zalack

Oldie but a goodie.

Theory in science generally means something much more stringent than it does in vernacular. From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains “why” or “how”: a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts and/or other laws.

So when something is being put forward as “A Scientific Theory” it is meant to be taken as the best possible explanation we can make of why the universe is the way it is, backed by exhaustive tests using the best methods currently available to us.

In science, when something is just a theory in the way you mean, it’s called a hypothesis.

I’m not saying it should be illegal to release games for only one console. Obviously not every studio is going to have the bandwidth to develop for every platform, and some games will use special features of some systems.

What I’m saying is that it should be illegal for console makers to give any special incentives or preference to developers to do so artificially.

Console exclusives are anti consumer and it should be illegal for console makers to offer any incentive to developers – including studios they own – to make a game exclusive.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

Oh I see. I misunderstood the comment then. Thanks for the clarification!

Not that this isn’t scummy but my understanding is that “ransomware” refers to software that locks a user or organization out of their systems until a fee is paid, generally my encrypting the disk.

This seems like a more traditional “hack” of a system where you get in and download data. Which makes threatening them is traditional blackmail.

It’s a really interesting way to get around copyright without needing to make your own assets.

One of the things I like about programming is it feels like legit magic. You infuse a lightning stone with words of power that bend its mind to your will.

One must be cautious. The stone will do what is asked of it. Exactly what is asked of it. Ask carefully.

I think you mean shudder. Unless the code you wrote is running on cameras.

You really need to change it. I’ve been looking for a fediverse project to contribute to. Clicked the demo link, saw the domain name, and dipped into negative interest before the page even loaded.

Putting aside all the obvious things, my knee-jerk reaction is “do I expect this person’s code reviews will be pleasant?”

It’s worth entertaining the observation that these learning models piggyback off underpaid human effort to funnel wealth towards the 1%.

It’s just that the solution isn’t to stop the tech. That never works. It’s out in the world now.

The real solution is much harder. We need to overhaul our economy and put in mechanisms to recirculate wealth downwards.

The dirty secret is that many problems inside of engineering are that way too. There’s a million equally valid solutions to any given problem and the one that gets chosen is all human factors.

Like: Greenfield REST CRUD App. What language do you choose?

Sure, you can make a million technical arguments for any given language, but there’s no real right choice. I’d choose Elixir because I like Phoenix/Ecto for that particular problem. I’m likely in the minority. The answer for most apps will be more borne of social politics than engineering.

I’ve seen variations of this opinion a lot in tech, but you don’t have to sacrifice frank feedback to be a little more polite. Like sure “this code is dumb” is better than “you are dumb”, but not as good as “this could be more efficient if we did y instead”

The latter is more helpful and less confrontational. The best devs I’ve worked with have been excited about code, and that came through in review. When they saw something that was wrong their feedback came across as excited to share rather than affronted by ignorance.

The thing devs don’t like to admit is that a ton of stuff we argue about is more taste than science. There’s no right answer to the classic performance vs readability thing, or where exactly the line is for effort vs payoff. Couching feedback around things like that a opinion often makes people way more receptive to it. “Hey I’d prefer if we did it this way” often goes a long way, IMO.