silentmars

Howdy, I posted this and also run Sauerworld, the community news and resources site for Cube 2: Sauerbraten.

As others have helpfully pointed out, Sauerbraten is an open source Quake-like arena FPS. It's been around for years, and this is this first major release since 2013.

The community is still quite active, and there's been a particular hubbub of activity preparing for this new release. It's a super fun game if you're into arena FPS with lots of opportunities for tinkering, modding, and freeform content creation through its fairly unique online map editor.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and there's also the community discord server: https://discord.gg/j3kyxtj

This sounds more psychotic than hypocritical to me. "I'll win in a fight", is this a normal way of thinking? I'm a US citizen and I can honestly say this thought has never crossed my mind while driving. My thought when passing a cyclist is to make sure I'm giving them enough room and hope I'm not doing anything to make them fearful. I thought most people were this way, and it seems obvious to me that it's the right way to act. How prevalent is this other, "I'll win in a fight" attitude?

I'm not surprised at all. My observation has been that teachers - even ones who are brilliantly good as teachers - are abysmal PowerPoint users. Every one I've seen has made the same kind of mistakes:

  - Way too many slides for the time available
  - Numerous slides that with both paragraphs of text and elaborate diagrams
  - Slides that cannot be read at all by the audience because everything is too small
  - Reading verbatim from slides in the presentation
  - A firehouse of information that is impossible to remember or even follow
  - Zero narrative flow, no sense of what are key points

You're not in it to win it anymore. Get out while the getting is good, relax a bit, prepare for your next shot.

So what? It sounds like you are using this argument to excuse companies whose practices are causing workplace injury.

Let me put this into terms that you might better relate to.

To a person with kids, being lectured about the right choices to make in their lives with regards to their kids by someone without kids is much like being an engineer forced to endure the ignorant suggestions and misguided directives of a clueless non-technical manager.

What? How do you suppose this surveillance will be conducted?

It sounds to me like you are proposing that we solve the problem of individual companies having to hire some people to look at bad things by having the government hire a whole bunch of people to look at bad things.

Obviously you have no kids and no interest in persuading anyone who does, to be throwing around this "failed parent" talk for anyone raising a child with special needs.

Which of the following seems more likely?

A recruiter who was already giving the guy the wrong interview, and whose job revolves essentially around HR and sales, made mistakes in asking a series of technical questions.

An expert with decades of relevant technical experience misunderstands and confuses basic networking and system topics.

A bit OT and I hate to be a pest... but can you guys please start offering laptops with more than 1080p displays? It's almost Kafka-esque that my phone has 77% more pixels than a $2,500 graphics workstation laptop.

21:40. He mentions in the video that they had a one-producer, one-consumer input queue that they originally implemented with clojure.lang.PersistentQueue. They engaged Cognitect for some code review/consulting, and Cognitect's advice was to use a regular Java ConcurrentLinkedQueue for this instead.

I think this particular example supports this "Cognitect snake oil" theory very poorly. I don't think PersistentQueue can be properly considered a first-class data structure in Clojure, as it doesn't even have a constructor function in clojure.core. The Clojure documentation, and the other writings of Rich Hickey and Cognitect don't encourage people to use this data structure. It exists, I think, for completeness and because there are some situations where it's appropriate, but unlike the core Clojure persistent data structures - maps, vectors, seqs, etc. - it's not designed as a general abstraction that covers the vast majority of general use cases.

Clojure is meant to be a practical language. It's hosted on the JVM and other platforms, and designed to make it is easy to use what those platforms provide. Where it's sensible to do so, Cognitect and other Clojure developers would certainly advocate using Java libraries to solve problems.

The other thing mentioned in the GP post was the idea of not using STM. This falls under the same umbrella. There are problems for which STM is the best solution, but there's a big space where something simpler is the right answer. In my observation, overuse of Clojure's STM is far more often the result of a developer impulse of "wow this is a cool looking feature, I want to try it" than any advocacy by Rich or Cognitect.

