For Claymore characters it's usually quite helpful to hit either 3 or 4 times (I don't exactly remember) and then dash to the side to prevent waiting ages for the animation of the final attack to complete, otherwise you wouldn't be able to start attacking again.
> Somewhere between a sluggish super smash bros and dark souls. Something with deep character state management and directional parrying / dodges.
While it doesn't feature jumping and is a Metroidvania with some character customisation (not too deep though), Unworthy [0] is a pretty good fit for the 2D Dark Souls genre. The animations come out a lot quicker than the actual attack but they feel really heavy and powerful. A lot of people complain that it's relatively easy because you can just dodge/roll behind and enemy and smack them but I've found it to be fairly hard (I'm not good at these kinds of games but they're really fun :D).
Maybe not, but you can reduce the list of potential attackers from relatively average Joes to more experienced, specialised and well funded actors (such as the NSA - who would probably just issue a warrant anyway) with better security practises. It isn't ideal - someone might still access your data without your consent - but it is realistic and achievable.
> The problem is that there are great incentives and not enough deterrents.
Again, true, but that doesn't mean that the public should just live with this. It's not unreasonable to ask a company to take the security of their customers seriously and take steps to ensure that their data is secure from an attacker. There are other things that can be done: harsher penalties for companies who don't take issues like this seriously, setting out (and enforcing!) standards for security, incentivising security research, and so on. Are these suggestions achievable? Probably. Are they going to be achieved? Probably not. Are there a better ideas for solving this problem? Definitely, but I'm not smart enough to think of them. But just giving up and labelling this as an "education problem" is defeatist and doesn't help.
This might not apply to all LZ based programs/algorithms but compress (an old Unix utility based on the Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm) fell out of favour after it ran afoul of patent issues (you can read more about it on the compress Wikipedia page [0] and a section of the GIF Wikipedia page [1] which covers more about the enforcement of the patent). From what I can gather though, it enjoyed considerable success and was pretty much the standard utility for compressing data on Unix. I think eventually though it would have been replaced because other algorithms (bzip2, gzip, etc.) have slightly better compression ratios (even if they are more computationally expensive).
This reminds me of a quote from Margin Call: "There's only three ways to succeed in this business: be first, be smart, or cheat." It's not entirely relevant (the context here is art, and given that it's on HN it could also be applied to programming too) but the essence is the same.
While I don't disagree that more and more criminals use encryption to hide their activities, the 'Cloud Act' completely upsets the balance suggested by Ms Patel:
'"Tech companies like Facebook have a responsibility to balance privacy with the safety of the public," Ms Patel said in the open letter, which was also signed by the US Attorney General William P Barr, Acting US Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and the Australian minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton.'
How are you going to ask companies like Facebook to give you faster access to information across international borders and still say 'Hey you should have some privacy too'. It just seems blatantly dystopian. This is part of a growing trend of governments that want back doors to social media in the name of security and justice: Australia, the USA, and now the UK. That being said HN, how do you propose governments deal with online criminal activity? A lot of people here will criticise this and while that criticism is justified I just wonder if there's an alternative solution to this problem.
I started reading 'But How Do It Know' a while back; I never finished it but I can say that it was a very fun read.
I've heard that 'From Nand to Tetris' [0] is also quite a worthwhile read. A quick look shows that it not only has a link to a book [1] but also some freely available notes/lectures as well as some exercises.
I feel like it's not just imaginary friends that children invent, it's whole universes with it's own rules, it's own characters, it's own attributes, that kids will regularly come back to, and that are shaped by the real, physical, hard world. Using our imagination, we can make whatever we want, and using that children will want to create things that they might lack in life, even if it is in the short term (boredom). There's a comment somewhere here about someone who 'made' a dog because they're parents wouldn't get them one; eldest children are more likely to have imaginary friends, perhaps because they're lonely [0]. It's very interesting.
If - and this is a very, very big if - if the US bombed the Chinese Embassy deliberately, what would be their motive? What would they stand to gain by destroying the embassy?