they don't have the power to not play nice any more.
So... they ARE playing nice?;)
I understand the impetus for change is not coming from some pure bastion of altruism and the goodness of their hearts. If the ruthless Gates/Ballmer tactics were still working, they'd still be doing them.
And I'm sure they are still doing many evil things, it takes a long time to turn a ship of that size. But changes are definitely afoot. Kindly indulge me and google "nadella culture" and read some articles about how he's changing things internally.
(And also, I'm not the guy who called Microsoft "the ethical choice", and I'm not defending that wording. But there are concrete signs they are "less evil")
Yeah totally... after the whole 3 / 3.5 debacle (another fucking set of books for a HALF edition!?), and the fact that D&D was now owned by the makers of Magic: The Gathering (eg, "the undisputed king of endlessly printing new sets to keep the money train going"), and 4th edition feeling like a video game, we figured D&D was pretty much done.
Hence the rise of Pathfinder, or "D&D 3.75", which just kept ploughing ahead with the 3.x ruleset. (Ironically, the more restrictive licensing of 4e all but forced Paizo down that road)
And that's what good competition does. Strong competition from Pathfinder (it actually outsold D&D from 2011-2014) really forced Wizards to focus on quality when course-correcting from 4e and designing 5e, and it shows.
It really is becoming a different company under Nadella. Seriously, spend some time reading about how he's changed things at MS in the last 5 years.
To pick another recent example, I never thought I'd see the day when MS released the Halo games, for PC, on ***STEAM*** instead of trying to make it an Xbox Store exclusive.
They have finally decided it's better to play nice with others instead of trying to force platform lock-in everywhere. The Gates/Ballmer era is truly dead.
I have been playing D&D since the 80s and have played every edition. Some friends and I tried playing 1st edition again a few years back. The rules are HORRIBLE. Inconsistent, overly specified & inflexible, convoluted and needlessly complex.
Let's consider a specific example to illustrate. Strength and "Bend Bars / Lift Gates". If I have a strength of say, 17, I have a 13% chance of "bend bars / lift gates". Period. Wait, aren't different bars & gates (and other extreme tests of strength) created differently? How can one number encapsulate all such possibilities? It can't.
What's the equivalent in 5e? DM decides how difficult it is to bend that bar or lift that gate (or ANY OTHER strength-based task imaginable) and assigns it a CR, you roll a D20, add your Str modifier (and potentially Proficiency bonus if you have a relevant skill), and try to beat that CR. Easy peasy, consistent, and infinitely flexible. It's simply a better system.
the rules don't matter anyway, there is no reason to play an RPG with rules, instead of just having an impartial GM/DM/ETCM decide if you succeed or fail and use sensible internally consistent dynamics
Ironically you just described 5th edition. It has found a great sweet spot of internal consistency, streamlined play, while still offering depth and being completely flexible. With a basic understanding of the CR system you can just wing it in pretty much any situation imaginable.
3/3.5 (and Pathfinder) was a giant leap forward but things become tedious at high levels. I think 4th edition was the zenith of "dumbing things down", they practically turned it into a formulaic MMO. I actually quit D&D when 4th edition came out and swore it off for good.
But 5e bounced back and found a better middle ground, and rekindled my love of the game. It is a better game system. The whole "it's been dumbed down for the masses, this is beneath my superior intellect" is such elitist r/iamverysmart horseshit.
(This in no way is directed at people who still play and love 1st edition. There is a lot to love there, so much flavour and inventiveness. But you're a special kind of masochist and you know it;)
Naturally that is the obvious argument against UBI, but a thought experiment if you will:
Imagine a future where virtually everything is automated, and there are vanishingly few human jobs required anymore "to keep the lights on", keep everyone fed, etc.
That SHOULD be a utopia. But with our current economic system, it's a disaster.
So you are correct that UBI doesn't work with our current economic system. It's not supposed to. It's an attempt to look beyond our current economic system, to a post-scarcity model. An idea ahead of its time, perhaps, because we're certainly not there yet. (Maybe more achievable with fully renewable energy...?)
When Evernote started charging money to run the native app on more than 2 devices, I immediately switched to SimpleNote and have never looked back.
It lacks the fancy rich-text & media stuff that Evenote has, but for plain text (which is all I want) it's perfect. Uses tags for organizing notes, which I actually prefer over notebooks.
I'm sorry but what "typical" databases do doesn't enter into it. I never said it was a typical database.
