My gear is better than the recommended specs. I have to turn off anti-cheating (i.e. https://www.nexusmods.com/eldenring/mods/90) to make it run smoothly, which disables online interaction.
Seems like it's down to luck whether EasyAntiCheat will wreck your performance or not.
I can run it at almost max settings without EAC, but even with minimum resolution and minimum everything else it runs like crap with EAC.
>it is in fact the case that getting new stuff done is the only way to benefit the company
I spent a few weeks just refactoring 6k lines of code into +- 300 lines on my current job.
If my company was run by you, the best course for me woould have been leaving that mess around. Which would have led to either the same refactoring under far more stressful time constraints, or even more shit code by applying a band-aid into the old code (this code makes us some serious money, and an unexpected third party change would have broken it in such a way that would be seriously hard to fix with the old code).
Also, there are loads of features that were far easier to implement after the refactoring.
Maintenance job isn't coasting around. It has a multiplicative effect on anyone who works in the system. It needs to be done, if you want the org to not slow down to a snail pace - and when someone leaves a mess, it isn't even neccessarily easier than pumping new features since you have to figure out all observable behaviours from messy stuff.
If there's no incentive to getting your hands dirty, no one will want to get their hands dirty. People will fight to not do neccessary jobs if the only way of advancing their career is avoiding those jobs.
You're asking for feature bloat. If the only way of winning is getting new stuff done, new stuff will be done regardless of the benefit or cost to the company.
>typically more harmful for more people on average than the feminine expressions of same
The equivalent feminine expression of the same kind of dominance is a reputation war.
Reputation wars can destroy lives and relationships. If I have to choose one, I for one much prefer to deal with people winning at how awesome they are (and how lame I am) than a reputation war.
Civilized places have cracked down on violence, so male dominance contests almost never end up with a face punched anymore. Toning down the violence made them much safer.
Female dominance contests are still as deadly as they have always been.
I work in a codebase where a previous dude constantly did this. I do not find those lines amusing.
Whenever I'm un-fucking his stuff one of the first things to do is expand his infinite lines into usually 5-50 lines because visualizing and reasoning about 50 lines of code crammed into one requires someone who is totally a way, way better programmer than me.
I don't need to git blame to know when the code was written by that guy.
Will definitely take a long while. People in general aren't up to be criticized on that one, even indirectly.
Children are like cute kitties: no one wants to see them tortured, but they don't really get to be treated respectfully in any way or form. The flag for "do I respect them?" is always set to True and yet it is almost never reflected in the actual behaviour towards them.
People are at least willing to entertain the thought that you aren't an absolute idiot, might be acting in good faith and have some sort of internal capacity for morality or ethics if you're an adult.
Do you mind sharing how you got those references? I.e. which search strings/websites you used, or if you had them at hand with f.e. Mendeley or maybe already knew about them?
I wanted to read some papers in the subject a few days ago but couldn't come up with a good search strings nor good initial references. It's not my field of expertise :x
Depending on the subject, people's natural state is optimism even if they think they are being realistic. [1] and [2] have a bunch of interesting references on this matter
Appearing smart to dumb people isn't hard, so it doesn't count as a negative about pessimism :)
I won't make a judgement about it being usually right, but being pessimistic can be a tool to counteract the standard optimistic stance if you know people are usually optimistic (aka their expectations overshoot reality) on the subject
The words just before it were "a sketchy patched executable". People are bound to infer there is something wrong with it, regardless of whatever your intentions might have been.
I have a feeling if OP had read some of the papers surrounding Daniel Kahneman (and the works Kahneman cited) he wouldn't be so sure about mankind's rationality.
It's like the vast majority of experiments on the subject ends up with "and then they proceeded to use their intuition and who they like more to make their decision".
Also, I think it was "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" that also said that logical arguments are the weakest kind of rhetorical arguments since basically anything else is more likely to convince people.
Yes, and if this is their standard modus operandi the healthy thing to do, if possible, is getting rid of them from your life.
Are you gonna be happy when your kids start playing the game with you? When they are the ones unilaterally deciding what matters and what doesn't?
If the answer is "no" then you aren't respecting them as individuals capable of learning, thought and action. And I got the feeling you won't be happy when they do it with you.
When you constantly play games like that you are also establishing that you can never be trusted, even if they think it matters.
It's not a game if you can't choose to stop playing it.
People just don't respect kids. Would you enjoy that game with other adults? Even if no matter the situation they wouldn't give a shit if you wanted to stop playing it or not?
Not being able to trust anyone ever to be acting in good faith and be honest is one of the reasons why we can't have nice things.
So you're implying me the only place supply and demand actually works is in an idealized free market that doesn't exist? If that's the case, yeah, we agree on it.
All those cases I mentioned came arose under one of the most (maybe the most?) free market of modernity.
A close to most fundamental factor must survive close to most observations of the real world. That's not the case.
Monopolies have historically shit all over the notion that supply and demand is a good model to use for the market.
Much like most economic models, there are underlying assumptions about it that make it bad at actually predicting the real world. Things like perfectly competitive markets (haha), prices being adjustable (haha) and the forces that act on supply/demand being rational (extra hahaha).
There are lots and lots of cases where it fails, like the housing bubble, administered prices and wages.
Still, it might as well be a religion. Afterall, people can say it is close to a most fundamental law about markets with a straight face (despite it failling all the time).
The free market might as well be a religion for some people. Nothing (not even historical facts) is enough evidence for it to not be the answers to all economic issues.
Also, there are lots of US tech people here - with overly inflated salaries compared to approximately everyone else. And everyone knows those winning the game have a tendency to lose empathy and think the game is fair, no matter how much evidence against it.
Seems like it's down to luck whether EasyAntiCheat will wreck your performance or not.
I can run it at almost max settings without EAC, but even with minimum resolution and minimum everything else it runs like crap with EAC.