7,692 karma · joined September 2, 2010
Anyway, as someone who's tried to learn to type on prototype hardware without a working backspace, I appreciate the feature :)
For the kind of typos that you would need to be watching the output to correct, it totally makes sense to batch those up sometimes.
I'll caution you against this thinking, in general. If you have a depression so severe it keeps you from seeking help, you're probably well aware that it's a matter of life and death. Even if you're not acutely suicidal, you live day to day just "running out the clock", hoping it doesn't get any worse before you die. The prospect of wealth or fame in your future is not only not enticing; it may well make you feel worse, as self-awareness of your inability to care reinforces your depression.
The idea that people who are not motivated by death will be motivated by money is, while not categorically false, surely fraught.
And John Carmack is working on it, and he probably doesn't care as much about OS X. Again, my point is that the constraint here is not the GPU, but Oculus engineering resources.
[] If you're still not convinced, let me point out that Oculus supports Android with a separate SDK.
Regardless of Oculus's sensible reasons for pursuing a one-platform strategy, you're talking about independent devs who have spent months or years building on a beta SDK only to be left hanging in the final runup to release. I'm confused why you're surprised.
Even with a 4GB 960, you might run into memory bandwidth issues, but without running the software I'm just speculating.
So to be completely fair, I'd break it up into two parts:
1) Given our current understanding of endocrinology, anything that alters the hormonal balance of children is probably not what you'd call a "good idea".
2) However, if something were to make the behavioral patterns of male children more closely resemble those of female children, that effect might not be bad for a society.
And I'll put forward, hesitantly, that the strong pushback against this idea has less to do with the obvious (1) and more to do with the deeply controversial (2).
Yeah, according to this wiki citation[0], the tie-ins were a bit ad-hoc but the game plot was actually finalized before the book was done, which accounts for the discrepancies. So there's no real way of knowing what started out as a game mechanic.
Worked out better than Splinter Cell, anyway-- I don't think I got through more than a page of the novelization. (Which wasn't written by Clancy, FWIW.)
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20010804114957/http://gamasutra....
I'd speculate that true appreciation for jargon comes more from multidisciplinary studies than anything else, so in any field the most passionate, least experienced members are likely to make a mess of things-- and if there's one thing the activist community has in surplus it's members with a high passion:experience ratio.
Having acknowledged that issue, I'm still reluctant to excuse anyone in this case, simply because we're talking about a term that doesn't have any other meaning. If you see a word you've never heard before, and think "I can probably figure out what this refers to based on its sounds" with Google sitting right there, naah, the problem isn't the jargon.
Edit: Like, seriously, would this happen if the word was "microclimate" or "microevolution"? Yeah, on the YouTube comments, but not usually on HN.
As for "Why would you want this?" For me, the straightforward answer is "modes are modular". A core concept in vim is that your input can be thought of as a string describing the edit you wish to make, and modes help me keep that manageable in my head: I can first think about the mode I plan to enter, and then separately what I plan to do under the constraints of that mode. It's a little hard to explain, and I'm sure acolytes of other paradigms have their own philosophies, but it fits in really well to my workflow.
It's a subtle thing in the limited world of text editing, but I definitely miss the semantics whenever I leave it, whether to a terminal or a browser or whatever. So for me, it comes down to wanting to bring the cost of task switching closer to what it is in the editor.
Great, and now you've edited so that I look like the crazy one...
I'll repay the same courtesy: Your argument is predicted and refuted by your sibling thread of twenty minutes ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501084
Microaggression is a term of jargon, as Google would have happily informed you. Its root word, not its synonym, is "aggression". Microaggressions are by definition not intended to hurt, or they would be, you know, aggressions.
That's an important concept, because it augments your theory of mind with this fact: There are things that you do, from time to time, that hurt other people in ways too small for them to complain about. For the most part, these things are random and not worth the effort to try to predict and avoid. And no one would ever call out one of these things as offensive, because taken individually, they aren't.
