honestly imagine that you couldn't come up with a single incentive for misinforming people on topics in such a way that would result in your own benefit.

Just curious, how would you describe the motivations of a stereotypical sleazy car salesman offering predatory loan rates: A hard working person doing what they need to do to survive, or a con artist trying to find more victims? Only one of those choices represents reality, and you should really be wary of anyone who would suggest the other choice.

> All this does is continue to kill any US believers in China and maybe rest of world that US is friendly and benevolent, that there is free trade, collaboration of commerce.

The collaboration was clearly being abused by the hostile neighboring nations that continue to threaten their sovereignty to the same effect as your argument though. It's unacceptable to wager an economic future in a climate that permits and turns a blind eye to the continued threatened safety of an independent nation that stems from an ignorant view on geographic entitlement. That is to say, other interested parties are learning an entirely different lesson from this exercise.

You're replacing a hypothetical situation meant to illustrustrate mathematics with something else. The monkeys don't eat, evolve, age, conspire, have agendas or agency, they type randomly as a means to invoke visual imagery of a monkey slamming it's hands down ignorantly on a typewriter. It's chaotic slamming is the "input" that gets eventually distributed in different ways, one of which, if given enough time, will be identical to shakespeare.

Assuming implications to theology or genetic sequencing where none were given is a reflection of your ability to handle rational discussion of the material.

Splitting from the experiences of others, I think the mentality somewhat comes down to your preference in what you seek to do in videogames and how you engage with them. In these types of sandbox building games, career developers naturally get somewhat of a "cheat" to becoming proficient quickly in that the mode of expressing logical sentiments will only ever be a few abstractions away from what you would do normally at your work, so you feel less constrained to building understanding of a system and can instead use the system as a way to output your ideas in a way faster than others might. In this sense, it's somewhat of a power fantasy that if you vs the average person were to play this game that you would most likely be able to clearly express your ideas and goals and be able to act on them, which makes it fun to go off the rails to show off "some crazy thing" you've made as a slight nod to your perceived skill being able to make these things.

Consequently, that's why I'm so disinterested in learning these games. The discussion about them shifts into a thin one layer abstraction for other people to try to brag about their accomplishments and what they self injected as their experience instead of the game itself. This doesn't affect the gameplay, but it affects my perception of the game as a shallow vehicle for attention seekers more than it promotes the ideas of fun gameplay.

That said, sometimes the style of gameplay resonates with a style of development you might have been interested in understanding more and can use it as a way to get motivation or inspiration for ideas. Automating pipelines, physics simulations, etc. I think it's always worth a shot on games that have notable recognition of quality to see if it jives with what you enjoy, but it's been the exception more than the rule in my case.

You're voluntarily talking past their point to lick boots and win an argument around a domain of knowledge that im sure you feel very confident in. The $31 'buy now' issue is a secondary point to the story that demonstrates some of namecheaps incompetence and sets up the situation for the main issue. I dont know why you're reading the rest of their story this way, but it reads that they were more than happy to continue the sale at the original price and didn't expect a finalized transaction at $31.

The main issue is misrepresenting errors on their side as legitimate transactions to communicate to the seller, which works exclusively to their advantage instead of acting as a neutral broker.

There should have never been any financial insight on the sellers side that they were willing to make a 125x markup because that misrepresents the reality of the situation: they were always willing to pay around the original listed price and saw the discounted moment as a suitable moment to act. In spite of this discount being their mistake, the poster still wanted to purchase at the original price. This then allowed them to misjudge the motivation of the customer and poison the sale by renegotiating to a higher price because of this perception, which they were never interested in doing. This also puts them in a strategically worse spot since some of their cards are now on the table.

It's interesting that you and your defending cheerleader down in the discussion chain are both one day old accounts exclusively spewing pro authoritarian pro trump rhetoric. It really does make it difficult to wonder if you have an antagonistic intention meant to push a narrative instead of trying to good faith contribute to the discussion ...

It may have helped your candidate avoid Hitler comparisons if he himself didn't bring up praise about Hitler. Not hard to see that it's bad optics.

Documentaries are a style of presentation that contain a directed, (usually) information-dense slice of a specific topic. It's an easy way to immediately engage in a topic in a manner that can present layman consumable information and establish context on potentially complicated subjects. It's one of many sources of information that should be supplemented with research based fact checking and information gathering.

There was no effort to dissuade further research yourself or to not engage with other mediums. I also don't believe they were supposing your only source of information should come from their casual suggestion. "I strongly suggest" you go ahead and link the research papers you've personally vetted like the poster above you trying to contribute to the discussion did that covers these topics indepth if you feel passionate about the lacking information.