Database: "a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways". (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/database)
A blockchain / distributed ledger clearly meets this definition.
"A blockchain, originally block chain, is a growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked using cryptography." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How is a list of records NOT a type of database?
The above article then goes on to describe blockchain technology, using the word "database" no less than 11 times.
Blockchain is also frequently referred to as a "distributed ledger":
"The distributed ledger database is spread across several nodes (devices) on a peer-to-peer network" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Let's lookup Cryptocurrency:
The decentralized control of each cryptocurrency works through distributed ledger technology, typically a blockchain, that serves as a public financial transaction database. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Looks like everyone considers it a database except you.
He is not calling non-westerns "Savages". He is referring to the LITERARY TROPE of the Noble Savage (and calling it stupid): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Blocking means that when a process needs to wait for something to finish (typically I/O operations), it basically pauses and does nothing, blocking further execution. This is also known as synchronous.
Non-blocking (also known as asynchronous) means that the process doesn't stop & wait for the lengthy operation to finish, it continues executing the following code immediately. When the lengthy operation DOES finish, it will trigger some further event-driven action (like calling a callback function or fulfilling a promise).
Non-blocking / asynchronous / event-driven models are typically much better at smoothly handling a lot of concurrent things happening at the same time.
Ever have an application hang on you, where it gives you an hourglass/beachball and stops responding to user input? This typically means that the UI thread is blocking on some request (which is a very poor design, UI event handling threads should never block on lengthy operations).
I don't think the parent is suggesting that running a webserver on the UI thread is a good idea, just that with a non-blocking architecture it would work just fine (without causing delays in the UI like you'd see with a blocking approach).
The very fact that it's been recognized as a new artwork, worth double the value, means Sotheby's would be quite stupid to insist on the sale.
It would be in their interest to re-auction it and make more money, if the woman decided not to go through with the purchase.
Really don't know why you are so adamant that the buyer should've been forced to go through with the purchase. It changed into a new item during the auction.
No, it is damaged. It is a destroyed copy of "Girl with Balloon". The item description for the auction (eg what the buyer was bidding on) included the phrasing: "mounted on board, in artist's frame", which is clearly no longer valid.
In fact the artwork has subsequently been re-titled as "Love is in the Bin", a NEW ORIGINAL ARTWORK, that was created "live" during the auction.
The buyer CHOSE to go through with the purchase, even though it was not what they originally bid on. Meaning they were not obliged to.
Nevertheless, it is still what it was represented to be.
How can you claim that?
It was represented as a complete & undamaged painting. It was sold as a complete and undamaged painting. The paper shredder embedded in the frame was hidden, and thus not part of how it was represented. If you buy a priceless vase and then the sculptor walks on stage and smashes it with a hammer, you don't think that's an issue?
The buyer should absolutely be able to reject the item, as materially different from what they bid on, if they so choose. (However I suspect they will actually keep it... as you say, it may be valued even higher now)
You can practically read the synopsis now... "The sterilizing gene drive was only supposed to target other mosquitos. At first, it worked brilliantly. Malaria rates plummeted worldwide. But then a random mutation in the wild allowed it to target other species..."
Thanks for the thoughtful response. That does make more sense in context.
Saying "difficulty is relative" is perfectly reasonable.
I still think hubris is an odd word choice for "thinking that things are difficult", because hubris is typified by excessive confidence... which is the exact opposite.
Acknowledging that "the laws of the universe are hard *FOR US HUMANS* to understand" is not hubris, it's the opposite; humility.
I can see how stating "the laws of the universe are hard to understand IN AN ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL SENSE" is hubristic... but who is saying that? Seems like a bit of a strawman.
He did not give a source. He claims he's paraphrasing someone. That's not the same thing. A source would let people actually verify the claim. I tried googling various combinations of NDT's name with the words "hubris", "difficulty" and couldn't find anything, which is why I asked.
And thanks, I understand the statement just fine. I disagree with it.
My email is {first initial}{last name}@gmail.com. Got in nice and early.
I regret all of the things. The amount of people who mistakenly use my email is insane. And I have no way of contacting them to ask them to stop. Like how the fuck am I supposed to just google someone's real email address?
Slashdot Mirror
So... they ARE playing nice? ;)
I understand the impetus for change is not coming from some pure bastion of altruism and the goodness of their hearts. If the ruthless Gates/Ballmer tactics were still working, they'd still be doing them.
And I'm sure they are still doing many evil things, it takes a long time to turn a ship of that size. But changes are definitely afoot. Kindly indulge me and google "nadella culture" and read some articles about how he's changing things internally.
