Kushan

They don’t give you the answer, they give you a rough idea of where to look for the answer.

I’ve used them to generate chunks of boilerplate code that was 80% of what I needed, because I knew what I needed and wanted to save time.

I don’t think you can claim that the team behind concord is incompetent. I think they delivered something that nobody wanted but they delivered that competently.

I agree that incompetence generally doesn’t end up with a good product but sometimes even good competence all around doesn’t win. Sometimes it really is luck and timing.

Corporate meddling gets blamed for ruining things all the time but the truth few want to admit is that some amount of meddling is necessary.

Look at all the big flops Xbox has released over the last year - Redfall being a prime example. We kept hearing how Microsoft was happy to leave those studios to it, to give them the time and resources they needed and they still released dog shit.

When it comes to AAA, it’s so expensive you need some amount of corporate input to make sure people will actually buy the damn game.

Of course there’s extremes to both sides - pretty much anything Activision ever touched was ground to a lifeless micro transaction shell.

But everything we know about concord is trekking6 us that the team itself, including the big bosses, were overly positive internally. Nobody had the balls to interfere.

If they had just one exec who was willing to piss the entire team off, maybe the result would be different.

… Am I the only one who doesn’t have a problem calling it “peasant class”? It’s the kind of slang I’d use and I always fly economy.

I also had a colleague in the UK casually talking in the break room if she should buy a house or a horse because they were comparatively expensive.

This rhetoric that Mozilla is entirely dependent on Google to survive needs to die because it’s completely misleading.

Google is not the only company that will pay for that default search spot, they’re just the highest bidder and in the past, other companies have paid the fee (such as yahoo).

Google paid Apple literal billions for the same thing on iOS and nobody is claiming Apple is dependent on Google: both Mozilla and Apple are just happy to take Google’s money.

You don’t need some big conspiracy to explain what’s going on here when the real answer is surprisingly simple: Mozilla is poorly run and it’s leaders have repeatedly dropped the ball over and over.

Whoops 😅

I agree this is probably overall a good thing, but I worry if this bacteria thrives due to the amount of plastic around what that would mean for the amount of CO2 produced.

I fucking love wasting their time, I’ll keep them on the phone for hours and hours talking absolute nonsense.

For that chrome book like experience, the genuinely think Chrome OS flex is probably a better option for most people (privacy concerns not withstanding).

It’s not a joke.

Genuinely forgot Obama was in his 60’s, fuck I’d be glad to be that fit in my 40’s.

Ah I know what those are, that makes sense!

Thank you!

Non American here, I have no idea what these are but see them mentioned a lot - what are they? Are they crackers, sweets or biscuits?

People blame Google for the death of jabber because of one blog post from a disgruntled contributor but the truth is jabber was never popular and Google chat died as well.

Jabber was a mess, most of the clients were barely compatible with Each other and it was a wild west of feature support. Some clients were well featured with the ability to send richer messages, but typically only worked with a specific server and the same clients. Jabber did a crap job at making sure clients and servers interacted properly with each other and didn’t push the standards quickly enough, forcing clients to do their own thing.

Which is all Google did, they went their own way because nobody used jabber and the interoperability was causing more harm than good. It didn’t work, Google talk died and many years later clients like WhatsApp took over instead.

One that always stood out to me was the ending of the Tom Cruise war or the world’s movie.

Now to be clear, this is not a good film and I don’t recommend that anyone bothers to go watch it, but a criticism I regularly saw was that the ending was bad - the aliens all just die suddenly.

That was literally the only thing that film got right from the source material. They changed literally everything else in an attempt to modernise it, it didn’t work but they at least kept the ending and that’s the bit people didn’t like.

I think if you’re comparing open world games to open world games then yeah, BOTW doesn’t do anything too terribl differenty, but when you compare BOTW to other Zelda games then it’s very different and that’s where the criticism comes from.

Personally I feel BOTW is a very competent open world game, probably one of the better ones I’ve played but I still didn’t gel with it because I was already strongly feeling fatigued from too many games becoming open world and not making that leap particularly well (Mass Effect Andromeda and FFXV coming to mind for me personally), what I wanted was a more traditional Zelda game and that’s simply not what BOTW was.

I’m on the side of “automate it all and stop whining”, but I do think it’s important not to so readily dismiss the thoughts and opinions of those this directly affects in favour of the opinions of the security researchers pushing the change.

There are some legitimate issues with certain systems that aren’t easily automated today. The issue is with those systems needing to be modernised, but there isn’t a big push for that.

You should probably reflect on yourself a little, the guy you’re upset about was agreeing with you.