We're not quite saying the same thing though because ...
It's not a 2 vs 3 issue. You can have an infinite number of instances of the same logic and it still not be a case for generalization because it's not actually general ... it's just an infinitely large program. You can also have two copies of the same code that should be reduced because they are general (e.g. you have the exact same algorithm for generating a UUID copied into two different spots). If you're thinking about it in terms of quantity you're already doing it wrong.
Brighter Shores! It's a new game by Andrew Gower on his new game engine (just came out last month).
It's a point and click game similar to RuneScape that's mostly a second screen game. It's in early access and a lot will probably change in the coming months based on feedback (they've already confirmed they're rethinking some of their combat design and adding action queuing).
Unlike RuneScape it's been designed out of the gate to provide people with a way to engage without sinking a ton of time. You can do fully offline training in this game, so you can be gaining XP while you sleep.
The game runs like a dream, has a very well done sound track, tastefully simplistic graphics, and just generally is a cozy/feel good MMO with light humor and puns.
No micro transactions, generous amount of free to play content, and a $6/mo subscription for all content.
The code in the article isn't complicated enough that I'd bother. It even ends up with about the same number of lines of code, hinting that you probably haven't simplified things much.
I think it's a good example of the problem though. People take that same idea and apply it too liberally. The point isn't that specific code, it's about not apply DRY to code that's coincidentally identical.
But otherwise, I disagree with the article. If it's complicated enough to bother abstracting the logic, the worst that can happen in the above situation is that you just duplicate that whole class once you discover that it's not the same. And if that never happens, you only have 1 copy to maintain.
That's... Not at all true in practice. What often happens with these "DRY" abstractions when they've been improperly applied is you end up with an inheritance hierarchy or a crazy template or some other thing. You're really lucky if you can just copy some code and find your way out of the weeds.
There are plenty of bad abstractions in the wild and novices applying DRY is a common source of them.
but we are mostly talking about a very low margin product and the volume of data that you'd need to retrieve and process to sift out anything useful would be massive and obvious so in general I think this is mostly conspiracy level thinking
Bold of you to assume they actually need to make money on these.
They also don't need to sort through data to be problematic; they just need to be able to be remotely disabled or remotely given the order to start sniffing if they are one of the higher end systems that would be used in major infrastructure (that could process at volume).
Sure a researcher could stumble upon something... But closed source, embedded deep in the hardware, etc the number of researchers working at that level is not all that high AFAIK. The research is also from my understanding very very difficult at that level. It would be borderline equivalent to reverse engineering the Intel remote management engine or something.
The examples you gave are all at the OS level and installing OpenWRT would fix them. The firmware/BIOS level is much more custom and can be susceptible to attacks the OS is completely unaware of (effectively pre-installed rootkits). Hence why I mentioned it may not be enough to install OpenWRT.
The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing; that's just it you're right.
There's no conspiracy where the left and right hand have carefully coordinated this system or conspiracy to protect companies from their legitimate competition. We're not saying this about Taiwan or European devices (even though many of them are better than the Chinese and American devices) and that's kind of "case and point" that it's about more than the economy.
Basically the politicians just screwed up and didn't think through their decisions and effects of trusting a foreign power to do all this manufacturing for important pieces of infrastructure that "think" ... and now there's a problem.
It's a good idea, but there's going to be firmware at lower levels (roughly the BIOS) that could still be compromised. It's best to just not buy Chinese hardware designed and manufactured by a Chinese company with no western involvement when you can avoid it.
If you really think this is just about economic competition, you're very wrong.
The FBI didn't recommend using encrypted messaging apps because our infrastructure being compromised is no biggie.
These are computers manufactured by and in a foreign country that's expressed mutual hostility to the US. Computers follow instructions and manufacturers are in the best positioning to add custom instructions like "if you receive this instruction, brick yourself."
After the cyber attacks in the last decade people should realize crypto scammers aren't the only one's that have an interest in shutting down important infrastructure.
I'll save you a read... A developer that worked on the game for a while but left the studio thinks they could've made the game with fewer loading screens even in their engine. That's pretty much it.
I don't know why your saying "okay what's their platform?" I'm criticizing Trump's shitty ones. If you legit didn't know, there were platform documents for the Democrats in both election cycles... there they are. Kamala's campaign itself did not really make much of a platform... It was mostly housing assistance IIRC.
Yeah, but they're way better at marketing that they're good for the economy. This election was lost (I'm convinced anyways) on the grounds that too many people thought Trump would be good for the economy.
I really want us to stop throwing the same candidates back at the wall over and over.
I do think Harris got the short end of the stick, elections internationally show a significant "we'll take the other guy" vote (regardless of who the other guy is). I wish the people voting paid a bit more attention to who "the other guy" is and what they're actually proposing.
I don't have nearly this distaste for the party's platform that you do; I actually really like it ... we just need to get enough people in office that they can actually legislate without having to caucus with Republicans or on the edge Democrats.
Honestly though, I think Sanders or AOC would get obliterated. They're beloved by progressives but this country is just not a country of progressives. I think the last election showed undeniably that the economy rules when it comes to US elections.
I mean, I wouldn't exactly call it smart either. Panic is pretty useless in situations where flight is not an option (in the flight or fight sense ... but it makes for a good pun too).
I think there are a lot fewer legit small doner organizations than there are large doner organizations that act on the behalf of the wealth and/or their respective cooperations.
Dark Arc @ Dark_Arc @social.packetloss.gg Posts 5Comments 2,032Joined 2 yr. ago
We're not quite saying the same thing though because ...
It's not a 2 vs 3 issue. You can have an infinite number of instances of the same logic and it still not be a case for generalization because it's not actually general ... it's just an infinitely large program. You can also have two copies of the same code that should be reduced because they are general (e.g. you have the exact same algorithm for generating a UUID copied into two different spots). If you're thinking about it in terms of quantity you're already doing it wrong.
It's not fixable by "just" copying something.
Those two points are really important points.