ulkesh

This assessment is exactly what went through my brain when reading the list. It's great if it's fun for the author and their gaming partner, but I, for one, would never play this. It's way too ambiguous and adds chance in a game that is designed not to have chance in the game (aside from who plays white).

I'm probably an elitist board gaming snob, but I prefer games that have a lot of player agency and as little luck involved as possible. Chess, Go, Diplomacy (though you may lose some friends), and Scythe (which has some instances of luck, but has mitigation mechanics) all come to mind. Granted most popular games will have elements of luck because it can add to replay-ability.

I bought in at the beginning as well. But I didn't stick with it. I have other gaming platforms and while I love the idea of streaming games which can be run on virtually any hardware and operating system, it didn't feel as polished to me as simply booting up other options.

As with any other Google Service, they effectively put out a beta, charged for it, and hoped for a critical mass that never came.

It’s an interesting start, but it’s missing some pretty vital features the official Slack client has.

I get how development works and I understand needing funding to support development, but I’ll be holding off on this until there is at least a much closer feature parity.

I suppose I’m getting too old to beta test daily driver software.

For the most part, I agree.

But...

If the UX wasn't garbage I'd defend it, too. It has a lot of nice features and integrations. But the UX changes they have made in the recent past (few years-ish), made it worse, for me.

And, in my opinion, the reason some other company hasn't come along and toppled it: critical mass. It's the same reason Epic is king in the hospital IT world. The UI/UX can be garbage (and it's so much worse with Epic than with JIRA), but organizations will still stick with it, because it's what they know.

Yeah this has me a little concerned, but only a little at this time. The only reason I'm not feeling any major anxiety yet is due to the ubiquity of Spring libraries/frameworks/products. They're everywhere used by thousands of companies, so it would be unlikely that this acquisition would have any dramatic changes for Spring. Perhaps a change in ownership or governance will occur, but hopefully there will be little or no impact.

This is a pretty standard price for mechanical keyboards, whether pre-built or self-built. Hasn't really changed much in the last 5 or so years, that I am aware.

I do agree, though, that they do take advantage via FOMO or perceived elitism, to a degree, with such pricing.

Does Traefik or Caddy have UI-built-in support for Let's Encrypt? If not, then perhaps that makes this special. If so, then probably nothing else except a relatively user-friendly UI.

I’ve done that! But I also have 32GB RAM in my machine :)

I want 64 GB but I will say for my current needs, 32 GB is the sweet spot. My normal daily use is around 20GB. And it is a MacBook Pro. One day I’ll probably go back to a laptop running Linux. It is the fastest for code compilation in my experience.

I was replying to the whole 8GB is enough for typical development. Java is an extremely popular language to develop in and the IDEs alone eat up 2-4GB on their own.

By default a Java app will set its max heap size to 25% of RAM (Java 11 and above). While it may not use all of that, it’s likely to. So, by default, running two Java apps on Java 11 on 8GB of RAM has the likely potential of eating 4GB RAM. Then there’s the OS needs, browser needs, etc.

Clearly 8GB isn’t enough for such a developer. I’ve had this discussion countless times with people over the past two decades. It always ends the same — with people from both sides of the discussion shaking their heads.

The only claim that I feel anyone can make, given enough experience, is that RAM needs vary. So making a claim that N amount of RAM is enough for many or most will always be patently wrong in my view.

Let me introduce you to my friend Java.

> people that have legit-if-undesirable influence on the world

You can say Trump. Because that's what this buy-out is about. Musk can call it what he wants (free speech, transparency, etc), but his intention is clear to anyone with a brain -- unbanning Trump.

Once that happens, I'll be happily finding myself off of Twitter and any other platform that allows a "legit" (and proven) dangerous lying narcissist to find their way onto my browser again.

I'm concerned, but there's effectively nothing I can do about it. I vote based on issues mostly and also vote based on whether or not I feel the person or people are saying and doing what I want to see, for the public good.

Unfortunately, there is a severe education gap in the United States which allows conmen to gain political power. And until education can be properly addressed, and the people have a willingness to learn and critically think, this will only continue to get worse.

EDIT>> The point being, the uneducated allow themselves to be duped by said conmen on Twitter, their choice of news outlet, Facebook, etc. And voting is the only power that I, an educated, reasonable, and critically-thinking citizen, have to combat anything I am concerned about.

Because if we're being truthful, the issue at stake here is the fact that Musk is clearly a Republican who thinks there are free-speech issues at play with Twitter due to the silencing of Trump and others on that platform. I will disagree completely because Trump and those others who have been silenced from those platforms are quite free to create their own Twitter (and have) and work to gain a critical mass. It doesn't really matter, though, since almost every single social network on the planet is just an echo chamber of what people want to hear. But I, for one, have no interest in hearing lies being made with a very huge bullhorn such as Twitter -- no matter who it comes from.