I also have some firsthand knowledge here, having been involved in a Cognitect engagement. I have some concerns about Cognitect as a result, but certainly nothing like this suggestion that Clojure is a real manifestation of the old fake Bjarne Stroustrup interview. [1]

[1] https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/cpp.htm

Restarting is different from reloading. Take a look at `clojure.tools.namespace.repl/refresh` - which in recent versions of CIDER is triggered with `cider-refresh`. It does what you're asking - blows away all the loaded namespaces and re-compiles them from source, synching up the running code environment with what's in your source files.

This article describes some seriously clueless agile practices.

A massive reorg and restructuring dictated from the top to enable agile, a bottom-up methodology.

They dictate that everyone must do Scrum - even support departments for which it's laughably mismatched - rather than allowing any level of team-driven process selection, and then 9 months later they open it up to allowing teams to choose, including letting them choose waterfall. Their messaging was this was always the plan, which is either a lie as apparently many people at MIT believe, or evidence that of even deeper cluelessness.

My opinion is that this Charles character has no business running a technology org.

You are perhaps trolling/satiring but there are certainly people who feel this way, even if they don't state it in such up-front absurd ways.

Our founders responded to taxes they didn't like by seizing the contents of cargo ships and dumping them into Boston Harbor. If we described that in the same terms as many are talking about Baltimore, the headline would read, "rioters loot ships, smash cargo".

Compare the circumstances: "the government is taxing us and we don't like it" vs. "the government is killing us with impunity."

America was founded on a fundamental distrust of government, and certainly not on the idea that law and order is of higher importance than justice and liberty. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is what America is about. When agents of government are systematically brutalizing and killing people, America is not a "sit back and ask nicely for it to stop" kind of country. America has always been about taking it to the streets

It's white hypocrisy alone that lets us pretend that if the situation were reversed and whites were the victims of this kind of pervasive government brutality, we would be just sitting at home and drinking tea while writing letters to the editor and blanching at the thought of doing anything violent. Bullshit! We used to do this all the time, until we set up minorities to take the abuse for us.

Not a single thing about harassment. Why? Does Twitter's technical leadership think the problem is that irrelevant that it's not worth putting on the roadmap? Does the media care so little about it that they don't ask the questions?

My view is that Twitter has a big problem with harassment. I want to know what Twitter plans to do about it.

Yes. Germany, for instance, has a similar system where you pay per TV.

It's very unlikely that you'd be a target in any such rampage... unless you keep complaining like this.

Is there anything of particular interest happening on the site now? There doesn't seem to be any new release or any kind of announcement, and this has been featured on HN before.

While the free VPN feature is cool, it's been there for at least a month already.

For those who haven't seen it before and are disinclined to go to the site: PopCorn Time is a slick client app around watching streaming torrents of popular movies. ThePirateBay for the masses.

Remember when Gmail used to have that ticker for how much space you get that would update live? You'd watch for a few seconds, and instead of 3.104649 GB of free email storage you'd have 3.104672 GB!

I think what Twitter needs is a similar ticker indicating the maximum number of characters in a tweet. I can scarcely imagine the excitement of watching it slowly creep upwards. Think of the celebratory triumph we can all share when, after months of build-up, it finally crosses over to 141 and everyone gets another character to use!

No more worries about vision after that.

One downside to this approach is that it can tend to create status or power rifts between the product people and the tools people. In traditional shops, the "skills that pay the bills" product people often get better treatment, higher status, greater advancement opportunity and stronger job security than tooling people, who are often seen as being on the cost side of the business.

Startups that go down this route should be on the lookout for this potential for divisiveness and culture fragmentation.

Twitter is already the premier platform for cyberstalking and harassment. The question they're struggling with is, how do they monetize that?

Maybe if they charged for rape threats. Perhaps use something like the Facebook model, and charge a fee that scales based on the number of the target's followers to make a "Featured Rape Threat" that appears more prominently on the feed.

Or they could actually make a real effort to do something to stop the harassment, but obviously there's no money or "Big Vision" in that.

