usea

Disputing the claims that a self-interested party makes doesn't mean you think you're smarter than them. It's okay to disagree with people; even lawyers and rich people.

They need to do more than try to get things more legalized. They have to succeed. Or they get sued for breaking the law. If people don't agree that it should be legal, then oh well. That's the risk.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification.

Of people I see sitting at a computer, few are using them.

For everyone else, airpods far outnumber all other kinds of headphones combined. Whether it's the grocery store or an airport.

I can only speak to my experience. This is a subjective, bias-loaded anecdote. For example it could just be that they're newish, so I notice the novelty more. Or the design is easier to see. Etc etc.

Apple's reality distortion field could be the secret sauce that gets people to overcome many of the issues you described, and to purchase a VR product even if they don't make any sense to use.

Comparisons can be made between dissimilar things. The entire point of the comparison is that the cities are different.

Companies usually succeed due to the efforts of laborers, not managers or owners. Often, companies succeed despite management.

Not even public domain or CC0 is allowed. Your license absolutely must restrict the rights of others to be permissible.

Yes, they're not the same thing. First, the credentials were leaked. Then, the service was hacked using the leaked credentials. Afterwards, information obtained in the hack was leaked.

Different people enjoy different games. You're not alone in wanting turn-based games. Fortunately, these days games of all types are released by the bucket-load.

Steam has a turn-based tag to browse games of this type, and more granular tags for different sub-types such as turn-based strategy.

Here's a link to the steam store, turn-based games, new and trending: https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Turn-Based/?flavor=co... which includes some recent big releases like The Last Spell and Octopath Traveler 2.

Thank you. I was wrong, and I'm grateful for you taking the time to show me something.

I'm familiar with 2fa. It increases my risk and I'm not using it. I said I'm especially not using my phone. I did not say that 2fa = associating my mobile device.

The code I upload to github is not part of "the software supply chain". Adding 2fa makes it more likely that I will lose access to my account. There is no way I'm going to participate in this. I'm especially not giving github my phone number or in any way associating my mobile device with their website.

Hitting metrics or whatever else causes you to be successful in your organization is not the same as doing a good job. It is possible, for example, to get raises and promotions while ruining your company and destroying all value for your customers. It is also possible to be the only one delivering any value, while actively working against organizational goals. Management, or whoever else is defining success for you, is not infallible.

Intrinsic motivation is a real thing. You don't have to let your boss or your parents or your teachers tell you what it means to do a good job. You can decide for yourself.

People who just grab libraries from npm and don't take their imports seriously are not the ones delivering value in the places where I've worked. Far from it. Those are the people whose "work" you have to re-do weeks or months later because it didn't actually deliver value. Often times it doesn't work at all, never worked, never compiled, etc. But those people are long gone because they're busy being "successful" and moving on to other roles, creating negative value in other parts of the organization.

You say that only successful people know why their job exists, and unsuccessful people are blind to organizational value. In my experience, you couldn't be more wrong.

You can be a successful dev without doing a good job. Many people just want to do a good job and don't particularly care about being "successful."

It's not that your coworkers don't know you can get away with doing a bad job, it's that they're not motivated by the same things that you are.

It's true that in some contexts, throwing npm libraries at the wall to see what sticks is delivering organizational value. In many others, it's negative value.

People can run whatever software they want. They don't need your permission, or to know how to file a bug report, or whatever other bullshit you've dreamed up. They're also allowed to complain when a site is broken in their browser.

If you don't want to see unsophisticated complaints and bug reports, then you need to stop looking at them. Perhaps find a different profession/hobby where your user-hostile attitude actually benefits someone.

I don't really understand what you're saying. Clearly the results one produces with the software has value, but you say it's all "BS." Does that just mean you don't like it, or what? If someone asks me to produce some concept art for a project they've just started, and I write some prompts to produce that concept art, what is "BS" about the art I produced? What does gaining knowledge have to do with it?

Is Art Director just a "BS" job? I don't get it.

It's just software. It takes skill and labor to achieve the outputs you want. Is someone who uses photoshop all day not an artist? Or someone who writes text for a compiler not a programmer?

You've got a huge blind spot if you think prompt engineer isn't already a thing.

> How does a Big Tech company like Uber mishandle private data like email addresses? Presumably this action was not coordinated by the C-suite. Did some mid-level/low-level employee with access to the data actually steal and sell the addresses?

This is bizarre. You're giving them way too much credit. They're villains. Of course they're going to sell your data. They'd spit in your mother's face for a nickel.

I believe any bug that only happens under load is a concurrency bug by definition. The shared resource is the thing under load. If it weren't shared, then the load from one computation would have no effect on another.

Okay, but that's not what you said, nor what I commented about.

People are allowed to disapprove of the actions of FOSS devs and maintainers, and to post their disagreement online in places such as HN.

The lid was so they can concisely communicate to the average viewer that we're looking at components for a battery.

Yes, because the complaint is about it.

Gambling isn't fundamentally different whether you're sometimes getting back coins or chips or a collectible card. It's still dangerous and ensnares people, even when you're buying loot boxes in a video game or packs of pokemon cards.

There's a reason hasbro sells packs of random cards with rarities instead of selling an entire set of cards for a flat price. Because they can take advantage of people and hurt them to get more money.

Things can be news to people even if they've been stated in a legal document somewhere.

So in this hypothetical, the reason they want to push players into accepting better opening hands is because losing in such a way is no fun. So their strategy to teach players better behavior is to make them experience it more often and to a worse degree? Like a parent who makes their child smoke a whole carton of cigarettes because smoking is bad for you?

> Match making games are actually designed to keep successful players and teams from winning too much.

> MTGArena aggressively manipulates what kind of deck you will play against

> manipulates who goes first

> MTGArena also buries/floats cards.

> The shuffler also has a habit of giving duplicates of cards or making someone draw a duplicate of a card more often than "expected".

These are all falsehoods spread by people who are looking for something to blame after losing games. Seeing patterns that are not there.

You're posting conspiracy theories as if they're facts. There is no evidence to support these claims. Why would the developers spend money implementing such features just to make their players angry and dissatisfied? They can barely hold the game together as it is.

> and manipulates opening hands

This part is true, but only in a limited way in best-of-1.

It's more like email or irc. You downloaded a client, but you need a server to make your account on. Servers can come and go. If twitter or discord brings down their service, discord servers stop existing and the client stops working. If a mastodon instance stops existing, you can use the same client and connect to a different one. It's my understanding that currently your account and data will be lost in that case.

I'm talking about whether or not parents have ultimate authority over their children. Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Many parents truly believe it is their right to kill their child if they so choose, and that the state should not be able to intervene or punish them in such situations. "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it." You seem really optimistic about the kinds of behaviors and beliefs parents have. Parents are often abusive and -definitely- believe their children are their property to do with as they please. For real. This is the exact kind of thing the original comment was talking about.

If you want to replace "murder" with "beat" or "starve" or "sexually molest" or whatever else, feel free. Murder is not a special case. Parents do not have ultimate authority over their children. It can be easily seen through example in the real world.

> Except that what you're advocating for isn't intervention in just those cases. You're also advocating that the state intervene in cases where: the treatment is harmful to the child, and the well-educated parent knows it, but the state thinks it's for the best, and causes harm to the child. And you're justifying it by saying the parents shouldn't be allowed to murder their kid. Which is really weird logic.

I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. I'm simply saying that the state does not allow parents free reign to do whatever they want to their children, simply because they're parents. Murder is an obvious example, but the state also disallows lots of other things. If parents had ultimate authority over their children, the state could not allow or disallow anything, because they would have no say in the matter.