Any company that hides their documentation has an awful product that they are actually embarrassed about, from a tech perspective. They are hiding it because they are afraid to show it.
I've seen this so many times, and it's a big red flag.
These companies work on the basis of selling their product the old-fashioned way, directly to management with sales-people and business presentations and firm handshakes, and then once you're sold then developers (which management doesn't care about by the way) have to do the odious task of getting everything working against their terrible and illogical API. And when you need help implementing, then your single point of contact is one grumpy-ass old dev working in a basement somewhere (because they don't care about their own devs either) and he's terribly overstretched due to the number of other customers he's also trying to help, because their implementation is so shitty.
Conversely, public documentation is a great sign that companies took a developer-led approach to designing their solution, that it will be easy to implement, that they respect the devs within their own company, and they will also respect yours.
When I am asked to evaluate potential solutions for a problem, Public docs is like the number one thing I care about! It's just that significant.
Side story - I once worked with one of these shitty vendors, and learned from a tech guy I'd made friends with that the whole company was basically out of office on a company-paid beach holiday - EXCEPT for the dev team. Management, sales, marketing, finance, they all got a company trip, but the tech peeps had to stay at home. Tells you everything you need to know about their management attitude towards tech.
Ah, awesome. I just read through your comment and that makes a lot of sense.
I stand by my ideology, but your comment helps me appreciate the reality of that situation, and that if you are smoking or doing other non-alcohol things, you should probably keep that very much to yourself.
From the perspective of an attendee who is going completely 'cold turkey' on everything, I can see how even the idea of someone else using different substances could be offensive, because it could feel like it undermines the effort they are putting in, and is confrontational that you get to have this other vice, while they are doing it 'the hard way'
I dont really agree with that perspective, and in some ways it seems toxic in its own right, but I can understand why people would feel that way.
I assume you're asking the question on the basis of hypocrisy, I.e. "Is it hypocritical to smoke weed while you're an AA member?"
My take is that no, it wouldn't be.
People who are in AA are there because they struggle with alcohol addiction and they need community and support around that. And that's why you'd also be there too. There's nothing hypocritical about having other vices in your life aside from alcohol if those vices are not the source of your troubles. You can still attend in good faith for the right reasons.
I had similar thoughts when I first discovered Pop!_OS. Just the name alone gave me vibes of some Fisher-Price toy operating system like it was meant for children, all cringe happy-smiley.
But I honestly suggest you get over your aversion to the name, and give it a try. It's actually one of the most pleasant desktop experiences I've had with Linux, and it's especially a treat on bare metal. Looks great, runs great and everything just works, including steam gaming.
In a horse race, punters tend to spread bets across horses with no bias or favouritism - they place the bet because they want to make money, not because they are invested in the outcome.
In a political race, people bet for one team because they are ideologically aligned and want to show support.
If Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to gamble and place bets on their candidate, this creates market pressure and the odds for a Republican win will increase (I.e. get more likely) as a result of that.
Betting odds are influenced by other factors beyond the underlying probability, including behaviour of betters and where bets are placed.
Take horse racing. If a horse was given a 40% chance to win but lots of people start piling money on that horse rather than any others, this creates unbalanced risk for the bookmaker as bets on one outcome need to be balanced by bets on another to ensure the bookmaker makes money.
The bookmaker will respond to this by adjusting the odds of the popular horse upward to a higher probability, e.g. 60% And that can happen purely through market behaviour, even though nothing about the horse or the track or the race itself has changed!
So it could be that Trump is the genuine statistical favourite. But it could also be that Republicans are just more likely to gamble and place bets on their candidate than Democrats are.
You're welcome. And I just wish it was actually viable to drop Twitter/X. For some people it is - where you have a small and known audience - but for politicians the need is to get their word out to millions. They're sadly bound by where the userbase is.
Exactly, and that's why I expressed the sentiment that client anticheat is a poor solution. If you really really want to stop cheating, you have to do it on the infrastructure that you as the game developer have guaranteed and trusted control over, and that is the server.
Mmn yeah. I described it as a translation layer also, which is more accutate, but I used The Bad Word because more people have an understanding of what an 'emulator' is in common usage and it felt appropriate in this context.
I'm sure what Intel are doing right now is having both their tech people and their lawyers frantically explore any and every option which might let them get out of this.
Which is why there is radio silence, because they don't want to make any statement which admits liability, or even acknowledges the problem.
But yes, if the problem is real they had better suck it up and recall the whole lot.
The point here is that the anticheat solution needs to be written for a specific operating system because it runs "outside" the game in a privileged way to try and detect cheating.
So they have anticheat on Windows, and their own consoles will have a different anticheat system that is specific for the console OS.
Running games on Linux via Proton is effectively an emulation or translation layer, and the Windows-specific anticheat is not going to work with that.
If Sony wanted to provide multiplayer support on Linux they'd also have to provide a native Linux implementation of the whole game, rather than relying on Proton, which sadly not many publishers are doing at all. So its technically quite understandable why this isn't possible.
Now, personally I think client anticheat is garbage and they should not be depending on that as a solution anyway, but that's a separate argument!
To put this into real-example terms, when you buy something like a box of name-brand cereal, that will have the same barcode everywhere it is sold in the country, because it's literally printed on the box from the factory, and it is unique by manufacturer so there is no reason to change it.
But when you buy a head of broccoli, the product has come from lots of different farms, and if it has a barcode at all it would be applied by the store themselves when it's prepared for sale. This means Safeway would probably have a different product code for broccoli than Walmart does, but all Safeway stores would use the same for broccoli as they belong to the same chain.
Why solve something, when instead you can destroy it? 😼