howrar

Oh, I see. You're clarifying why jonne thought this was the case, not arguing for why they're correct.

The article is about Google. Why does it matter that it's missing from the Alphabet handbook?

Personally, I can't use bookmarks because if they're out of sight, they get forgotten. Keeping things in an open tab is like having the browser constantly bugging me to remind me that I have to do this thing. It doesn't guarantee that it gets addressed in a timely manner, but with the alternative it's guaranteed to not be done at all.

It also helps to keep my place in my work. There's things that I'll always have open because I need quick access to them and don't want the friction of trying to find the page to lead to procrastination. Same with anything that's relevant to work in progress.

Had the same problem a few hours ago. It seems to be working now for me.

I have no interest in this game, so I wouldn't know how it actually affects gameplay. But do you not agree that this is shitty business practice? You have a game. Sell the game. If you want microtransactions, then produce extra art or something and sell that. You can even make the case that separating out parts of the game into various DLCs on launch is acceptable. You're at least charging for something of value that you created.

Implementing anti-cheat costs resources and makes the end result strictly worse. Now you want people to pay you to undo that? That's creating negative value. We want the economy to run on people creating positive value.

I think a more apt comparison is if you're renting out a place where every light switch is three-way with one switch near the light it controls and another in a closet with all the other light switches. You can control the ones in the closet for free, but the ones in a reasonable location are pay-per-use. The problem isn't that the features aren't available for free. It's that they poured resources into deliberately making things worse, then they charge you to undo that. Literally creating negative value.

That's ridiculously tiny, especially considering that the game itself is likely around 100GB. They could probably watermark every single copy that ever goes out.

I can't say I know anything about how they choose their beta testers, but if I were to guess, there is probably some kind of vetting process that includes looking at how reputable you are. It would take a long time to build up that reputation.

Have you found any of the former?

I envy all of you who have uncommon last names.

Some Willy Wonka experience thing in Glasgow. Entire event was AI generated apparently.

I don't see how it would be possible to completely replace programmers. The reason we have programming languages instead of using natural language is that the latter has ambiguities. If you start having to describe your software's behaviour in natural language, then one of three things can happen:

1. either this new natural programming language has to make assumptions about what you intend, and thus will only be capable of outputting a certain class of software (i.e. you can't actually create anything new),
2. or you need to learn a new way of describing things unambiguously, and now you're back to programming but with a new language,
3. or you spend forever going back and forth with the generator until it gives you the output you want, and this would take a lot longer to do than just having an experienced programmer write it.