CyberDildonics

Mad Max: Fury Road is wall to wall CG, compositing and everything in between.

https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual...

Having one way built into the language is like a language using a hash map for everything. It might be convenient when it works, but the idea that there is one best way is only a little better than people fumbling their way through it from scratch.

That's not how things work. It's literally an appeal to authority fallacy.

Why bother to an annoying troll?

That's dismissive, but you've had so many chances and instead of explaining anything you have to resort to insults.

My editor's job is to write headlines that will get people to read what I wrote.

So just admit it's a terrible headline, stop trying to play both sides and say it's fine while also taking no responsibility.

If you want to pin it on your editor, at least admit it's intentional low information clickbait 'journalism'.

If you don't want to admit that then explain how it isn't true.

You can't do any of these things after so many chances and your 'journalism' skills seem like all they have taught you is school yard insults.

None of this is true. If it was true you could explain how and why and you haven't explained any claim you made.

You display shock and anger

This never happened.

the notion that different people have different roles in which they do different work

You are hallucinating this as some sort of back peddle. It has nothing to do with anything.

Since you are a random angry shouty man

Seems like projection since all your posts are you getting upset instead of being able to back up anything you say.

I am not playing your childish game.

All you ever had to do was explain exactly why this isn't a purposely low information clickbait title and you can't. Instead you try to say there is nothing wrong, which you can't explain, and that it isn't your fault.

I think childish is making up hallucinations about things that don't matter and getting upset instead of giving evidence. I would think someone who "knows so much about publishing" would be able to explain themselves better than making the same claims with no evidence over and over. It's like you have never been challenged before and don't understand what's happening.

Yes.

It is not bad.

It is bad. Notice how you didn't give any reason that you can defend it, you just keep saying "nu uh", while also placing the blame on someone else.

It is bad because it contains no information on purpose, that's clickbait. Keeping as much information out of the title as possible.

The problem here is your lack of understanding,

If that were true you could explain it, but you haven't done any of that, you think you can just reply "No." without explanation.

your hostile confrontational attitude

Criticism with explanations and reasons behind it is not 'hostile and confrontational' just because you don't like it. This is projection, you getting upset over something you can't defend.

and in addition, apparently, poor reading comprehension.

Imagine calling someone 'hostile', then trying to just reply with variations of 'no, nope, nu uh' while flinging insults. The fact that you can't explain your opinion and for some reason think you don't have to while avoiding it with insults is very self righteous.

I've been both a reporter and an editor, and in some roles, combined both. I have done paid writing for nearly 20 different publications in Britain, Europe, America, and Australia, starting in 1995. This is standard industry practice.

A person, their resume and a lot of irrelevant information.

Both inductive and abductive reasoning would say that just because something hurts that doesn't mean that everything that hurts is that thing.

I don't know why you're having a meltdown trying to defend clickbait. That's what's really bizarre.

The first sentence of an article isn't the title and the title is wasted, it's just manipulative clickbait, but some people are so in love with it they defend it like it's part of their identity.

Not even a word from the title.

and kernels and risc-v

That's like writing an article about a world cup game and titling it "some guys, a ball and a field".

The Register editor doesn't need that refresher course you're offering after all.

I think you're hallucinating things that were never said.

Since you mention it though, this is journalism 101 taught in middle school english. You don't need a where on the internet, but there is no who, what and why.

So it's a bad low information title and you aren't defending it and know it's bad, or it's just fine to have a low information title? Seems like you're playing both sides here and not taking responsibility.

Have you thought about not using it?

Probably because lots of people are still selling software.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonh...

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-racism-election-...

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/27/nx-s1-5763863/hegseth-soldier...

Just because people don't like this doesn't mean it's not true.

This stuff is like expensive watches. If there was no one to show it off to there would be no one who would buy it.

Many interactive programs can be GetInput(); ChangeState(); DrawState();

Why wouldn't their lifetimes be isolated?

Also the drawing doesn't need a mutable reference.