The nice things is that it abstract the conditions checks on whether something is done, has succeeded or should be retried.
The bad things is that it abstract the conditions checks on whether something is done, has succeeded or should be retried.
It's nice because that's something you do again and again, and that's a lot of code. A lot of ways it can go wrong.
But it's bad because that's a huge chunk of black box magic that may execute remotely. If you need a custom or more optimized behavior anywhere in this logic, you are done for. If there is a bug/problem in this logic, it's game over. I also have to imagine debugging and error reporting is likely not super fun.
One point in particular that strikes me, is that impotence is generically guaranteed with something like "has this task executed without error last time". But usually, what I want is something much more specific, like "has that entries been updated", "has that file been created" and so on. From a bird view, it looks the same, but from a system reliability point of you, they are not at all the same.
Hard to see how they avoid duplicate results, overlapping tasks, etc.
I don't think they really can at that level of abstraction, which means you need to implement it manually.
Eventually it seems it's a huge dep to bring in for the actual practical problem is really solves well.
But I'm willing to be proven wrong on this one, because the tech is really damn cool.
A game is just a game. There is nothing vital to it.
It's the easiest thing in the world to boycott.
And yet, players consistently fail to make the editors pay for their bad behaviors. EA is still craping on their clients. Blizzards fails forward. Loot boxes, DRM, crippling anti-cheat mechanisms, buggy games with expensive DLC and micro payments are everywhere. Sony even infected their customers with a rootkit once.
If you keep giving them money despite this, then they have correctly noted they can charge you for their fun system despite the inconvenience.
Already more games have been created and published than a human could finish in an entire life. And that's games, not music, movies, series or books.
You could just stop buying any new game forever and have an entire life of wonderful gaming experience.
Hell, I'm still playing old snes games, or the flash version of isaac.
That's not how this market works. There is no homogenous group of gamers that can act together. Each year there is a new cohort of 11 years old that knows nothing of past publisher behaviour and wants the latest EA game for their birthday. For FIFA with the lootboxes etc there is the added factor that people buying those are for a big part a distinct group to other gamers, there are many guys that only play FIFA or their favorite sport game and nothing else. So bad behaviour in that area does not affect other game sales as much as it should.
For certain genres and certain games, no amount of negative reviews seems to have any effect on their popularity. I've seen many cases where, on Steam at least, the reviews for a game can be mostly negative, or mixed at best, yet the number of reviews keeps going up like crazy. Meanwhile some very positive and occasionally overwhelmingly positive games can have fewer total reviews a year after release than some poorly reviewed games get in a day.
There's also still an "early access" stigma even though must major publishers are basically treating "full" release day as an open beta test now.
All of this to say that careful consumers can only affect a small proportion of the games industry's revenue. It's enough to keep indie games and their small studios alive but so far it has had near zero effect on the AAAs. I suspect the layoffs we're seeing across the industry reflect a contraction in the spending of the majority segment but a lot of AAAs seem to be doubling down on targeting that same segment.
This makes me so mad. Every time I have to show my nieces or nephews how to play a game, and I have to show them all the fake buttons they have to avoid to manage to play it through the dark patterns. Even Windows, the OS, is full of traps now. You can't buy any software and have it pretend to be yours anymore.
Used to be the case for free mobile games at first, now it's everywhere.
Just to say: This is avoidable. Ofc one can not give Windows to a child anymore, but there is Linux. For games on Android, of course one can't install games from the Play Store anymore, but there is F-Droid. And for regular PC games, there is still a big selection that works without or with very little micro transactions. And besides, the kids system should not be capable to make any purchases no matter where they click.
But I can completely relate that it is infuriating and that it takes a lot of filtering through the mainstream shit to manage this well.
Proprietary/popular games on Linux come with the same monetization strategy on every platform. You want to play Fortnite, you get the Fortnite ads/loot boxes/nudges even on Linux (plus you'll get banned by anti-cheat quick).
Linux is not the recommended choice for the game selection, it's so that the OS is not already a hostile place with ads and spammy news. The games themselves have still to be filtered, as I wrote.
That's what I use myself, but I can't really recommend it to family overseas... And even that is not safe, this will probably be the last Ubuntu release I can use before the "Ubuntu Pro", Snaps, and other integrations become unbearable.
In the same manner one can avoid many bad aspects of modern cars if they are an experienced mechanic and can build their own, but that's not a reasonable burden for an average person.
Feels a bit absurd to try to lay the blame at the feet of 11 year olds, when adults routinely demonstrate the same behavior.
The latest example of KSP2 is imo a great example, announced in 2019 for release in 2020, delayed several times to go on to launch into a $50 'early access' early last year with far less functionality than the original game and worse bugs and architectural issues. Despite all the glaring warning signs, so many people ate up the promises. They delivered one basic feature in 6 months (reentry heating). Yet the 'trust' from otherwise smart adults remained. It seems they only finally noticed this past week, when the studio making the game was shut down. Now they expect refunds despite all the warnings Steam has against buying early access games based on future promises.
Well in this case things changed AFTER the game was bought, so people got screwed.
Besides, you make one of the dumbest point I have ever read on this website. Gas prices going up? Pfeh, I heat my house with a bonfire, wake up sheeple.
> players consistently fail to make the editors pay for their bad behaviors.
This comes across as either gaslighting or refusal of evidence - you have a theory that bad players/companies will be punished by the market, and when it doesn't happen, you conclude that it's the consumer's fault.
Maybe you should consider that your theory is wrong, as it does not match the real world. It appears to me that, these days, most of the time bad players do very well in the market.
Simple, I'm on Mastodon, Substack, Threads and Bluesky.
And they are all barely breathing.
The community density is low (because of the split), the discovery sucks (because of decentralization and no algo to suggest content), the culture is homogeneous (I encounter people mostly from one political side) and the publication of limited quality.
You can't start new communities from old users. Communities are built by the young, they are the ones with the creativity, motivation and free time to do it.
That's why twitter, made mostly by young people from 20 years ago, still got the inertia of it, are is more interesting and active.
And that's why tik tok and roblox are full of life. I'm sure the kids are also elsewhere, where we are not looking, creating the communities of tomorrow.
I’d argue with that bit about creativity and youth.
In sports, for instance, if you are talented and 15 there are pipelines into established and pro sports that make sense to follow. If you are 30 and missed your chance for that you can still be a pioneer in an emerging “extreme” sport.
A lot of young people seem to think creativity is 99% asking for permission and 1% “just do it”, it takes some experience before people realize it is really the other way around.
He certainly could have, but he also might not have. If he was actively driving he may have remained more alert, or he may have chosen to pull over. It's a counterfactual so we don't really know for sure either way.
Yeah, sure. I guess you can say that a driver who hadn't slept the night before and was super stressed out about work could've fallen asleep while driving on a monotonous and boring highway, but he also might not have. Yet, at the end of the day, it's far more likely that he would've fallen asleep either way.
I feel like this distracts from the fact that the self-driving feature was probably safer than falling asleep at a manual car for everyone involved.
In general, I think people are more likely to fall asleep when supervising an autonomous machine than when operating a manual machine. However falling asleep when operating any machine is obviously possible and it may that this driver was so tired that he would have slept in either scenario. We don't know.
It's like saying your employees need oxygen to breath or they can't work at scale.