I think the discussion point here is that game devs and artists create a visual language for communicating to the player on elements of the game and their importance, and from simplifying some elements to be the equivalent of a pointing flashing sign that it's a reflection of their opinion on the ability of the players to understand their mechanics vs their visual language/mechanic being flawed to begin with

if you were directed in the game to go towards paths that would have inaccessible content, then I don't think painting the ground yellow says anything other than "hey idiot, stop looking around, its over here!", which, to be fair, IS strictly better from a user experience perspective than to simply get stuck due to lacking indication or direction

in contemporary culture where being able to reason what could be served by linear algebra and what can't would allow you to make better decisions and have more understanding, requiring more exposure to linear algebra to positions of high authority doesn't seem like an unusual line of reasoning

surely the devils in the details on how it's implemented to have it be "actually" helpful, but I don't see a problem with the sentiment

Duly noted.

Framed differently, it sounds like the youtuber opportunisticially divulged some of their true thoughts on topics slowly over time that would have alienated members of their audience had they known who and what they were initially supporting. Pretty cowardly, but not an uncommon tactic amongst his similar peers.

In light of receiving new information that goes against your own tenants against poorly researched misinformation, changing your opinion isn't really a noteworthy response.

> Whenever this is brought up, the silence is deafening.

Because it's a bad faith argument meant to dismiss all context surrounding the situation to be a reductive 'gotcha' point. Anti consumer practices are still harmful even if people willingly opt into them, and there's no cute soliloquy for you to publicly muse onto us here that would be able to suggest otherwise to dissipate the sentiment.

Your parent poster commented on the nature of learned helplessness to an obvious problem by framing it as leading a horse to water. They were talking about people like you.

So you're saying what's "pretty clearly happening" is there's no way the "competitive incentive" is ignored in this "large under-served market" for any other reason than the specific "market power" interference caused by an advertising oligopoly? Do you then also think Musk purchased one of the largest advertising driven platforms on the planet without understanding this "pretty clear" outcome could happen from any controversial action? :)

After reading several posts above yours describing the level of effort and pain trying to use this scripting language and how multiple people in this thread avoid trying to use it as much as they can, then reading your small code sample, it's hard to not describe as a level of perception whiplash.

"why god why can't they just have for loops!?!?" and the problem was just ... knowing how to foreach over a range correctly? the idiom and language syntactical preference that python, a language older than java, has done for decades...?

Really trivializes every complaint and the assumed skill level of every person that I see in this thread complaining about gdscript to the absolute lowest level. Thanks for the post!

Why would you normally expect the most exclusive implication over the most inclusive when no other qualifying statements were given? The article title mentioned one branded camera and said it outsold all flagships. From only the words in title, where are you limiting the context to only Nikon products?

If someone said "Pepsi sodas are bad compared to all sodas" you're saying it would be normal to assume they're only referring and comparing to other Pepsico branded drinks?

> There is no planet where the opinion above represents "force."

How about one of the standard Merriam Webster definitions of force: (verb) "to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means" i.e. by framing their argument to compel by convincing it's from an intellectual standpoint. Not too interested on your hangups for definitions of basic words to be honest here though.

Throwing a tantrum about being unable to redirect outrage freely onto others while masquerading adding functionality to enable that discourse as an "already solved problem implemented by others" with lack of complying to their personal standards being perceived as refusing "enhancements" isn't a discussion, its an emotion driven stance attempting to make the other party look unreasonable.

Use the appropriate forum to debate topics in the manner you prefer instead of trying to force others to conform to your standards.

Following the trend on the level of care provided by overbooked veterinarian offices, an estimated bill greater than 1k would halt any procedure and ask for a signature and immediate upfront payment or to consider euthanasia as a humane alternative to being unable to afford services at your income level before continuing to provide care. If your injury is serious enough and you cant pay, your residency and citizenship will be immediately revoked and you'll be taken in as a ward of the state to then be forcibly euthanized with no representation from your former family or loved ones.

Payment plans are ofcourse intentionally excluded due to 'abuse of the system' for others who can't afford to pay.

The replying comment side stepped the discussion of error messages lacking context that could be easily remedied to be identifiable and the response was "it's in the manual". All error messages meant to be understood by humans should be in the manual at minimum, but what the replyer suggested by ignoring the conversation was "your issue with the error message isn't important because you can figure it out yourself". It's dismissive to respond to nuanced articulated opinions made in good faith with simplistic matter-of-fact answers that don't address the problem, which could easily be seen as a form of hostility in a place meant for discussion and engagement.

You could argue that's not their intent or that it's the case of direct wording than intentionally being curt, but this is the second post in the chain that dismisses the legitimate discussion with additional redress to make sure you let the poster know that it's their problem "punching at shadows" and that their problems are imagined. What a shameful display of lacking empathy.

Sour grapes from either their overbearing neck pain from staring at a 50 degree upward tilt to accommodate for their ugly fireplace mounting point, or from the seething hatred of being unable to fit it in their gaudy 400lb "entertainment center" wood furniture pieces that force them to compensate

I laugh every time I see a livingroom with all furniture focused toward a fireplace. It truly reminds me how holdovers from out-of-touch lifestyles two+ generations ago still dominate some norms of interior decoration. Larger screens are objectively better in every way if you have the space.

> you must also regulate the sort of vehicles ordinary people can buy and the sort of homes they can own.

