Sadly this is the exact behaviour I have come to expect from these types of people.
Rather than actively work towards fixing the big issues in gender inequality (which requires society as a whole to change, and consequently will take decades of slow improvement), they choose to take the easy route and fill themselves with self-righteous indignation over an open source maintainer who reverted a commit for a trivial documentation change that he thought violated commit procedures. Obviously he is a rampant misogynist and needs to be crucified.
The real irony here is that the people with the pitchforks are generally more sexist than those they choose to lambast, seeing as they feel so compelled to defend poor defenseless women from all aggressors (real and imagined).
From my experience code is either 'done properly' or 'shoehorned in'. But really, 'done properly' means 'you have time to organize everything satisfactorily at a high level', typically only when you are writing a new module from scratch.
Everything else is trying to shoehorn something new into an existing framework, and you don't have enough time to get it 'done properly' because your product manager has a heart attack when you tell them how long it'll take to do a proper refactoring job. This is where you will quite happily cut corners, and the chance that you'll inadvertently break existing functionality in the process increases exponentially. This is the mechanism that, in my experience, causes balls-of-mud.
And of course, no matter how good you are at planning every required use-case of your code over its lifetime at the 'done properly' stage, you can never think of it all, so at some point or another you are forced to shoehorn stuff in everywhere anyway.
Schools need to empower and educate young people as to how to create wealth, and not just how to fit into a predesigned hole the labor market has ready for you.
Until that happens the relatively few people that 'get' wealth creation will always have the biggest slice of the pie.
Mining boom. There are legions of cashed up FIFO (fly in - fly out) bogans that have more money than sense, and so the price of everything has gone up.
Business is extremely competitive. How is that any different from a car race? No entrepreneur starts a business to fail and lose all their money; they start a business to succeed, just like a competitive racer races to win.
Why is it okay to dismiss his example as "just another privileged rich guy" and then you give an example of a friend who started a business. Being in a position to start a business is extremely privileged compared to most people.
I'm not in the financial position to start a business, can I dismiss your example as "just another privileged rich guy (relative to me)"?
In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever.
Pretty much. More mass to lift = more fuel = more mass = more fuel etc., plus burning fuel isn't the most efficient way of getting kinetic energy into the thing you are lifting.
I would say it is unsuitable for atmospheric engines because of the way it runs. Earth to Mars in 30 days will need you to be travelling at almost 90 km/second. The engine has to fire for 3 days straight because the delta v you need is retardedly high, so it pulses the engine once a minute so that the passengers don't die and the ship doesn't break up due to huge g-forces.
Lifting something into orbit needs to be done fast, because most of your energy is spent counteracting gravity, not air resistance. A slow pulsing engine would not be enough to get you up.
Once you hit a population of 50,000, you start to get bad traffic. Density then ramps up pretty quickly from there. Quite soon you'll have a population of 200,000, and the traffic is quite a lot worse, but not terribly bad.
The real horror comes when you start a region's great work. A significant number of people will leave the city in the mornings to work at the great work. If you are making a great work you are probably sending dozens of trucks with resources to it as well. The end result is you get easily 10x more vehicles leaving/entering the city. The queue to get in through the single lane off-ramp from the highway then ends up stretching all the way to the next city, and it takes a good 24 hours for the cars at the end to get in. It then ends up stabilizing, taking maybe 4-6 hours for someone to get into the city.
Also, a large number of cars 'just passing through' will use your city entrance as a 'quick' way to do a U-turn on the highway, blocking traffic even more.
While I wasn't cured after a 'short course of treatment' I started to get better from near-suicidal point when I started getting treatment. I had anxiety problems after that, but kept on at it.
It took me a good 5 years to deal with all of my emotional baggage, and from that I now have the skills to deal with shit, and to better perceive and handle my emotional state. I am now 100% depression free for almost 4 years now, and I have been able to completely cope with much worse situations than initially caused me to get depressed.
