4,278 karma · joined November 17, 2013
(I realize the irony in my typing this, that I appear to be saying Weinstein was responsible for something a number of people would argue a woman started, but hey. That's not what I'm saying, and you get my point and what I'm trying to say.)
Put another way, Susan didn't go after a high-profile leader directly. She went after systemic issues in a company. Weinstein, on the other hand, showed a lot of people that high-profile leaders are vulnerable to public attention, and that became a slightly different species of snowball. Both are cultural contributions.
Prowler is awesome against the Goliath. So, so good. In fact, I'd say the Prowler is the Goliath's main counter, and when I lasted ~15min at #1 in a Goliath, it was a skilled Prowler that finally started annoying me, made me start missing my deflects, and knocked me off my balance. I was thinking the Goliath is unnecessarily OP, but the Prowler handles it. (Smart Prowler pilots: go stalk Goliaths.) Might OP the Prowler, but making it shoot a spread like the Tornado might turn the Prowler into basically an instant-backstab Rogue. Now that I've typed that, yeah, that'd be OP, don't do that.
This game is heavily influenced by Subspace/Continuum, and it's fairly obvious. I could even tell which ship mapped to which fighter in this, and I appreciated how well my skill transferred. My main annoyance was that score drop. I maintained about a 5:1 KD across 500 kills and regularly flopped from #1 to #25 to #2 to #30, because the score you lose on death is a little imbalanced. A few deaths in a row and you can lose 10-15 places, which seems a little rapid. Maybe knock a little off that multiplier on death, but leave the killer's score gain alone? The only way to stay near the top is not die, which makes sense since it's called a bounty, I suppose. Still rough.
Other random feedback to the author: Inferno needs a buff. That speed penalty hurts and is a pretty rapid way to die -- I noticed I was avoiding it as I played. Most of the power-ups and abilities could stand to last quite a bit longer, too. And spawners could really use a lockout on shooting for the same duration as their protective shield; you can spawn in, immediately press spacebar, and probably get a kill on a surprised person who happened to float through where you pop up with no chance to avoid.
Great game, though, I didn't expect to get sucked into a browser game for three hours. I'll be playing it again.
Tip I didn't realize until a long way in: 1, 2, 3, 4 map to upgrades. I was the idiot using the mouse.
I would like to see a compiler/PL expert or a ML expert take on extending our knowledge of quantum mechanics or cosmology, though, since they’re apparently better at solving analytical problems than everyone else. Maybe Bryan Cantrill or Theo de Raadt can go team up with Stephen Hawking and we can finally explain dark matter conclusively. Programmers were all that was missing, it seems like.
Implying you’d probably miss it and, if not you, the customers they’re trying to reach.
It was a bad decision. Satoshi fucked up. Please stop justifying it as a community, I beg you. Now we are all paying for that incredibly stupid design, and any criticism is being bearish on cryptocurrency itself.
It’s an important learning experience. Decentralization made a brilliant engineer reach for a brute force hash, and what seemed to be a pedestrian decision while writing a paper now has gigawatt ramifications and a comment section advocating for alterations to world energy policy. Hold the paper another year and come up with something more reasonable and respectful of the world around you; there’s already other currencies attempting proof of work without plugging in a billion hair dryers around the world.
Now the cat’s out of the bag, so to speak, so let’s call it a cat. Bitcoin is one of the most inefficient, wasteful computing systems ever developed. It happens to produce value.
“We made this thing which consumes about as much energy as Serbia on an international scale, and is very likely in the running for the most expensive computation on the planet. It’s designed incredibly inefficiently to brute force through SHA2 in 30MW+ space heaters around the world because we believe centralization is Evil, but now that what it makes is valuable, we can deflect criticism of its energy consumption to the pricing of the electricity markets. Raise the price of energy to stop us. What’s that? A lot of people already can’t afford electricity?”
It’s OK to admit Bitcoin is inefficient.
Credit card verification withdrawals went through fine, still waiting on the bank account verification deposits to appear as pending with my bank. Same account as the card.
Verification seems to be struggling.
Wasn’t there some kind of prior art project set up to coordinate a large part of work like this? I seem to recall a big splash about crowdsourcing citations of prior art a few years ago, and now I’m wondering how this process and that are related. Was someone filing to challenge patents once enough people claimed prior art through that system or something?
Seems strange to make it so expensive to call bullshit, particularly since it sounds like the examiner erred on something so basic as the presence of an inductor.
As soon as I finished the paragraph, Kixeye popped into my head automatically. I will caveat that I'm very possibly wrong, but I'm just sharing my guess.