Yep, we already do that. Vehicles and houses have to conform to a set of standards that provide security and safety measures for others, e.g. "Street legal" car restrictions, fire hazard safety requirements and building permit regulations and state codes that adhere to city guidelines, etc. Might need to include a few more talking points from the political pundit you're regurgitating views from for a better argument.

The top post was their historical recount about how the alt-right presence on 4chan and makes no specification or claims to maintaining this label for these groups of people in 2024, so this tirade seems like a nonsequitur. But don't worry, we have new names for these people now :)

Because we didn't want a markup language for hypertext to be the same construct we write blog posts / documentation / etc. in, we wanted consumable human-readable DSLs with no explicitly linked connotations to a browser engine (WYSIWYG renderers, markdown)

The compromise between functionality and convenience since then has been creating frameworks that do these types of post-build steps to give modern functionality (templating, search, accessability options, dynamic theming, reusable custom components, ...) without compromising that idea, while still allowing flexibility on the presentation. Some go too far in either direction and lose the intent, some barely need that flexibility at all and would better be served with pure html.

Yeah, it's a bit narrow minded to exclude the rest of the historical context while comparing two isolated points in time. Sure makes an entirely emotion-driven plea look initially more compelling and legitimate though! Good for you on sticking to your preferred form of discourse.

> I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal.

Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now, killing the planet's livable ecosystems while exclusively creating living spaces and amenities for these domestic pets and treating the nature they come from as second class? Tens to hundreds of thousands of unique species and subspecies go extinct at previously unrecorded rates, but selective breeding of vanity traits in pet animals remains a common past time. There's clearly an attachment to these animals and breeds that keeps them in our conscious above others to consider it worthwhile to hold them in public reverence in a way that can still be described as companionship.

We've flipped the needle on adapting them for survival companionship to (essentially) slaved ownership with the aftereffects like you've mentioned, but I think zooming in on the scale of an individual societies' treatment won't generally be favorable. We barely even treat our own species with a level of achievable compassion for anyone deemed undesirable or are a lower class, the betrayal starts earlier than our treatment towards dogs.

I think they're on track at a metaphorical level to follow the same consideration of racial diversity shown to their indigenous people, i.e. mass burying in unmarked graves instead of attempting to address the disparity. I guess it's better that it's not literal this time.

If you consider that >10 years ago there were blog posts talking about how hard the "FizzBuzz" question was to implement when asked in-person as a way to demonstrate how you approach solving problems, there's definitely a reasonable assertion that these types of interviewing methods help weed out applicants unable to write basic compound statements. Might not be the best way as a single pass/fail criterion though.

Because they did, this comment chain is somewhat of an attempt at revisionist history to try and make a connection that other games had "revelations" about AI more than it's a statement trying to accurately portray the situation.

It's worth noting here that most of these comments are missing that another dimension of the game that's completely absent which heavily influences decision making of normal gameplay: communication and progression from other lanes in the game. It's almost kind of a long running joke in the game that you'd laugh if someone asked you to 1v1 mid because it usually meant you beat them technically and they're grasping for straws to show superiority, despite how segmented and different from normal gameplay it is and how useless of a skill beating someone in such a constrained environment is.

To this point, there were better manually crafted "AI" bots that could team with eachother effectively at a higher level than the average player since the original custom map in 2003-2005. The breakthrough here IMO wasn't that it was actually making any novel decisionmaking but that it was able to perform at a high level and improve by conventional ML training, which I think is a separate callout than most of the stargazing done in the comments here.

I wouldn't say profeciency 1v1 mid (specifically the even MORE watered down rules applied here that you automatically lose after only 3 deaths or the tower is taken) translates accurately to anything in the original way you play the game unless your 1v1 matchup has a similar expectation of sitting parked in the lane, and even then it translates poorly. Sacrificing a death to kill a tower and spending all your gold so your effective loss is minimized is a legitimate trade, but in this fake constructed scenario the win/loss condition is already met. You approach the two entirely differently and more importantly, more simplisticly. That doesn't even address that some hero matchups have intentional designs to be weaker earlier in the game and/or are meant to participate in fights with multiple heroes or doing secondary objects and can't assert the same posture which goes completely unaddressed by this narrow slice of gameplay.

All that buildup to say that healing potions and staying in the lane have been a tenant of normal gameplay since it's conception, and the expectation has shifted from patch to patch. What was "discovered" here is that if you don't optimize for longer term gameplay like you would for a normal game and do the most you can to optimize for a narrow slice of early skirmishes, potions have a higher cost value effectiveness. Not sure anyone beside laymen to the game thought that was a revelation.

I don't want therapists to empathize and feel my emotions, I want them to sympathize and understand why I feel that way. You don't want doctors who have compromised their judgment by being in emotional states from self inflicted empathy when trying to treat people in a judgment free and rational way. Taking my feelings seriously as another input to the question of my mental state is different than feeling a personal empathetic connection with someone who is supposed to be their patient.