My father was a holocaust survivor, and he was the exact same way. In fact, all of his surviving relatives were the same also. It seemed completely contradictory to me when I was younger (especially being raised as an atheist jew), but as I grew older I slowly understood. I think being persecuted like that made them hold onto their 'jewish identity' to an insane degree, despite the fact that all of them lost their religion.
Once upon a time, the Australian dollar was worth about 50 US cents, so things in Australia cost about double what it cost in the US. Then the Australian economy started booming, and now the AUD is stronger than the USD. But everyone who sells stuff in Australia thought "wait a minute, these guys are used to paying double, so what incentive do we have to change?".
So now you have retarded pricing, like some places expecting you to pay $110 US dollars for a single video game. Don't even get me started on the price of food. Unless Australian retailers change their tactics, they will slowly go out of business, because an entire generation of computer literate people realize you can get 2-3x more out of your money just by buying from online stores.
>it's objectively a worse use of those engineers' time
If you are ActivisionBlizzard, or EA. What do you do if you're not them? THQ is a good example of a publisher that tried to mimic the big dogs, and failed dismally because of it. There's a huge difference between AAA games company, and wannabe-AAA games company, and the expansive graveyard of developers/publishers is a testament to that.
It seems incredulous to me that when facing a distant bankruptcy, the best choice is to keep doing what you've been doing, dump all your remaining cash into finishing the AAA games you've got going, and betting it all on black. Are these companies completely oblivious to the fact that smaller, indie-style games are, at the very least, profitable?
Maybe the games industry culture really is this self-destructive. Or maybe, with budgets so high, even for a huge company, solvent to insolvent can be 1 or 2 poor releases away.
http://warhorsestudios.cz/index.php?page=blog&entry=blog... is a very good blog post, outlining how poisonous executive management of large video game companies is, and how there are inordinate numbers of useless/inefficient positions in games development.
I remember reading a blog post by the guy who did the fire for Far Cry 2. He spent a year on it. He didn't even do any of the graphics. He spent an entire year just playing around with fire spreading algorithms. An entire man year, spent on making the effect of one weapon look cool. Absolute madness.
On your mention of Garbage Truck Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator 2 came out not too long ago. All you do is drive a truck, that's it. It's selling pretty well, and has a development team of about 10 guys.
Why don't people in the big games companies realize all they need to do to be successful is make small, focused, FUN games, that have development teams of 10 or so. The rise of the indie game genre pretty much proves that it is financially viable.
>Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars.
Law is about drama? There's plenty of drama and hyperbole in your post. He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal.
If you think the laws are retarded, then how you protest that is your prerogative. If you choose to protest by blatantly and purposely breaking the law, unless you are 99.999% certain that an obvious interpretation of the law violates the constitution, you should expect to get charged and convicted of breaking said law.
Prosecutors aren't hired to be nice, they are hired to represent the state and bring charges against people who violate the state's laws. If you seriously think that he shouldn't be charged with breaking the law because 'he didn't deserve it', 'he did not have malicious intentions' or 'the law is dumb', then by extension no one should be convicted of any crime, because there will always be some point of view where you could think that of anyone.
Geez, it's been almost a decade since the last good space sim, Freelancer.
I wonder why no one has made a mainstream space sim game since (X3 is a notable exception, though the learning curve is quite steep). Between this and Star Citizen, there seems to be legions of space nerds like myself, ready to throw money at even the possibility of a good game.
Rather than actively work towards fixing the big issues in gender inequality (which requires society as a whole to change, and consequently will take decades of slow improvement), they choose to take the easy route and fill themselves with self-righteous indignation over an open source maintainer who reverted a commit for a trivial documentation change that he thought violated commit procedures. Obviously he is a rampant misogynist and needs to be crucified.
The real irony here is that the people with the pitchforks are generally more sexist than those they choose to lambast, seeing as they feel so compelled to defend poor defenseless women from all aggressors (real and imagined).