The copy that a business would send us rarely made air. I know, because I was often the person who rewrote it.
Example: At a talk radio station I worked at a number of years ago, we received a press release from a person who was protesting John McCain's policies in a very particular way. It was very positive, and spoke of his mission, and blah blah blah. We had no clue who this guy was, but it tipped us off to a great story; we didn't cover it in the news portion of our broadcast, but the talking heads that evening had a very good time pointing out how ridiculous it was.
This is how news works. PR helps a producer by bringing their attention to something, because let's face it, omniscience is not a trait of local news producers. The producer might help PR with a bit of coverage, or very likely doesn't. (The fax machine at a local newsroom is hilarious to watch.) The angle that gets covered is occasionally not what PR wants. This relationship is push and pull.
Keep in mind there is far more programming than Web programming in the world. It's important to keep that perspective when ruminating on programming at large, and based on the pieces you mentioned, it sounds like you're limiting yourself to that mindset. (That's OK.)
Define reputable.
> Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash system
http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org...
> Instant transactions for points-of-sale
http://web.archive.org/web/20130805223235/http://bitcoin.org...
(That verbiage lasted most of 2013, but was removed a couple days after this capture, presumably because payments were starting to become less "instant.")
> Bitcoin is a new payment system, independent from the traditional financial sector, and this could provide resilience to the economy in case of a crisis, as it creates a parallel payment system.
Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering, and Economics by Pedro Franco, 2010, pp. 26.
> You can purchase video games, gifts, books, servers, and alpaca socks. [...] Bitcoins are a great way for small businesses and freelancers to get noticed. It doesn't cost anything to start accepting them [...] and you'll get additional business from the Bitcoin economy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo
Bitcoin has literally been presented as a replacement for cash payments since day 1. I could go on, and on. That history is now being rewritten, and I think it’s important to understand why. Bitcoin set out to do one thing, is failing at that one thing, and I’m discouraged to see people rewrite the narrative rather than own it and say it didn’t work for that.
And you've mixed up your history: the research grants into the Internet were funded for that purpose, but it quickly morphed into an alternative usage once the new abilities were seen. Nobody went out and pulled out full page newspaper ads with that intent for its design, or otherwise heralded the Internet as such.
https://twitter.com/bitcoin_pizza
I’ve noticed this trend lately of rewriting what Bitcoin is for because I assure you, it was presented as the new cash for a long, long time. We were supposed to see Bitcoin ATMs and paying for daily sundries with Bitcoin. Then that became difficult, we are starting to see the brave adopters drop out of using it that way, and suddenly it’s an investment vehicle and store of value and nobody really buys anything with it and that’s been the intent all along.
People were saying those things for years because Bitcoin proponents were telling us. It’s not like people arrived at that conclusion erroneously.
Remember when APNIC got 1/8 from IANA and had to go test what would happen if they announced 1.2.3.4 to the Internet? Just because something has been done historically doesn't mean we need to ban it entirely from the future.
Yeah, uh, no.
So I hear, anyway...
This was a tough thread but I don’t carry any hard feelings. Nobody won, here. Let’s learn for next time, I owe you a beer, and best of luck (really).
Have you ever stopped and considered that perhaps some of your coworker’s behavior had nothing to do with the condition he claimed to have and that you’ve associated? I thought about responding that some of the things you described aren’t indicative or symptomatic, but inferred it’d be a waste of breath.
You’re wrong, and you’re so convinced I’m wrong on account of something I was brave enough to share, that we are never going to meet on this. You can’t position yourself as trying to help when you just say “typical borderline” to comments you think you understand — which your reply makes clear that you genuinely don’t. You bet I reacted emotionally. You’re generally indicting an entire group of people, including me, with completely wrong perceptions of a disorder you clearly do not understand.
You want me to explain my position? ‘Kay: Your comments make you sound like an asshole. I don’t think you are one. I’m trying to guide you to somewhere in the middle of that, with the added bonus of lightly educating you about a condition you think you know, and you’re resisting and turning it around on me like I’m pulling teeth and doubling down on practicing psychiatry with a flawed mental model for even understanding the people you’re talking to. And I’m coming from the disadvantage of everything I say being interpreted in that flawed mental framework of behavior, with the added irony of the person turning comments around being able to lean on that being a condition of my disorder to disregard what I’m saying even though I have a point.
Step 1: Avoid ever using the word “typical” about any behavior you observe in someone else and try listening, instead. Your conceptions of “typical” might be (and, in this case, are) wrong.
Step 2: Try reading my comments as if they’re someone you respect and admire speaking, someone who’s not a random who you’ve safely labeled in a box that you’ve built from past trauma.