(And also, I'm not the guy who called Microsoft "the ethical choice", and I'm not defending that wording. But there are concrete signs they are "less evil")
Yeah totally... after the whole 3 / 3.5 debacle (another fucking set of books for a HALF edition!?), and the fact that D&D was now owned by the makers of Magic: The Gathering (eg, "the undisputed king of endlessly printing new sets to keep the money train going"), and 4th edition feeling like a video game, we figured D&D was pretty much done.
Hence the rise of Pathfinder, or "D&D 3.75", which just kept ploughing ahead with the 3.x ruleset. (Ironically, the more restrictive licensing of 4e all but forced Paizo down that road)
And that's what good competition does. Strong competition from Pathfinder (it actually outsold D&D from 2011-2014) really forced Wizards to focus on quality when course-correcting from 4e and designing 5e, and it shows.
Do you honestly think you're going to change the common usage of that word?
It's renewable unless you bring in billion-year timescales which are simply not relevant in this context.
Ne neither.
It really is becoming a different company under Nadella. Seriously, spend some time reading about how he's changed things at MS in the last 5 years.
To pick another recent example, I never thought I'd see the day when MS released the Halo games, for PC, on ***STEAM*** instead of trying to make it an Xbox Store exclusive.
They have finally decided it's better to play nice with others instead of trying to force platform lock-in everywhere. The Gates/Ballmer era is truly dead.
I have been playing D&D since the 80s and have played every edition. Some friends and I tried playing 1st edition again a few years back. The rules are HORRIBLE. Inconsistent, overly specified & inflexible, convoluted and needlessly complex.
Let's consider a specific example to illustrate. Strength and "Bend Bars / Lift Gates". If I have a strength of say, 17, I have a 13% chance of "bend bars / lift gates". Period. Wait, aren't different bars & gates (and other extreme tests of strength) created differently? How can one number encapsulate all such possibilities? It can't.
What's the equivalent in 5e? DM decides how difficult it is to bend that bar or lift that gate (or ANY OTHER strength-based task imaginable) and assigns it a CR, you roll a D20, add your Str modifier (and potentially Proficiency bonus if you have a relevant skill), and try to beat that CR. Easy peasy, consistent, and infinitely flexible. It's simply a better system.
Ironically you just described 5th edition. It has found a great sweet spot of internal consistency, streamlined play, while still offering depth and being completely flexible. With a basic understanding of the CR system you can just wing it in pretty much any situation imaginable.
3/3.5 (and Pathfinder) was a giant leap forward but things become tedious at high levels. I think 4th edition was the zenith of "dumbing things down", they practically turned it into a formulaic MMO. I actually quit D&D when 4th edition came out and swore it off for good.
But 5e bounced back and found a better middle ground, and rekindled my love of the game. It is a better game system. The whole "it's been dumbed down for the masses, this is beneath my superior intellect" is such elitist r/iamverysmart horseshit.
(This in no way is directed at people who still play and love 1st edition. There is a lot to love there, so much flavour and inventiveness. But you're a special kind of masochist and you know it ;)
Naturally that is the obvious argument against UBI, but a thought experiment if you will:
Imagine a future where virtually everything is automated, and there are vanishingly few human jobs required anymore "to keep the lights on", keep everyone fed, etc.
That SHOULD be a utopia. But with our current economic system, it's a disaster.
So you are correct that UBI doesn't work with our current economic system. It's not supposed to. It's an attempt to look beyond our current economic system, to a post-scarcity model. An idea ahead of its time, perhaps, because we're certainly not there yet. (Maybe more achievable with fully renewable energy...?)
When Evernote started charging money to run the native app on more than 2 devices, I immediately switched to SimpleNote and have never looked back.
It lacks the fancy rich-text & media stuff that Evenote has, but for plain text (which is all I want) it's perfect. Uses tags for organizing notes, which I actually prefer over notebooks.
You mean Wolfenstein 3D.
The original Castle Wolfenstein is an ancient 2D game from 1981, originally for the Apple II.
And here I thought Trump only posted on Twitter.
Yeah, that's a really great argument dude. "If a blockchain is considered a database, then so is a text file".
Please go argue with Oxford and Wikipedia about their definitions you take such issue with.
I'm sorry but what "typical" databases do doesn't enter into it. I never said it was a typical database.
Database: "a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways". (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/database)
A blockchain / distributed ledger clearly meets this definition.