If this deal is done, I will wait and see what Musk does. If he does what I expect him to do (unban everyone he agrees with politically, financially, etc. despite those who were banned for good reason), then I'll happily stop using Twitter. The good news for me, is that I have choice. While I cannot control what the other masses will do, I have control over what I will do. And very, very little will change in my life if I no longer use Twitter.

Because "series of tubes" and "series of pipes" are both a dumbed-down inaccuracy.

The Internet is a mesh of millions of computers that happen to be connected by wire or fiber optics or some other transmission medium. Fiber optic cables are the closest to "tubes" one could analogize, since it has a thing (light) being pushed through a cylindrical device, but it does a complete disservice to the technological advancements to dumb the whole of the Internet down to "series of tubes".

The attacks on Stephens were very justified in that as a leader of the committee, he should have been much more well-versed in the actual technologies used. He should have wanted to be more well-versed. And if lobbyists had that much pull and sway over him and what he "knows" and how he presents it, then the ridicule was even more justified.

You can try to sugar coat his ineptitude all you like with a plethora of excuses, but, in my opinion, he got what he deserved with the ridicule.

I just watched this video today. The Amiga truly was ahead of the curve and sadly I didn't get to participate in 80s and early 90s computing much (I had a Commodore Plus/4 but that was it). Even now, I find that there is so much more to learn about that era.

The 8-bit Guy, previously The iBookGuy, has an enormous amount of retro-tech information, including a whole series about the Commodore line of computers. And he developed his own game for various Commodore systems (and also an MS-DOS game).

A little bit about him: https://www.the8bitguy.com/8bit-guy-about/

Great content, well-presented, and regularly produced videos. I find I look forward to his videos every month.

Freedom of expression does not mean tolerating outright lies and bigotry and harm on a non-government-owned/controlled platform. So Trump, since you decided to not say his name for some reason, was rightly kicked off the platform after being warned numerous times about his policy violations.

It's funny how people seem to think that such freedoms extend beyond the boundary of government and into the private sector (publicly-traded company or not). They do not. They never have. Twitter can set whatever rules they wish and the chips may fall where they will, despite what @jack may say. You are free to choose a different platform to support.

But don't sit there and think that the "other side" is somehow oppressed because you simply disagree with the policies of Twitter.

Heh, clearly people think they know more than they do and accuse me of the same. No worries, I really couldn’t care less what others think of me. I know how my systems perform under multiple OS conditions and configurations, I’ve developed for every single OS natively, and I’ve yet to experience anything close to the multiple issues on windows with the subject matter I described on any other OS.

Keep fighting the fight, though! I mean it’s not like your favorite OS is going anywhere.

No, compilation is six times faster in Linux in almost every single language I’ve compiled using the exact same hardware setup. I/O in windows should have been solved with SSDs.

I’ve not yet heard or read anything actually good about NTFS as compared to Mac and Linux file systems. You’re quite the outlier in my 25 years of experience within the industry of all three OSes to state NTFS is awesome.

Everyone has their favorites, I base mine on experimental data. Clearly Linux is king with compilation time. Since that affects my business work in a multitude of ways, it will continue to be my choice of dev environment. Windows is horrendous for this. I’ve tried numerous times. And with all the same hardware, there are only two main issues: file system and I/O driver/kernel. If SSDs didn’t solve I/O for windows then I’ll concede the I/O is garbage, but I’m yet to be convinced NTFS doesn’t factor in.

Simply put: Windows needs a ground-up overhaul and to stop catering to the old win32/NTOS/NTFS model. But I don’t really intend nor expect to convince anyone.

> Use the tool that's best for your job. I don't bitch about my socket set being metric when I need SAE. At this point the differences are known and well understood.

Completely agreed, and clearly the author of the article did not understand the differences before their endeavor, or they are trying to make a point -- one in which we all already know.

One real strong opinion about Windows I have is the registry, which is at its core a flawed and archaic system. It tries to bring every setting and registered library into one single infrastructure and it has been the bane of developer existence for far too long. The registry needs to die. There is nothing the registry provides that can't be done simply within the sandbox of the application. And applications should be sandboxed.

And don't get me started about NTFS. I find it odd, that the author, who claims they are coming from Linux doesn't complain about just how godawful slow NTFS is. To me this is the most egregious Windows issue. Sure, NTFS works, but when it takes 3-4 minutes to compile the same code on the same language/compiler in Windows that takes 30 seconds or less to compile in Linux, clearly something is wrong. I simply cannot develop on Windows -- efficiency is completely lost.

So people with honorable intentions should be punished and have no recourse? Security through obscurity is not security. I know this is a complicated subject with numerous methods of acting on fraud, abuse, or even simple mistakes -- but I don't see any reason why more information about exactly why something is removed in an automated fashion is bad for the user or bad for the business; assuming, of course, that Google even care to support their product.

