William

First off, I generally don’t worry about DRY until there are 3 instances, not 2. With only 2, it’s really easy to over-generalize or have a bad structure for the abstraction.

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.

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.

It’s one guy claiming people around him are happy about it. He doesn’t even say that he is personally excited about it.

Companies won’t hire someone that’s overqualified because the employee is very, very likely to leave again soon. It costs the company a ton of money and headache for very little benefit.

Any time I see the word “exclusive” I know it’s a crap article. Yes, your own writers only write for you. That’s not what “exclusive” was supposed to mean for journalism.

Being unable to come to an agreement isn’t “exclusive” news. No shit. It’s not even article-worthy.

To add to that last point, I worked for a company (at retail) that claimed to know that keeping customers was cheaper than getting new ones, and corporate even implemented a policy where the clerks on the floor had up to $100 to keep a customer happy. I never once saw that $100 used, and the one time I tried to keep a customer (who had just spent $3000) happy, management refused to let him return a crap $100 printer because he didn’t have the manual in the box. He had left it at home, and was glad to bring it in next time he was in. Nope. And that incident was within a week of implementing that system.

So even when a company understands that point, it’s still really hard to make good on it at the levels that it can matter.

Well, I’ll give it a shot.

Part of it is that they can’t know the point that someone is willing to stay vs leave, and they’re always optimizing for that point. Saving money is always the goal for expenses in a company.

Part of it is that they have a budget that they can’t exceed. Sometimes a person is overqualified for the job, and the job simply can’t afford them. Sometimes that person will stay far longer than they should, when they could get paid much better elsewhere, and sometimes they choose to move when they’re only slightly underpaid for their skills.

Part of it is that there is more to a job than money. Being comfortable, un-stressed, and generally happy is more important at some point than more money. The company tries to balance these things, as it’s often cheaper to relieve or prevent stress than pay someone to put up with it.

In the end, it’s super complicated, but all about money, on both sides.

First off, I think you’re absolutely right about your right to disable “this nonsense”. I support you in that.

But “this nonsense” is what makes games fun for me.

I’m not about struggling and finally overcoming.

I’m about having an adventure. It’s the interactive version of a book, where I engage my brain a bit more and explore or solve puzzles, instead of the book just telling me the answers immediately. I enjoy gun fights in games, but I don’t want to play them even twice. I want to win them and move on to more content. Losing a scenario doesn’t make me feel even better when I win. It just drags me down.

I have enough things in my life that I’ve accomplished by struggle that I don’t need it from games, too.

But again, if that’s what does it for you, I think you should have it, too. There’s no good reason you can’t disable it, IMO. (Other than the devs just not providing the option.)

Well, then there shouldn’t be any hesitation about signing up for the better protections for the actors then.

All we know is that the rumor is he was texting with someone underage and set up to meet them at a con. He’s admitted portions of that in his responses online, but nothing you can really pin down.

Amazon thought whatever he did on Twitch was bad enough to cut ties with him and pay him out.

No legal action has been taken, and he didn’t violate the contract, so Amazon had to pay him out to cut ties.

Do I think he’s awful? Yup, and I don’t support him at all.

But we know just about nothing, and we definitely don’t know any more than we knew months ago. Yet people are hanging on every word from the press like it’s news and not just rage-bait.

I realize I’m getting on in years, but “Skibidi Toilet movie by Michael Bay” really, really makes me feel old.

deleted by creator

I’m going to guess “no”.

I’m not great at art, but I’m a senior software developer and amateur woodworker.

A saw that gets you a mostly straight cut when you need a really straight one doesn’t help a ton. It might help you break things down faster so they’re more manageable, but that probably actually means more waste and not a ton of time savings.

Likewise, code “copilots” right now look great at first blush, but I’ve yet to have it produce any lengthy piece of code that was correct. I had one snippet that I thought was great at first glance, but by the time I was done I had modified every single line of code. Some were very subtly wrong in ways that would create weird bugs.