How is a list of records NOT a type of database?
The above article then goes on to describe blockchain technology, using the word "database" no less than 11 times.
Blockchain is also frequently referred to as a "distributed ledger":
Let's lookup Cryptocurrency:
Looks like everyone considers it a database except you.
He is not calling non-westerns "Savages". He is referring to the LITERARY TROPE of the Noble Savage (and calling it stupid): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Try a little harder to be offended?
Why is that?
Java has had non-blocking IO since 1.4, which was released in 2002.
Blocking means that when a process needs to wait for something to finish (typically I/O operations), it basically pauses and does nothing, blocking further execution. This is also known as synchronous.
Non-blocking (also known as asynchronous) means that the process doesn't stop & wait for the lengthy operation to finish, it continues executing the following code immediately. When the lengthy operation DOES finish, it will trigger some further event-driven action (like calling a callback function or fulfilling a promise).
Non-blocking / asynchronous / event-driven models are typically much better at smoothly handling a lot of concurrent things happening at the same time.
Ever have an application hang on you, where it gives you an hourglass/beachball and stops responding to user input? This typically means that the UI thread is blocking on some request (which is a very poor design, UI event handling threads should never block on lengthy operations).
I don't think the parent is suggesting that running a webserver on the UI thread is a good idea, just that with a non-blocking architecture it would work just fine (without causing delays in the UI like you'd see with a blocking approach).
The very fact that it's been recognized as a new artwork, worth double the value, means Sotheby's would be quite stupid to insist on the sale.
It would be in their interest to re-auction it and make more money, if the woman decided not to go through with the purchase.
Really don't know why you are so adamant that the buyer should've been forced to go through with the purchase. It changed into a new item during the auction.
And... you think the shredded painting still meets the above description?
It clearly does not.
It's no longer mounted. It's no longer in a frame. The dimensions no longer accurately describe a bunch of shredded strips.
No, it is damaged. It is a destroyed copy of "Girl with Balloon". The item description for the auction (eg what the buyer was bidding on) included the phrasing: "mounted on board, in artist's frame", which is clearly no longer valid.
In fact the artwork has subsequently been re-titled as "Love is in the Bin", a NEW ORIGINAL ARTWORK, that was created "live" during the auction.
The buyer CHOSE to go through with the purchase, even though it was not what they originally bid on. Meaning they were not obliged to.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entert...
Suggesting the F35 program was wasteful and bloated, is not the same thing as suggesting that there should be no military at all.
The US spends more on its "molehill" of a military than the next 7 countries combined. There is room for reduction.
How can you claim that?
It was represented as a complete & undamaged painting. It was sold as a complete and undamaged painting. The paper shredder embedded in the frame was hidden, and thus not part of how it was represented. If you buy a priceless vase and then the sculptor walks on stage and smashes it with a hammer, you don't think that's an issue?
The buyer should absolutely be able to reject the item, as materially different from what they bid on, if they so choose. (However I suspect they will actually keep it... as you say, it may be valued even higher now)
Right?
You can practically read the synopsis now... "The sterilizing gene drive was only supposed to target other mosquitos. At first, it worked brilliantly. Malaria rates plummeted worldwide. But then a random mutation in the wild allowed it to target other species..."
BRB, writing "Mosquito's Revenge"
Thanks for the thoughtful response. That does make more sense in context.
Saying "difficulty is relative" is perfectly reasonable.
I still think hubris is an odd word choice for "thinking that things are difficult", because hubris is typified by excessive confidence... which is the exact opposite.
Acknowledging that "the laws of the universe are hard *FOR US HUMANS* to understand" is not hubris, it's the opposite; humility.
I can see how stating "the laws of the universe are hard to understand IN AN ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL SENSE" is hubristic... but who is saying that? Seems like a bit of a strawman.
He did not give a source. He claims he's paraphrasing someone. That's not the same thing. A source would let people actually verify the claim. I tried googling various combinations of NDT's name with the words "hubris", "difficulty" and couldn't find anything, which is why I asked.
And thanks, I understand the statement just fine. I disagree with it.
Source please?
Because that sounds like nonsense. NOTHING is inherently difficult? OK then. (That statement is ironically a million times more hubristic)
My email is {first initial}{last name}@gmail.com. Got in nice and early.
I regret all of the things. The amount of people who mistakenly use my email is insane. And I have no way of contacting them to ask them to stop. Like how the fuck am I supposed to just google someone's real email address?