hipnoizz

Similarly, when I played UT'99 (by the definition it was ages ago ;-)), I loved playing against stronger players. Yeah, losing a lot, but also getting better, decreasing the gap, learning new things, and at some point being able to win against some of them (or keep the match close). Lots of them was so good - I played solely Instagib, and a lot of 1-1s - that I was happy with just making some kills. But it was a lot of fun nonetheless.

But I've also seen a lot of players that could not cope with losing - maybe overly competitive, maybe a bit immature etc. etc.

Accidentally yesterday I watched 'Miss Hokusai' about a daughter of the artist - she was a painter herself. The (animated) movie can be seen as a series of episodes, with the relations between Katsushika Ōi and her father being one of the subjects presented. From a quick glance at the (English) Wikipedia page about Hokusai I could spot some divergences compared to the movie. Anyway, I enjoyed the move quite a bit.

What are BC features that you find to be so great?

I'm genuinely curious - I heard of lot of BC being 'the tool' for diffing. I'm used to Meld, but my current employee has a pretty strict policy which tools could be used so at some point I've managed a licence for some older version of BC. But for some reason I've found its UI/the way it works a bit less optimal that I was accustomed for. Since I'm using that primarily for text diffs these day I usually use a diff tool from IntelliJ Idea (I have Idea open all the time).

One exception would be words loaned from Greek, like 'matematyka' or 'fizyka'. But I think they are being 'assimilated' so one can say that they do not count anyway.

Polish has also a fairly rich system of prefixes and suffixes and I think some of them would result in stressing some other syllable than the second to last (penultimate).

I would not be so optimistic to say 99%, but I think a lot of things like that could be actually assigned to some rules that are, well, actually applied pretty consistently. E.g. isn't devoicing of 'w' in 'wszystko' just the case of clusters of voiced and voiceless consonants? Similary 'Hodów' shows devoicing consonants at the end of a word.

I'm not sure about 'ą' - some examples would handy, but if we are talking about differences due to regional accents then following rules would be perfectly fine. With 'ę' - how do you pronounce 'część' actually? Again, I think the worst that can happen normally would be to be judged as 'ą ę'* ;)

I think that in general Polish pronunciation is fairly 'regular' and with applying just a few rules you would be almost always OK. Obviously I haven't try to learn Polish as my second language.

* For non-Polish speakers - if someone is 'ą ę' it means that (among others) he/she tries to be overly 'correct' in pronunciation.

Every time I search on my wife's iPhone for some specific application in the App Store the first result is an add for a competitor's app. How is that 'expected'?

As this specific review is from Phoronix - do you have some proof that their reviews are (heavily) biased? I'm looking at reviews in more details only when I want to buy something, other than that I skip them or just have a quick look. I haven't did any serious comparison either, but I remember Michael Larabel from Phoronix criticising various parties. Many of his reviews are basically measures/benchmarks with some summary on top of that - his benchmarking methodology may be or may be not flawed, I don't remember him shilling for AMD. AMD has probably some goodwill from the Linux community since they open source or provide various specs for their graphics card. At least that used to be the case.

I've spent probably close to a decade using Gerrit with various sized teams, and in the past few months I had an opportunity to work with Gitlab (so the MR/PR model). I've found that I definitely prefer Gerrit (and this feeling is shared by my colleagues). I think it boils down to following reasons.

Gerrit is a CR tool only (OK, it also hosts you repositories) and I've found that its UI allows me to focus on the code being reviewed much better than Gitlab. There are multiple maybe small things (navigation patterns, keyboard shortcuts, they way the information is provided) but all together make a tangible difference, one of reason being that reviewing someone other code is not an easy one and any obstacle will make it more mundane and lead to very shallow reviews.

I've found that a commit-based review process (although it is not enforced, i.e. a developer can push whatever number of commits and then ask for a review/assign reviewers) is much (much) better than the PR/MR model. I think it nudges developers into a) more though-out commits, b) smaller commits, c) pushing early and getting early feedback. Probably the fact that we are working with a bit unnecessarily complex branching model now makes things worse, but even without that I think that an effort to push changes (especially smaller ones/small fixes/small improvements) is (much) smaller in Gerrit.

There is one oddity with Gerrit, namely so-called 'Change-Id' (the way Gerrit tracks new revisions) - nothing unmanagable, but it probably will make you trip a few times at the beginning. And likely you will need to learn Git a little better (in general you will need amend/rebase to apply changes after your colleagues commented on them). If you are using any of JetBrains IDEs there is a very good plug-in, which also allows to easily fetch changes you are asked to review. All in all in the past decade we were able to on-board all new hires without much pain.

I still like many other bells and whistles provided by Gitlab (and likely Github), especially build pipelines. I would like to find some time to try to 'integrate' Gerrit with Gitlab - Gerrit can easily push changes to other Git repository, so I can imagine it would be possible to plug into build pipelines etc. etc. Yeah... so many things to do, so little time ;-)

Edit: One more thing - it is mentioned by fishywang below/around - I've just read his comment and facepalmed about myself why I didn't listed it as well - tracking comments/discussion/changes/revisions/diffs - this may be the biggest advantage of Gerrit - really, maybe I don't know how to use Gitlab properly, but this aspect there is really weak.

I remember reading about the development of Baldur's Gate II - around 2000 I suppose, a rather big game, especially for its times - and they supposedly tracked all bugs using some kind of physical board and paper notes. I'm not sure if that is true of course.

Pinball Fantasies was likely developed probably around 1991-1992, so 8 years earlier. We are really rather spoiled by nowadays tools (when we are not complaining about Jira etc. of course). I also still remember rather horrible crudeness of tools like Bugzilla or Mantis which were one of the first tools in this area I worked with.