But certain individuals, and certain groups of people, are "randomly" subject to that sort of thing far more often than others. Your barely-hurtful word is a barely-wet raindrop in the ocean of hurt that defines their world. And certainly you can't do anything about their ocean, but maybe, sometimes, it could be worth your effort to not participate.
Basically, I'm not trying to give you rules to follow. I'm trying to suggest that the world does have patterns, and the way to relate to patterns is with rules. So please, make your own rules, but don't reject the whole idea-- or else live in a world you understand and fit in to a little bit less.
On the other hand, it's routinely frustrating when especially technical communities, full to bursting with misappropriations of common terms, seem especially unable to see past the letters in a word to its meaning in context. Maybe we just intrinsically don't believe that other areas of inquiry could be so complex as to need their own jargon...
But that message didn't even get past the firewall. Instead you decided to elaborately deconstruct what is probably the least presumptuous part of what I wrote, as a way to impute some contrived ulterior motive to me, as a way to not engage with what I was saying, at length.
I guess I don't see what you're hoping to get out of this interaction at this point. Like, okay, you don't need to think about how your words affect other people... if you really don't want to?
To roughly paraphrase: If "guy" means "man or woman", and "gal"[] means "woman", the two words we actually have are "person" and "woman". The implication of that should be unsettling to anyone who doesn't truly believe that women are a distinct group from the general, male, population.
[] Or whatever.
Microaggressions are insidious precisely because they're so innocuous; they let well-intentioned people participate unwittingly in systemic oppression that they would never consciously support.
If you're noticing yourself get a bit defensive about this idea, forget the word itself and just frame it like this:
You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. So when you're around people who have really different life experiences than you, how do you make sure you don't cause harm without meaning to?
Well, yeah, wouldn't you? I mean, the fact that you're being given a polygraph implies that your interrogator believes it has some effect that benefits them. And if you're completely convinced that that isn't true, meaning the human-with-polygraph is not more reliable than an unaided human, that still leaves the possibility that the human-with-polygraph is worse in a way that affects you.
If there's a possibility for the device to convince your interrogator that you're being deceptive, but you're honest, you're taking a risk unless you attempt to avoid causing a false positive. Conversely, if there's a possibility for the device to convince your interrogator that you're being truthful, and you're deceitful, you're missing out on an advantage unless you attempt to cause a false negative.
There's no case where your interrogator is better off, so your premise isn't invalidated; the polygraph itself is still bunk. But it's your interrogator's trust in it which has created a relative advantage for you if you play along.
The exact same applies if they show up with a "psychic", although it might be harder -- or easier -- to manipulate.
Congratulations on shipping a game. I mean it, that's real. I haven't done that. But stay humble.
It's a garbage-in, garbage-out scenario that is really, really hard to solve in software. And come on, why am I explaining this to you? Why are there zero compelling or realistic Wii/U sword games?
It also doesn't sound like you've put any thought into the challenge of simulating realistic swordplay as a generic engine that supports different historically accurate fighting styles, with all the nitty physics, kinematics, and for that matter historical issues to be dealt with.
But I don't know why I'm having to defend the concept that software costs money. I think I'll just quote Neal's apology:
"Members of the team made large personal contributions of time and money to the project before, during, and after the Kickstarter phase. Some members, when all is said and done, absorbed significant financial losses. I am one of them; that has been my way of taking responsibility for this. The team had considerable incentives--emotional and financial--to see CLANG move on to the next round of funding. They showed intense dedication and dogged focus that I think most of our backers would find moving if the whole story were told. I will forever be grateful to them. In the end, however, additional fundraising efforts failed and forced the team to cut their losses and disband in search of steady work." https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang/posts/9...
These were intelligent people, working with passion, on something hard. I'm glad your Kickstarter was a success, but maybe a little humility is called for.
[0] As in accelerometer+gyro, in general. It's fundamentally flawed, and you can't buy your way out of it with better parts.