I've heard of places where HR requires you to write a (probably) glowing Glassdoor review during onboarding. Or severance which is conditioned on not writing a negative review.
Fair enough, but I still think its a stretch to call MVC "outdated". And "outdated" kind of has a hint of "bad" and "should not be used", hence the question.
Oh yeah I also don't agree with OP. Separation of concerns is good. JSX isn't perfect either.
This yearly js poll always brings out the fanboys. The amount of "heard of it but would never try it" responses demonstrates that it's just a popularity contest
As someone who used to make async multiplayer games I think Stadia is a good fit currently for that style of game. Using it for latency-sensitive AAA games seems like a decade or two too early for the tech.
Cloud gaming has huge multiplayer advantages because you can skip the whole network stack and build your game for couch multiplayer, yet it's still playable over the internet.
Combine that with the deep pockets of F2P gamers, and Google's existing relationship with these devs via Google Play; I have no idea how they missed this.
I would happily pay per show or movie I watch if I knew the people involved got the cash. As long as there's money men in the middle, wringing their hands over how to extract their middleman tax, I'll work to subvert them.
Delivering content is not a valuable service. Making content is.
I made games in flash for over a decade and miss the ease of dropping an experimental game idea onto the web where everyone could enjoy it. If you had a free weekend, you could release a game to 99% of the internet.
JavaScript game libs simply aren't as featureful, even the ones promising the scenegraph API. They don't work as well cross platform (by the end of that decade I had one codebase which could deploy to web, iOS, and Android); and that's where the audience has headed.
I hope this book spends some time on flash's contribution to video game design as well as web design.
also thousands of games made with pico8 on the net live. Sure pico-8 is not a replacement for flash but people are posting live games and they are making them quickly. Celeste, one of the top 10 games last year on many lists, started as a pico8 prototype live on the web.
Also flash never worked cross platform in the modern sense (phones + tablets + desktop). It's a very hard problem and no system I know of handles it automatically for anything more than simple HTML text forms
I've heard the RTS genre described as three sliders.
1. Amount of control over units
2. Amount of control over a hero
3. Amount of control over building infrastructure
By that definition, RTS is still alive and well. It's just that the particular position of those sliders has changed over time. We have MOBAs which set all the sliders to zero except the hero one. Mobile games like Clash of Clans and Clash Royale provide two more popular configurations.
As for what happened to the classic RTS config many grew up with in the 90s and oughties? My best guess is snuffed out by shifts in game dev economics. AAA single player games only work on consoles (where the controller never played well with RTS) and the near-requirement for every PC multiplayer game to present as an esport raises the buy-in too high
So this goes like lotteries and several other things we already write laws about. What we care about is the behaviour. If your product triggers the problem behaviour then that's a problem.
If I go to McDonalds and there's a queue of people buying Happy Meals because they want a specific toy, and they either don't actually take the meal or it goes straight in the garbage, that's a huge problem -> gambling.
If I go to McDonalds and every kid just seems to be eating Happy Meals and enjoying whatever crap they got by chance, no problem -> not gambling.
You might argue, well, how can McDonalds control this? There are a bunch of things they can do to avoid causing the problem and thus avoid triggering an investigation. For example when somebody proposes "Ooh, let's make Toy #3 way better than the others, and then also only give it out 0.1% of the time" don't do that. That's going to trigger the problem. Or if a parent comes in and says they really need Toy #6 and they're willing to give you the price of a Happy Meal for that toy, you should say "Yes" and hand them the toy, if you insist they keep buying Happy Meals to have a chance you are encouraging the problem behaviour.
We see this stuff with other industries that trigger problem behaviour, we say "Don't do that" and we tell them things they should avoid to prevent the problem behaviour. Good actors work very hard to avoid a problem. Bad ones work very hard to avoid getting caught. Either way we did our best to protect people.
For example "Direct Sales" companies are told not to allow their "sales partners" or whatever they choose to call them to build up stock, because that's part of a negative behaviour. They're told to make sure those "sales partners" are deriving revenue from actually selling the product, which is ostensibly the point of their business, not from selling the opportunity to also become a partner, which would be a Pyramid Scheme, also negative behaviour. Invariably the people who own (and profit from) these companies insist the problem behaviour isn't what they want, and yet so often they do encourage it, because of course it makes them rich. Similarly with video game gambling.
Not sure how they are going to solve the pixel density issue without going to interactive displays, which would be a mistake.
Malls trialed interactive maps sometime in the last decade and it was a worse experience. One print map can service a lot of people crowded around it. Make the interface interactive and suddenly it's only usable by one person at a time despite being just as large as the old print map.
The right solution, if you want interactivity, is perhaps a handful of interactive map kiosks that are much smaller and meant for one user at a time. You could fit at least 4 of them in the space of any existing giant print map.
This is how I feel about AGI too, and I also include self-driving cars. I don't think those are just around the corner either.
In general I don't think our current approach to AI is all that clever. It brute forces algorithms which no human has any comprehension of or ability to modify. All a human can do is modify the input data set and hope a better algorithm (which they also don't understand) arises from the neural network.
It's like a very permissive compiler which produces a binary full of runtime errors. You have to find bugs at runtime and fiddle with the input until the runtime error goes away. Was it a bug in your input? Or a bug in the compiler? Who knows. Change whichever you think of first. It's barely science and it's barely a debug workflow.
What pushed me all the way over the edge was when adversarial techniques started to be applied to self-driving cars. That white paper made them look like death machines. This entire development process I am criticising assumes we get to live in the happy path, and we're not. The same dark forces infosec can barely keep at bay on the internet, and have completely failed to stop on IoT, will now be able to target your car as well.
Worst thing is all our otherwise brilliant humans like Carmack are gonna be the guinea pigs in the cars as they head off toward their next runtime crash.
Goodhart's Law at work.