87 karma · joined April 23, 2012
We have services that don't ORMs and I have to wonder if it's worth the cost.
This whole "good outweighs the bad" is wrong.
1. Toxic people damage the company in general. Whether that be the reputation or culture. The consequences of their actions and words waste company resources.
2. They damage the productivity of others. Either indirectly or directly.
3. Most importantly: they hurt others. Nothing can outweigh the hurt they cause others.
If someone is known to be a toxic person (and currently still is), you do not let them on to your team. Ever.
Hot take: Delete your snapshot tests. Use Chromatic instead.
Regardless of this, this still sounds like a market inefficiency. I have not read the book (but I certainly will now), but I'm going to guess the author's response would be that while the assistant's job is necessary for the engineer to remain productive, it is still a bullshit job. What's needed instead is an automated service that handles this for the engineer at far less of a cost or less bullshit paperwork from government.
Whatever happened to purpose of prison being rehabilitation? I mean... they are called correctional facilities. Are we so far gone now that we think criminals are beyond redemption and change?
No argument there. Different design goals. But I still stand by quality of engineering that open source allows.
But the larger point I was trying to make is that all these studios are very secret about anti-cheat but they all seem to be fighting the same battle. Makes me wonder if the industry would be better off with cross-studio collaboration and open-sourcing anti-cheat libraries (that won't be defeated by knowing the details).
Seems to suggest they committed AWS credentials into source control?