As for art, I think AI is great at expressing a feeling, but a final piece is about details. Having it produce something that you can modify doesn’t seem useful for most art workflows, and it’ll trip you up on tiny details that you don’t notice until later, or not at all. There have been plenty of artists tripped up by using AI for the base art and then modifying it, and the company has even published their work publicly, only to be found out by the public because of stupid AI things that slipped past. It saved them some time, but the work wasn’t perfect and it cost them their job.

Yeah. He deserves his success, and I’m happy to hear he’s doing good things for his customers… But this kind of reads like a slight on all the developers who release DLC for profit. The vast majority of companies don’t succeed this well on any game.

So I’m glad he’s said this, but I also don’t think poorly of devs who release for-profit DLC, either.

Asian RPGs have always used names from mythology and religion to name tons of their characters. Many of them bear only token resemblance to their original depictions, and rarely have anything at all to actually do with them other than some surface attributes like “ice” theme. It’s kind of hard to get up in arms about yet another one.

I don’t think so. It’s a pretty common style for things that are flashy but have no substance, especially video games. I don’t mind it much when I can quickly skip through it and speed-read it, but when it forces you to slow down (Genshin, Star Rail) or never shows part of the sentence if you’re going fast (ZZZ) then it makes the cutscenes almost intolerable.

I’m not surprised that it’s lagging behind the other 2. To me, it feels like Honkai Impact 3rd with a coat of Persona 5 paint on it. Everything is flashy and tries to seem complicated, but it’s dead simple so far. I imagine there’s some actual strategy to the combat later, but at lower levels, it’s painfully lame.

And the writing? Wordy as ever, and so pointless. Skipping through the text quickly makes you miss like 1/3 of it, even if you read super fast. It literally just never shows on the screen, hidden behind some scrolling text area or just not even put onscreen before advancing.

The weapons are all just balls with faces. They seem like children’s toys instead of useful items, and it’s hard to care about them beyond the stats.

I’m impressed they made even that $25 mil.

The only thing that has drawn me in so far is the daily video store thing, and I just thought to myself this morning: “Shouldn’t I just find a good store game instead?”

For bonus points, you’ll have to re-explain some of those things randomly to publish updates, which they now require about every 2 years or less or your game just disappears.

There are things that you shouldn’t do or say to minors that aren’t illegal, but anyone reading them would still know it’s it’s unethical/wrong/immoral/whatever. They clearly thought he crossed that line, enough that they’d rather fire him and take a chance on losing the court case for damages for breaking the contract. And then they lost that court case.

It clearly wasn’t just “a chat with a minor”. The rumors I’ve heard is that he was attempting to make plans to meet up with them at a convention. That would definitely be in the “big no no” category for a celebrity talking to a minor, even if nothing untoward was suggested in that conversation.

Because what he did wasn’t illegal. It was just wrong. They didn’t want anything to do with him any more, but he didn’t break the law and so they couldn’t use that part of the contract to terminate it.

They felt it was so wrong that they paid him $20mil to break that contract. They absolutely would have taken another option if it was viable.

I say to one of their neighbors, “their pies tasted better when they were using real sugar, but they’re scared the kids’ mommies will be mad because their kids are up all night so they just took the sugar out. Didn’t even replace it with anything. The Johnson’s still use real sugar, they don’t care.”

Actually, I would say that unless it impacts you negatively, you shouldn’t criticize what others are giving freely. If they ask for criticism, that’s fine. But you shouldn’t volunteer it.

That “free pie stand” didn’t do you wrong. You dumped a heap of negativity on them for something they did out of the goodness of their heart, spending their time, energy and hand-earned money on. And you were negative about it, staining their memory of that event for your own selfish desires.

If they had asked you, “why don’t you want this pie?” you could have answered, nicely. But they didn’t ask you.

Instead, you should have just left and gone to the Johnston’s pie stand instead.