Just in general: More sane defaults, less RTFM. Sure, you can configure everything, but MUST you? A lot of opensource developers seem to believe that configurability is a get-out-of-jail-free card for having to provide a good user experience out of the box.

While it wasn’t 100% free from hate, Heroes of the Storm had significantly less of it. Similarly, GW2 has a far friendlier community than WoW, because game design does matter.

I loved how that game managed to have an A E S T H E T I C that was absolutely gorgeous AND perfectly matched the games themes. It’s also one of very few games where the open world-edness isn’t just a gimmick, but is integral to the game play. A real detective doesn’t get LEVEL COMPLETE messages or 10/10 CLUES FOUND.

Oh, and finally everyone was hot and the music is an absolute banger.

I’d recommend everyone check out https://prql-lang.org/. It’s SQL, but readable and writable in a sane way.

And no, SQL is NOT readable or writable for anything involving more than a single join.

SQL is horrible as a language to read or write. There’s a million different variants, because it lacks so many basic things. And when used in other code, you generally end up string concatinating one language in another language, with all the HORRIBLE bugs something like that brings about.

Imagine Backend People said we should just write adhoc Javascript for the frontend by concatinating the “correct” code in the backend.

Without a DSL for writing SQL, any sufficiently complex program will end up with string concatinating all over the place. Basically, writing a language with ZERO checks or highlighting or anything. That’s asking for trouble.

But coming from Java, I agree that some ORMs go way too far.

I want a shooter-esque game crossed with MOBA stuff. Basically, I just want Monday Night Combat, Battleborn or Gigantic to come back.

ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.

If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.

If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.

ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!

Writing a CHIP-8 Emulator was really fun. There’s a lot of resources out there and it’s really fun, small low level project you can “finish” in a week of casual coding. As someone who was mostly coding highlevel in my job, I really learned a lot.

The Prime Video example was more like moving from nano-service insanity to sanity. They basically split EVERY POSSIBLE STEP into separate lambdas. They switched to still using microservices, but they do all transcoding steps for a single video on the same microservice instance (aka sanity).

Compiler checked typing is strictly superior to dynamic typing. Any criticism of it is either ignorance, only applicable to older languages or a temporarily missing feature from the current languages.

Using dynamic languages is understandable for a lot of language “external” reasons, just that I really feel like there’s no good argument for it.

We used to have a Python guy at my work. For a lot of LITTLE ETL stuff he created Python projects. In two projects I’ve had to fix up now, he used different tooling. Both those toolings have failed me (Poetry, Conda). I ended up using our CI/CD pipeline code to run my local stuff, because I could not get those things to work.

For comparison, it took me roughly zero seconds to start working on an old Go project.

Python was built in an era where space was expensive and it was only used for small, universal scripts. In that context, having all packages be “system-wide” made sense. All the virtual env shenanigans won’t ever fix that.

And then it turns out some horrendously ugly piece of plastic (like the Kinesis Advantage 360) is better for actually using.

Because from everything I’ve seen, those communities did not do ANYTHING illegal. They talked about software that can be used that way, but if we go by that measure, discussing any Fediverse software is illegal, because you could use that to host illegal content.

It’s better than “invisible” exceptions, but it’s still the worst “better” version. The best solution is some version of the good old Result monad. Rust has the BEST error handling (at least in the languages i know). You must handle Errors, BUT they are just values, AND there’s a easy, non-verbose way of passing on the error (the ? operator).

It’s absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.

And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any “nice” company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.

How is everybody just now finding out how capitalism works? Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about shareholder profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.

I agree that not everyone can go 0%, but the vast, vast majority can. Especially if we’re talking about people with access and time to chat on some internet platform, aka everyone reading this.

Not every man can stand up for womens rights either. For example, his sexist boss might constantly make sexist jokes about his coworkers. He needs the job, though. He can’t afford to do the right thing. Do you think, therefore, it’s a good thing to ALWAYS BRING THIS HYPOTHETICAL UP, whenever the topic is that men should stop supporting the patriarchy, feminism is good, etc.? If non-feminists were the ones always bringing up the exceptions, would you believe they actually cared?

So tomorrow all politicians decide to do the right thing. Meat (just as one example) suddenly costs 5 times as much, because environmental and animal welfare regulations (ones with teeth, this time). In what universe do you think the population would accept that???

ANY sustainable policy change absolutely REQUIRES the support of the voting population. And that’s a million times easier in a world with even just 10% vegans. Any collective action is comprised of INDIVIDUALS choosing to participate, and do their part.

Unless you think they could pass mandatory consumption laws, not eating meat would absolutely work. We’re at just 2% vegans, and we’ve got Beyond and a lot of vegan options in soo many places, compared to just 10 years ago. Imagine just 10% vegans.