What really kills me is that No Man's Sky was not a terrible game.
Nope. Just an incredibly boring one. You can't change a few details and then ask players to keep doing the exact same thing they were doing. If you're going to grind you need to introduce new variables or at least follow a story.
You mean the scenario that the vast majority of people find themselves in, the vast majority of traffic hazards occur in, and the vast majority of road variance exists in?
Yeah I'm sure they're much better driving straight lines down highways!/sarcasm.
And why would it be? Airlines have to report CO2 emissions and the programs they use to get them down. Also you can drive from Cardiff to Heathrow in about 2hours. That very short and very light plane trip can probably be done daily for a year before it even compares to one inter-continental flight.
True capitalism would have the airport auction off EVERY departure time
Not at all. The airport deciding how to sell it's slots has nothing to do with a political system that allows private ownership. What you are describing is a perfect market a concept nothing at all to do with political structure of company/resource ownership.
And I'm getting bitched at for wanting a fucking straw
And so you should. I hope you also get bitched at for conflating two very different problems with very different consequences and very different solutions under the banner of "pollution".
Don't be daft. The users aren't confused in a way that they think they are using Google. They are confused as to why they landed at Google when aiming for DuckDuckGo.
People who are willing to pay 250$ for running shoes can run faster. Go figure.
You're an idiot if you think that wasn't accounted for. Also $250 isn't something outrageous for a running shoe. There's a lot of different shoes in that price class. Hell I can barely break 6min kilometers and my shoes cost $195, why? Foot problems makes me very picky on getting shoes that don't cause my knees to hurt when I run.
Wouldn't this qualify the shoes as an illegal performance enhancement ?
This reminds me of the Speedo LZR controversy of the 2008 where the swimsuits were subsequently banned and all records set by people wearing them had an note attached so people know they were set while wearing them.
What are the corporations hiding that they would fight tooth and nail against labels?
Evidence that consumers are incredibly stupid and jump onto tinfoil hattery like GMO = bad. There's a shitton of products at a supermarket that could use some very big warning labels. GMO fruit isn't one of them.
People don't like change, but unexpected tastes are part of the great wonders of the world. You can see this in action down the road from me where a vinegar and oil shop sells these two very common products in literally hundreds of different flavours. We experiment with taste in every possible way. Next time you cook a stake before you throw it on the BBQ rub some coffee grinds on the outside. It's an unexpected and WONDERFUL flavour.
Nobody ever wants outlook, they're just stuck with it.
I could not disagree more. That is one thing that I greatly miss on Linux is a comparable office management suite. No not an email client, a system that connects email, calendars, skype calling, group management, tasks, and notes all together in a very configurable way.
Nobody loves your products, Microsoft
Nobody "loves" any products. Nobody normal anyway. "Loving" a product would make you a fanboi. Instead we use products suited to the task, and in that regard Outlook has no competitor, and we sure as hell aren't held hostage by it.
errr. We're talking desktop outlook here. That abomination of Outlook365, and that irrelevant thing on the mobile can GTFO.
UTC is a time representation, to be accurate and useful in programming, a clock cannot do the representation part.
I don't follow.
Leap seconds are arbitrarily defined like time zones, clocks in low-level system calls should not care about them.
Indeed they shouldn't care about them, but they should accommodate them. If you don't accommodate them you end up with a various sets of ways of compensating for them each with different drawbacks.
Leap second may be inserted at the end of some other hour (or half-hour or quarter-hour), depending on the local time zone
Having a system that is flexible enough to pick where to insert that leap second is the trivial part of solving this conundrum.
I guess you would say that my eyes are as close to perfect as possible because my glasses give me 20/20 plus vision?
No I would not. Your eyes are a function of biology and the glasses are a function of a man made optical correction. I would say that the entire system which is your eyesight is close to perfect, but not your eyes.
The Hubble on the other hand was a human made optical system before and with the adjustment lens is a human made optical system afterwards. On top of that Hubble doesn't have glasses. The corrective lenses aren't even in front of the optical train so they have very little in common with your glasses example. A better analogy would be your eyes are perfect after getting a cornea transplant.
It's usless pedantry to say the Hubble isn't a flawed device.
It's in space and it works as good as specified on the ground. Having an fix applied to it doesn't make it flawed. If you use that example then I would wager most things around you are flawed.
If that back up mirror had been the one sent to space, the Hubble would have performed on spec with no mirror tricks.
And? I don't see how that is relevant given how it's performing just fine now.
And no one would ever design a telescope with the system they ended up with in Hubble.