For those of us who are not familiar with the Indian political and business background of this story and the characters, can someone summarize?

Some parts translate pretty clearly to a naive reader - high-growth startup accrues too much debt in acquisitions and expansion, some of the new ventures lose money, takes on a high-profile investor and restructures to stabilize, investor takes over the company and kicks out the founder. Others are less so - references to Reliance's place in the political sphere, something about gas prices(?) which I presume Reliance has something to do with, a new political movement that is apparently supported by some of the people in the story but not others.

Joel's article is cautioning against the kind of cost/benefit-blind thinking that makes "rewrite all the code" a default option. Actually, I think in a certain way your story - perhaps unintentionally - agrees with this point.

In your case, you accepted the cost of doing the project over, which as you said was to write it again taking the same amount of time. The fallacy that Joel is talking about is engineers thinking that they can do a total rewrite of some software that took years to build in some much shorter period of time with better code. The predictable result is huge financial losses, and sometimes even a total market abdication.

There is a bit of legal knowledge that may be relevant here, at least in terms of framing this question of who is responsible.

In many jurisdictions (in the US) the legal standard of 'negligence' has two requirements. First, proximate cause. That's the "but for" part, that op mentions here. "But for MIT's actions, Aaron would be alive today." The other part is foreknowledge. Someone must have known, or reasonably should have known, that their actions would result in the bad consequence to meet this second standard. I don't think it would be fair to say that MIT could reasonably have foreseen Swartz's suicide.

It's interesting to note that Heymann, the federal prosecutor, arguably does meet both of these standards. But for his overzealous -- and I would add abusive -- prosecution, Swartz would still be alive. Further, Swartz's lawyers warned Heymann the day before that Swartz was an imminent risk of suicide, so it seems pretty safe to say that he also meets the foreknowledge standard.

I want both Heymann and Ortiz to be fired, and my sense of vengeance wants it to be both public and messy. Wishful thinking.

IANAL, blah blah blah and all that.

I used gentoo for many years. I have come to view this as something of an abusive relationship. Now I'm a happy arch user, and no longer think of interactions with the package manager with a sense of dread!

Also, the article had some fantastic (unintentional?) references to http://funroll-loops.info/

I think it's more likely that he's a self-hating closet case than merely an ass, personally.

That's a little different. The message of that video: never talk to the police. The two cases being, 1. you are not under arrest, or 2. you are under arrest. If you are not under arrest you should just walk away or refuse any kind of engagement (except in a traffic stop which is a special case), and if you are under arrest then you have two explicit rights which you should always use - refuse to talk, and demand a lawyer be present.

The situation is quite different in a trial. If you are summoned to appear in court, you must appear. If you are asked any questions, you must answer them (or assert fifth amendment rights explicitly in a refusal to answer, like the Prenda clowns did).

The fifth amendment only covers criminal caes - in fact, technically only covers felonies. The implication for this case is that the lawyers can refuse to answer questions with an assertion of their fifth amendment rights, and if and when they should ever be tried for those crimes then in that case it would be forbidden for the prosecution to mention that they did that or draw any inferences from it. There is no such protection in a civil case, however. You have no right to "not answer questions because it might help the other guys who are suing me win."

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice, etc etc, but there are other examples in civil cases of where this kind of thing can be used against you. I have a lawyer friend who does personal injury cases, and one of the first things lawyers do in those cases is send spoilation letters to the insurance companies demanding that they preserve any evidence. Absent this, it's common practice for insurance companies to have totaled vehicles destroyed, for example. If they destroy any evidence after receiving a spoilation letter, then in the lawsuit the jury will be instructed to assume that the destroyed evidence showed things in as favorable a light as possible to the other party.

Abusive. Barbaric. Evil. Wrong.

These are all words I feel confident in saying are accurate when applied to coerced female genital mutilation. While I appreciate Amnesty International's position - it's obviously impolitic to call someone these things while sitting at the table having a dialog - it's inappropriate to sacrifice our own moral clarity everywhere else.

Fitnesssf took down their Facebook pages.