If they can automate flagging/removing content, they can automate providing relevant information to the posters of said content. I'm not suggesting they throw people at the problem and provide on-call personal support to everyone.

The only scaling issue my amateur brain can fathom is the manner in which the information is provided (data in a database then shown in a user interface, email notification, etc). And it's Google -- experts in AI, ML, data, and automation. Scaling sounds like an excuse, not a reason.

And the fact that he has to guess at what the problem may or may not be is the core of the issue here. A simple straightforward response clearly indicating why the content is removed is not so far-fetched an idea.

Yes, exactly. Hospital data is atrocious, on every single level. Duplicate data are everywhere across multiple systems. Hospitals move excruciatingly slow to do anything technical. And, very few people seem to ever have any real understanding of what is going on with their systems, they tend to only know the user interface and have to rely on their vendor support (Epic, Cerner, etc) for anything beyond that.

I work for a company that I was hoping would be such a disruption point for hospitals (at least in some small way), but instead they decided that it's just too difficult to get hospitals to do much of anything, so we effectively knuckle under -- creating numerous integration points, making more and more copies of data.

The only way this will change is if a large enough player creates direct competition in the EHR/EMR business, with these kinds of data-oriented models in mind, all the while creating a system that, top-to-bottom, is better for both the user, the administrator, and the technical staff. Current players in this space have very little incentive to make their products better. And it reminds me of a quote from Tron Legacy: "Given the prices we charge to students and schools, what sort of improvements have been made in Flynn... I mean, um, ENCOM OS-12?"..."This year we put a "12" on the box."

Ah, didn't know about that. The concepts seem to be very similar, though. In US Videotel at least, there was a community function in addition to the various other functions the system provided (stocks, weather, etc).

Thanks for the info!

I currently work for the person who helped start US Videotel and I still haven't scratched much of the surface about all of it with him. Everything about Minitel and US Videotel reminds me of what was depicted in seasons 2 and 3 of Halt and Catch Fire. I always wondered if Minitel was their inspiration for the Mutiny software.

> but they also have far more responsibility

This is relative. In my experience, many people in upper management have held little to no real responsibility because they were the types that if all goes right, it's their doing, but if anything goes wrong, it's the fault of someone below them. I find this more true for middle managers, but I have seen this with upper management numerous times.

Again in my experience, the higher in rank one achieves, the less real work they end up doing when compared to their subordinates. Delegating isn't that hard to do and takes very little time -- and there are some master class delegators out there.

That all being said, I do respect and love working for upper management who understand, who care, and who do as much as the rest of us. I currently work for such individuals and it's part of the reason I've stayed as long as I have.

I get paid well where I'm at right now. I live a pretty good life. I don't begrudge anyone who works for Google or any other tech giant, I simply set my own standards and I live by them. I find it is a waste of time for me to interview at places that try those kinds of gimmickry. And from what others are saying, it looks like Google doesn't do that anymore nor does it sound like it was widespread, so it may have been simply anecdotal accounts I remember reading.

Good to hear. They have done that in the past, though, I've read a few first-hand accounts of it (and sadly I cannot find them now so take it with a grain of salt, of course). Perhaps it was just early-days.

I ask tech questions in interviews as a litmus test (for any given concept) and it always relates directly to the work being done so they can get a feel of the kind of code they would be writing and maintaining.

As an example -- in my line of work, one task we perform is processing files, some small, some medium, some very large; and I wanted to make sure a candidate understood the concept of Maps in order to perform O(n) to create a map and O(1) to look up items (generally speaking, I'm sure it's not exactly that in practice), which aide in efficient processing (the age old processor vs memory tradeoff). This particular candidate got everything I asked immediately, and the interview was very short. The person was made an offer soon after and has gone on to learn what we've done, adapt, and also teach us some things that have made the software better.

And the moment candidates grok the concepts I'm after, I confirm that's what I was after, and move on, trying not to waste too much time on any given item. And if they don't get the concepts after a short while, I try to lead them there and see how they react (is it a lightbulb moment or a confusion moment, etc). These are all signs for me to determine if someone is right for the position.

Interviewing is a 2-way street of respect. The interviewer often has all the perceived power, but in my experience, a good interviewer eschews that perception right from the get-go and lets the interviewee know that this is more of a discussion than any kind of trickery or exam, even when it contains coding questions.

This is why I will never interview for Google or any other company that has multi-stage interviews and also employs time-wasteful, and sometimes esoteric, methods such as "How many jelly beans fit in a school bus?"

Thank you all for your replies. I suppose I was meaning battleships in modern day (since I assumed that's what was meant to what I was replying), but the historical context is interesting and relevant.

> (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today)

Citation? As it originally reads, the purpose as written is for the people to keep and bear arms for use within a well-regulated militia. The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1]. This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships.

[1] - https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...