Indeed. No one designs electronics with traces moved, jumpers inserted, etc. No one designs software requiring patches. The fact is that these things are incredibly common and just because a system isn't perfectly designed doesn't make it flawed. A system is flawed when it doesn't meet the spec. The spec has been met, it's no longer flawed and very much fit for purpose.
That it was fixed is not in doubt. But it was still a kludge
You're right that it's not in doubt, but it's not a kludge. It is physics. Bending light one way to compensate light bent incorrectly another way isn't a kludge, it's actually applying the exact same theory and exact same construction methods to achieve the desired outcome. A kludge would be correcting it in software, or going out with some sandpaper and re-grinding the mirror in space.
Actually there is. It's called the perfect market, a term that a lot of people actually confuse with a free market. You need regulation to turn a free market into a perfect market and a perfect market is in theory the one size fits all best solution to an economy.
The problem is that the regulations governing the markets in many markets are lobbied for by people who stand to gain something from having more freedom and a less perfect market.
The USA has similar laws as the EU when it comes to anti-trust. The only difference is their prosecutors generally have neither legal teeth nor the balls to go after large corporations. You can see that clearly every time a large company wants to merge:
US Gov: "We think there's a risk consumers will be worse off" Megamerger: "We promise to play nice" US Gov: "euurrh okay" approved. Megamerger: "psyche! we just raised prices" US Gov: "euurrh that caught us by surprise, we didn't see that coming"
That plays out very differently in many other countries.
Also the Hubble isn't a flawed instrument. It was a flawed instrument but after the optics were corrected it is very much an instrument that matches the spec that was originally supposed to be built to, and more given how the process of trying to correct the images while waiting for optics produced new breakthroughs in image processing.
Given that the various soy and nut milks have been in use (and named) since the 13th (other sources, 17th) centuries
You may want to start with a source rather than other sources. Given that soy milk is a 20th century phenomenon outside of China bout the only thing you could consider it being named back in the 13th century is doujiang. Don't confuse your sources calling it milk when talking about the early origins of it. They are translating the terms into the common names. The term soy milk wasn't seen in any english until a single mention in the 18th century. It was documented only a handful of times mostly by people who visited China, and wasn't actually even mentioned in the context of the west until the turn of the 20th century.
By Definition? The number two definition of milk from Websters
By definition dictionaries define words the way they are commonly used, not the way they are supposed to be used. That's why we have specific books for specific fields of practice including law and sciences that define terms without those pesky ever changing dictionaries.
Changing it to coconut juice would be more confusing than leaving it alone.
Jo dawg, we're in the age of the internet which begs the question: if we can change the meaning of entire phrases without confusing anyone except a few language Nazis who fail to realise that language is fluid, why would you consider it confusing to change? Just change the word, let people adopt it slowly and we can all be gay.
1) Seconds past the epoch DOES account for leap seconds, those seconds are just seconds, and are counted.
Maybe you should actually read how seconds past epoch work in the Unix world before you comment, because they are expressly not counted. Worse still the way they are not counted varies by implementation in the Linux / Unix world. e.g. RedHat with the NTP client setup as defaults will cause the system to roll back the clock by 1 second and repeat 23:59:59 twice. Other systems will repeat 00:00:00 twice. This causes many problems for applications. You can also configure Linux to slew the timer causing the system to run slower or faster, bringing it out of sync with others. This breaks time sensitive applications. Or you can configure to ignore it which causes loss of synchronisation and really at that point why even bother trying to represent time in UTC anyway.
2) The OS layer should be CONSISTENT, and SPE is.
As said above SPE is not. The only way the OS layer can be consistent is to recognise 23:59:60 as a valid time or to give up the idea of being UTC, represent time as TAI (something that you're claiming incorrectly that SPE is doing by counting leap seconds) and let the application layer figure out what the heck the time actually is depending on the user requirements.
I know. Libraries are just delivered by magic unicorns./sarcasm. My point was not application programmers, but rather programmers in general. Time is hard. Even when you think you can offload it to a library time is still hard. Even if we have a perfect time keeping library you still end up dealing with application requirements that will require time to be handled in a special way, e.g. a calendar or an app that communicates between different countries.
Programmers need to remain vigilant even when they do use libraries. Time is hard.
Slashdot Mirror
What really kills me is that No Man's Sky was not a terrible game.
Nope. Just an incredibly boring one. You can't change a few details and then ask players to keep doing the exact same thing they were doing. If you're going to grind you need to introduce new variables or at least follow a story.
Neither does toodling around at 25mph or less.
