If a multiplayer-only game turns down official servers, and you can't self-host within the game, they should owe players a separate server binary they can run, or a partial refund for breaking the game. It should not be hard, especially if it's a known constraint when they develop the game.
If it doesn't work well without the Internet, it's a bad investment. Features that require the Internet degrading a bit is one thing, but if a toilet or toaster can't do its basic job offline, it was ewaste the second it rolled off the factory line.
The way Java is practically written, most of the overhead (read: inefficient slowdown) happens on load time, rather than in the middle of execution. The amount of speedup in hardware since the early 2000s has also definitely made programmers less worried about smaller inefficiencies.
Languages like Python or JavaScript have a lot more overhead while they're running, and are less well-suited to running a server that needs to respond quickly, but certainly can do the job well enough, if a bit worse compared to something like Java/C++/Rust. I suspect this is basically what they meant by Java being well-suited.
I've been using Cinnamon for most of the last decade, but switched to Gnome3 recently, heavily customized to work like Cinnamon. Basically because Wayland is finally stable enough to use.
If Cinnamon gets Wayland support working well, that's my choice. Otherwise I've got some Gnome3 configs that make it work pretty well, and I'd happily run it into the ground too.
The state of being old is a whole bunch of things that correlate with chronological age, but unless you know someone moving at relativistic speeds, chronological age is the only one we all move through at the same rate.
If you can hold on to the good bits of youth, like open-mindedness, and grow along dimensions like maturity, maybe youth doesn't need to be wasted on the young.
A crazy, washed-up former reality TV host running for a new term as president while in exile on the moon sounds like the plot of a fun sci-fi political thriller, but not a reality I want to live in.
It's good to understand why things have been done that way. Sometimes there's wisdom in the way things have been done, and lessons learned by people who paid real costs to learn them. Sometimes the reasoning is so bad that doing things differently for its own sake is a reasonable decision. You don't know unless you dig deeper, and not digging deeper on things that matter seems pretty dumb
two billionaires, unfathomably rich individuals, in the last ten years that having a good public image was overrated, but decided they'd rather use their platform to hurt people, and alienate anyone who liked them, but wasn't a raging bigot. is the allure of being mean to people on twitter.com that great?
if Musk had shut up just 5 years ago, he'd probably have more money, more respect, but somewhat less power. instead he's become the guy a lot of people are excited to see have a total breakdown, and hopefully lose everything.
There's an important distinction here: "is a good idea" is not "is the right way to do it". You can also keep kids off of dating apps by banning dating apps, banning children from the Internet, or even just banning children. All of those are horrible solutions, but they achieve the goal.
The goal should be to balance protecting kids with minimizing collateral damage. Forcing adults to hand over significant amounts of private data to prove their identity has the same basic fault as the hyperbolic examples, that it disregards the collateral damage side of the equation.
It's all about the implementation. The Washington bill is treating diet products as similar to alcohol (check ID in-store and on delivery), which seems fine to me.
The NY law seems to be suggesting that dating app services need to collect (and possibly retain) sensitive information on people, like identification, location data. That's troubling to me.
I think I basically agree with you and the author here. People applying technology have a responsibility to apply it in ways that are constructive, not harmful. Technology is a force multiplier, in that it makes it easy to achieve goals, in a value neutral sense.
But way too many people are applying technology in evil ways, extracting value instead of creating it, making things worse rather than better. It's an epidemic. Tech can make things better, and theoretically it should, but lately, it's hard to say it has, on the net.
n a normal administration I think you're right, but this isn't a normal administration. Officials who take an oath are sworn to uphold the constitution, not to follow orders from the president. Soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders, and DOJ attorneys have similar traditions.
If the president and top Justice department officials are knowingly and repeatedly ordering them to take actions that are clearly illegal, and are publicly known to be doing so.. they're not whistleblowers, they're conscientious objectors to a criminal enterprise being run openly by public officials.
But how many of them do you think put it away within a week of using it to make content? I would bet the ratio of people who possess one to people who will be disappointed is huge, assuming there are in fact disappointed users.
Fax is commonly used at least in the US because it has regulatory recognition as a secure means of transferring information, it's highly interoperable, and it doesn't really have a successor that has caused the network effect to die out entirely.
11% seems slightly higher than I'd expect, but not crazy. Contracts, medical records, interactions with the government are all good reasons to need to send or receive one occasionally. That about 1 in 10 households did last year? Makes some sense.
As an American, It's the cheapest place to get a variety of fruits, veggies, several types of cheese, coffee, and toilet paper, at least on average. The catch is just that you need to buy in large quantities. They definitely have fancy and expensive brands too, but I don't think they do as well here. They're also a really popular place to fuel up cars, because they're usually cheaper than the area around them, but sometimes up to 10% cheaper.
I guess that you need to drive a car there is also a catch, but I just moved to the second place I've ever lived that's within reasonable walking distance of a grocery store, so driving to get groceries is normal to me. I lived near an Aldi for a few years, which was awesome.
If a multiplayer-only game turns down official servers, and you can't self-host within the game, they should owe players a separate server binary they can run, or a partial refund for breaking the game. It should not be hard, especially if it's a known constraint when they develop the game.