If you're interested in doing anything with Minecraft where starting from the official client/server won't cut it, #mcdevs is the right place.
I have no idea about what the players want these days. The large-player-count servers I believe still use instancing and transferring players between servers to support those numbers.
The other hard part is the game's mechanics. You'd need a lot of careful game design to reign in the destructible nature of the game world and all its contents. Minecraft isn't about questing and loot, it's about construction, and if you're not leveraging this you might be better served by making your own game. Large servers typically address this with round-based deathmatch or deathmatch-like gameplay, not really what you seem to be interested in.
While there's no reason this is fundamentally impossible, there are several difficulties:
- Forge doesn't really have an API layer and expects devs to work directly against deobfuscated Minecraft code. Mods break every Minecraft version.
- Forge-level mods require cooperation from the client, beyond what the official client offers. Forge mods are structured so the same mod file runs on both clients and servers.
- Because of this, a server reimplementation providing Forge features must do one of three things: compromising on open-source by releasing a client mod, reimplementing the Minecraft client (hard, and hard to get people to use), or mods splitting in Forge-based client halves and new-API-based server halves (code duplication, hard to convince modders to not just use Forge).
"End to end" refers specifically to the two people involved - that is, nobody but the sender and recipient of a communication can read it. Twitter DMs happen over TLS, but they're not end-to-end - Twitter knows the content of the messages.
The site could just as easily serve you the resized image directly instead of an HTML page which will then embed the same resized image. I've already seen Imgur tell the difference between page visits and appearing in src="", so it wouldn't need to break anything.
This is a good choice of selectors, but I wonder what styles one should apply to <meta>, <script>, or <link> tags that will get them to actually display anything. Some fiddling in Firefox didn't reveal the solution.
GP means Visual Basic, probably as in the VB macros that you can write within Word/Excel/Access etc., in which there is surely a huge amount of code written by otherwise non-programmers.
A bit of both. Code still belongs in a class, not pictured here. `static` blocks are executed when the class is loaded and are usually used to fill `static final` members. In a toy example like this it's shorter than writing the `main()` incantation.
There are other differences, e.g. one might hope to escape off of a moving train or arrest its progress, both of which are nigh-impossible on a flying object, autonomous or not.
It's not specifically new technology that's being deliniated by "Moloch". The article is long but explains clearly the (not entirely new) association: Moloch represents the sacrifice of human values on the altar of competitiveness, and is best staved off through coordination.
While maybe literally true, "risk that you cannot understand" is a little overthreatening. Are you implying extrajudicial financial ruin, torture, murder? I doubt it, so what?
Maybe I read it differently, but it seems to me that GP us more concerned with the institutional bias and the attitude rather than anything relating to legal liability... the programmer is allowed to get away with believing that they are taking responsibility for the security of their code, but never feels any consequences for failure, and thus believes they are doing a good job when they are not.
This is doable today. Streams are mixed client-side. The downsides are compression (Opus at 96kbps is pretty good, though) and loss of audio mixing (echo cancellation, noise suppression) secret sauce, though this could definitely be reapplied. If this is worth money to you even with these downsides, hit me up.
Maybe I read it differently. When I read "the developer or any other specific entity", I don't think that the network users count as "specific entities"; they are other users of the software, and you have control over exactly who those people are. Neither the original developer of the software, nor any specific (i.e. predetermined, exact) entity must be communicated your modifications, only those you choose to put yourself in that situation with.
A communications platform is useless if its user base is small; who will you communicate with? People have some limit on the amount of different communication platforms they can participate in simultaneously. The number one way to get more people on your communications platform is to have lots of people on it already; the number two way is convincing people to use it (that is, marketing).
I'm gonna guess it's temporary; I get the impression GitHub likes to test its changes before it releases them (I've been seeing the announced license indicator for several days), and that probably goes extra for logged-out users.
I can't speak for GP, but I like to use single quotes for symbolic strings ('go_left', 'parent', 'alpha-campus', some_map['fixed_key']) and double quotes for textual strings ("An error occurred", "package/__main__.py").
I suppose it's up to interpretation; I got more of an "upper executive mismanagement" vibe, with which Edge of Tomorrow is consistent, than "crew vs filmmakers".
Few games actually need those admin priveleges: Windows since Vista has a feature called VirtualStore which maps underprivileged writes to Program Files to a location inside AppData (which is also where games and apps should save their non-user-facing runtime files - not in My Documents, which is an annoying antipattern).
Your point about patchers is salient - but I know that, say, Steam puts everything in Program Files and does not run itself or games as admin. Other games like League of Legends and World of Tanks work around the issue by installing outside Program Files.
YouTube goes above and beyond the law in favoring copyright holders. Historically, it doesn't take notices with any legal force to get videos removed or forcibly monetized, just an (often automated) entry in YouTube's system; an appeal against a copyright claim (whether fair use or pure bogus) is decided by the claimant; and (for a long time, but I think not anymore?) claimants kept the money earned while their claim was active, even if it was rescinded.
Your problem still seems to be with the sloppiness of the patent system, not patents themselves. Patents are meant to protect inventions, not ideas, and novel inventions are worth something.
MSYS2 (a Cygwin-based platform) does renaming, mapping colons to U+F03A from the Private Use Area (which renders in Explorer like a bullet point). Its git package cloned the repository from the article with no problem, "ls" shows "foo:bar", and "cat foo:bar" works. Opening the file in non-MSYS tools also has no problems with the exotic character.
I would think that non-techies would be even more confused and annoyed by their computer suddenly drastically changing out from underneath them without their permission.
While you might argue that "nefarious" is an overly serious descriptor, I don't think it's wholly inappropriate to think of a symbol intended as a warning as such.
Perhaps they are interested in defending against sniffing further along the line (ISP, backbone) or are just making the change as part of the general strategy to encourage HTTPS use? While I see your concern about inconveniencing smaller players, LetsEncrypt exists now, and there are definitely mid- and large-sized players that I would like to see pushed in the direction of HTTPS exclusivity.