You mean the scenario that the vast majority of people find themselves in, the vast majority of traffic hazards occur in, and the vast majority of road variance exists in?
Yeah I'm sure they're much better driving straight lines down highways! /sarcasm.
and had actually forgotten his password.
You're right the GP was wrong. The person in TFA isn't just a moron, he's a complete and total moron.
And why would it be? Airlines have to report CO2 emissions and the programs they use to get them down. Also you can drive from Cardiff to Heathrow in about 2hours. That very short and very light plane trip can probably be done daily for a year before it even compares to one inter-continental flight.
True capitalism would have the airport auction off EVERY departure time
Not at all. The airport deciding how to sell it's slots has nothing to do with a political system that allows private ownership. What you are describing is a perfect market a concept nothing at all to do with political structure of company/resource ownership.
And I'm getting bitched at for wanting a fucking straw
And so you should. I hope you also get bitched at for conflating two very different problems with very different consequences and very different solutions under the banner of "pollution".
They wouldn't be so easily confused
Don't be daft. The users aren't confused in a way that they think they are using Google. They are confused as to why they landed at Google when aiming for DuckDuckGo.
TIL: Ask.com still exists!
People who are willing to pay 250$ for running shoes can run faster. Go figure.
You're an idiot if you think that wasn't accounted for. Also $250 isn't something outrageous for a running shoe. There's a lot of different shoes in that price class. Hell I can barely break 6min kilometers and my shoes cost $195, why? Foot problems makes me very picky on getting shoes that don't cause my knees to hurt when I run.
Still the cheapest activity I do.
Wouldn't this qualify the shoes as an illegal performance enhancement ?
This reminds me of the Speedo LZR controversy of the 2008 where the swimsuits were subsequently banned and all records set by people wearing them had an note attached so people know they were set while wearing them.
Ahhh. Understand what you mean now. Cheers.
The public has a right to know what they're eating.
Son, the public hasn't had a frigging clue what they have been eating since the 50s.
What are the corporations hiding that they would fight tooth and nail against labels?
Evidence that consumers are incredibly stupid and jump onto tinfoil hattery like GMO = bad. There's a shitton of products at a supermarket that could use some very big warning labels. GMO fruit isn't one of them.
People don't like change or unexpected tastes.
People don't like change, but unexpected tastes are part of the great wonders of the world. You can see this in action down the road from me where a vinegar and oil shop sells these two very common products in literally hundreds of different flavours. We experiment with taste in every possible way. Next time you cook a stake before you throw it on the BBQ rub some coffee grinds on the outside. It's an unexpected and WONDERFUL flavour.
Nobody ever wants outlook, they're just stuck with it.
I could not disagree more. That is one thing that I greatly miss on Linux is a comparable office management suite. No not an email client, a system that connects email, calendars, skype calling, group management, tasks, and notes all together in a very configurable way.
Nobody loves your products, Microsoft
Nobody "loves" any products. Nobody normal anyway. "Loving" a product would make you a fanboi. Instead we use products suited to the task, and in that regard Outlook has no competitor, and we sure as hell aren't held hostage by it.
errr. We're talking desktop outlook here. That abomination of Outlook365, and that irrelevant thing on the mobile can GTFO.
It's bad enough that I can't disable the "Presidential Alerts" on my Samsung
You could just uninstall twitter.
UTC is a time representation, to be accurate and useful in programming, a clock cannot do the representation part.
I don't follow.
Leap seconds are arbitrarily defined like time zones, clocks in low-level system calls should not care about them.
Indeed they shouldn't care about them, but they should accommodate them. If you don't accommodate them you end up with a various sets of ways of compensating for them each with different drawbacks.
Leap second may be inserted at the end of some other hour (or half-hour or quarter-hour), depending on the local time zone
Having a system that is flexible enough to pick where to insert that leap second is the trivial part of solving this conundrum.
I guess you would say that my eyes are as close to perfect as possible because my glasses give me 20/20 plus vision?
No I would not. Your eyes are a function of biology and the glasses are a function of a man made optical correction. I would say that the entire system which is your eyesight is close to perfect, but not your eyes.
The Hubble on the other hand was a human made optical system before and with the adjustment lens is a human made optical system afterwards. On top of that Hubble doesn't have glasses. The corrective lenses aren't even in front of the optical train so they have very little in common with your glasses example. A better analogy would be your eyes are perfect after getting a cornea transplant.
It's usless pedantry to say the Hubble isn't a flawed device.
It's in space and it works as good as specified on the ground. Having an fix applied to it doesn't make it flawed. If you use that example then I would wager most things around you are flawed.
