“Bureaucracy” like finding the config option, running tests, and committing to source control would all build up to more than one minute if a human does it.

It’s extraordinarily common to underestimate how long easy things take though!

I totally believe it took less than ten minutes. I don’t believe it would take less than one.

the highest setting

This one. It means microwave it for a minute on the highest setting your microwave has.

It also reminds me of the nineties a bit, which was another time of rampant shovelware because of how cheap it was to produce a CD.

There were so many crappy discount games in the mid to late nineties that Wal Mart was selling them for under $5 at one point and you could get them in cereal boxes.

Something to keep in mind, is that it is not open source.

This is a distinction with embarrassingly little difference in this case. Such little difference it’s not worth mentioning in this way.

Their definition of “not open source” is that you are required by the license to put a logo of the engine before the game starts. This is actually not too different from “a copy of this license must be included…“ which is in most open source licenses.

The source is indeed open, the author just doesn’t know what that means.

I took it as he was saying “we want to make sure it doesn’t suck on console before we release it on PC, because console is traditionally our core market.”

If I remember correctly, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, this leaker created their own cryptocurrency to profit off of this.

So they’re referring to the cyberleek “coin” getting to a certain point and they’ll release the full game.

According to the website coinmarketcap, the current market cap of that coin is $3.8 million. So it has a ways to go.

Ah I also didn’t realize someone answered before me! My bad

“Apparently, if you lose your job, the chances of suddenly developing dementia increase. So right now, I’m reluctantly continuing to work because I’m afraid of dementia.

Wait until this guy finds out that hobbies reduce dementia!

The idea that you have to “reluctantly” work is an incorrect correlation.

I generally use programming to turn artistic concepts and countless hours into regret and failure in an ever increasing pile of abandoned projects. unique knowledge

I’ve been tired of hearing about this guy for over twenty years now.

He’s always been a douchebag, always spouting controversial things to get a pathetic little thrill.

And they think it’s part of it. They assume everyone who goes to prison deserves everything they get.

The cruelty is the point.

They’re lying about their “visitors,” like all of these shitty advertising websites do. Just take a look at one of their websites without a content blocker and you’ll see what I mean. The content doesn’t even display properly. You can’t even read the homepage of science blog dot com because the content overlaps.

attracted an average of 64.7 million visitors per month

that would make it one of the 30 most trafficked English-language media enterprises on the web, with a total digital readership substantially higher than that of NPR, narrowly besting CBS News and Forbes, and just slightly behind the Washington Post

Bullshit.

They’re conning people into believing they’re successful, but like many other “successful” web properties, they can just make up their number of visitors.

Out-group homogeneity has nothing to do with what I was talking about. In fact, what I said was the opposite. That even the in-group often thinks a lot of the content sucks.

I’m actually not sure you read anything that I wrote, but that’s ok!

This is an example of Sturgeon’s Law, which essentially states that “90% of everything is crap.”

Science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon was defending the merits of his genre, which many people considered full of crap in the 1950s.

It’s not a country or an anime issue, it’s a law of averages and a curation issue.

Neither of these directly apply to what I was clearly responding to, which was

Then it wouldn’t be free as in FOSS.

Which is factually incorrect and seems to imply a common misconception.

Since MIT an unrestrictive license, people can even sell your software. It’s even a short license and it’s easy to read.

The other software that might be referenced in your software is another story. But someone can sell your modifications with the MIT license. They don’t even have to ask.

“Free” in FOSS doesn’t mean free from cost. It means free to do what you want with it.

It does overlap often, but there are licenses that let you sell open source software, like the widely-used MIT license.

September 6th: “Programming is Art.” and it’s 100% upvotes.

Like, literally what the top comment on this post says.

Shameless.

If I asked an AI to write a text on the topic “Programming is art”, that thought process wouldn’t happen. I wouldn’t experience the same emotions that come with writing it myself. For me, writing is art that I pursue regardless of money. I think people who enjoy writing code feel the same way.

Huh. The turnaround given the top comment here is interesting.

It is. It’s craftsmanship.

Just because it’s digital doesn’t mean it can’t be done thoughtfully.

I’m pretty sure the only requirement of a thought-terminating cliche is that they are

intended to end an argument and bypass cognitive dissonance with a cliché rather than a point

It genuinely doesn’t matter what Heidegger’s human-tool gestalt says if people are using “it’s just a tool” as a thought-terminating cliche.

The reason it sounded like a thought-terminating cliche to me was this part of the article itself:

What this response seems to mean is the following:

• The technology being discussed has no bearing on the attitudes or ideologies of the person holding it: use or non-use is ideologically neutral.
• The technology being discussed can be effectively separated from the people using it: nothing can be inferred about a person from the technologies that they use.
• The technology is used fully consciously: you are always fully aware that you are using a technology and have complete volitional freedom to use a different technology at any time.
• The technology does not influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it: use of the technology doesn’t tend to encourage one course of action over another (“guns don’t kill people, people do”).

They’re describing aspects that are cliche and constructed to not have a point.

I think it’s because it’s tied to GTA.

I swear someone should study the delusions people put themselves under when a new GTA game comes out.

The media loves these games because they can generate content about the “controversies.” Organizations and stupid politicians love to point to it as a problem.

And, possibly an unpopular opinion, a lot of people tend to convince themselves the games are better than they are in reality.