If that back up mirror had been the one sent to space, the Hubble would have performed on spec with no mirror tricks.
And? I don't see how that is relevant given how it's performing just fine now.
And no one would ever design a telescope with the system they ended up with in Hubble.
Indeed. No one designs electronics with traces moved, jumpers inserted, etc. No one designs software requiring patches. The fact is that these things are incredibly common and just because a system isn't perfectly designed doesn't make it flawed. A system is flawed when it doesn't meet the spec. The spec has been met, it's no longer flawed and very much fit for purpose.
That it was fixed is not in doubt. But it was still a kludge
You're right that it's not in doubt, but it's not a kludge. It is physics. Bending light one way to compensate light bent incorrectly another way isn't a kludge, it's actually applying the exact same theory and exact same construction methods to achieve the desired outcome. A kludge would be correcting it in software, or going out with some sandpaper and re-grinding the mirror in space.
There's no "one size fits all" solution.
Actually there is. It's called the perfect market, a term that a lot of people actually confuse with a free market. You need regulation to turn a free market into a perfect market and a perfect market is in theory the one size fits all best solution to an economy.
The problem is that the regulations governing the markets in many markets are lobbied for by people who stand to gain something from having more freedom and a less perfect market.
The USA has similar laws as the EU when it comes to anti-trust. The only difference is their prosecutors generally have neither legal teeth nor the balls to go after large corporations. You can see that clearly every time a large company wants to merge:
US Gov: "We think there's a risk consumers will be worse off"
Megamerger: "We promise to play nice"
US Gov: "euurrh okay" approved.
Megamerger: "psyche! we just raised prices"
US Gov: "euurrh that caught us by surprise, we didn't see that coming"
That plays out very differently in many other countries.
Err the comparison is in the article.
Also the Hubble isn't a flawed instrument. It was a flawed instrument but after the optics were corrected it is very much an instrument that matches the spec that was originally supposed to be built to, and more given how the process of trying to correct the images while waiting for optics produced new breakthroughs in image processing.
Given that the various soy and nut milks have been in use (and named) since the 13th (other sources, 17th) centuries
You may want to start with a source rather than other sources. Given that soy milk is a 20th century phenomenon outside of China bout the only thing you could consider it being named back in the 13th century is doujiang. Don't confuse your sources calling it milk when talking about the early origins of it. They are translating the terms into the common names. The term soy milk wasn't seen in any english until a single mention in the 18th century. It was documented only a handful of times mostly by people who visited China, and wasn't actually even mentioned in the context of the west until the turn of the 20th century.
By Definition? The number two definition of milk from Websters
By definition dictionaries define words the way they are commonly used, not the way they are supposed to be used. That's why we have specific books for specific fields of practice including law and sciences that define terms without those pesky ever changing dictionaries.
Changing it to coconut juice would be more confusing than leaving it alone.
Jo dawg, we're in the age of the internet which begs the question: if we can change the meaning of entire phrases without confusing anyone except a few language Nazis who fail to realise that language is fluid, why would you consider it confusing to change? Just change the word, let people adopt it slowly and we can all be gay.
1) Seconds past the epoch DOES account for leap seconds, those seconds are just seconds, and are counted.
Maybe you should actually read how seconds past epoch work in the Unix world before you comment, because they are expressly not counted. Worse still the way they are not counted varies by implementation in the Linux / Unix world. e.g. RedHat with the NTP client setup as defaults will cause the system to roll back the clock by 1 second and repeat 23:59:59 twice. Other systems will repeat 00:00:00 twice. This causes many problems for applications. You can also configure Linux to slew the timer causing the system to run slower or faster, bringing it out of sync with others. This breaks time sensitive applications. Or you can configure to ignore it which causes loss of synchronisation and really at that point why even bother trying to represent time in UTC anyway.
2) The OS layer should be CONSISTENT, and SPE is.
As said above SPE is not. The only way the OS layer can be consistent is to recognise 23:59:60 as a valid time or to give up the idea of being UTC, represent time as TAI (something that you're claiming incorrectly that SPE is doing by counting leap seconds) and let the application layer figure out what the heck the time actually is depending on the user requirements.
After all, it's why we have things like libraries
I know. Libraries are just delivered by magic unicorns. /sarcasm. My point was not application programmers, but rather programmers in general. Time is hard. Even when you think you can offload it to a library time is still hard. Even if we have a perfect time keeping library you still end up dealing with application requirements that will require time to be handled in a special way, e.g. a calendar or an app that communicates between different countries.
Programmers need to remain vigilant even when they do use libraries. Time is hard.