mantrax5

"Does a mom obsessed with candy crush count"

Why wouldn't she count? Cause she's a mom? Cause the game has candy? Or what?

As for female assassins, truth is somewhere in the middle. You don't need to make everything from scratch. Procedural adjustments can be made to the male animations and you can use the same animations for females.

I mean come on, women have a slightly different figure, but they have two legs, two arms, one head and so on. They're humans. It's not like the complaint is that birds and dogs were left out of the game.

That said, I'm fine with women being left out being a business decision. They'll now see what the effects of that business decision is on sales, and have the chance to learn for the next version.

Autism isn't just a "bad brain" condition that needs a "make brain better" game. Unfortunately it's a very specific condition with very specific needs.

Calling Lumosity bullshit due to some expectation towards it that it doesn't make is akin to calling vitamin tablets bullshit because they don't cure diabetes.

Does Lumosity make any claims about improving autism conditions? It's a pretty big leap of logic to believe that a generic brain game system should improve autism range conditions.

And yet, I wouldn't have opened yet another article on gamer sexism (I get it, gamer sexism is bad mkay?), but I did find the data point of half the gamers being female very compelling (and useful to mention during meetings).

Sometimes, the guidelines should be broken.

I feel they almost got the reason right, but not quite.

We're used to hearing media stories about other people's success stories coming up with exotic, creative ideas.

If we're hearing someone else's story, therefore, we're biased to assume it's a success story.

Why would we be hearing for some concept that has come from far away, unless it was a success? If it was a pedestrian failure, we wouldn't hear about it.

While when we work with familiar matter, we kick into a different gear, we rely on experience (and experience often goes against innovative ideas) and we rely on our own skills to decide of an idea is a winner or not.

I really wish Lego made the parts, let us order whatever parts we need, and then show our creations on their site.

Not the other way around.

Maybe this is reflecting the state of our society - we just like to see a cool brand, buy pre-made things and follow the instructions.

But I tend to believe there's a master builder in all of us that Lego can unleash, if they have the guts (not so subtle Lego movie reference, check).

It's sharded, dude. You may want (typically) 3, 5 or 7 machines per shard for redundancy and failover, but there's no limit on the number of shards you may want to have.

This thread is 50 shades of gray, damn.

I actually upvoted the post for the comedy value.

For anyone paying attention, the SDK has been specifically modified to allow for:

1) Smaller satellite devices for iPhone (iWatch? I don't know, but something like it. Look for it in the Continuity & notification widget APIs).

2) More varied size devices (higher resolution iPhone? Look for it in the Xcode size "traits" APIs).

3) A hint that Macs may move to ARM in the next couple of years (look for it in the way they're rolling out new graphics APIs like Metal).

4) Apple TV may be getting native apps connected to your iPhone/iPad apps (look for it in the new Extensions APIs).

While none of the above are hard promises about where Apple's going, they pretty much have no choice than spill this out in the open, as they need to release the SDK and prepare devs for the changes at least some time ahead.

It seems their new strategy is to release software/SDK updates in preparation for new hardware in June during WWDC, then we have a few months padding until developers get their air back, and... starting August/September the new hardware starts coming, just in time for school, and just in time for the winter holiday season.

Neat, I think.

Oh look, it's a Daring Fireball post where Gruber is talking at length about how awesome Apple is.

I actually did read it. And I'm responding to the idea that "see, you complained, and Google changed it, so your former complaints are now misunderstandings" is really not a valid thesis.

I understood it won't pick up, and lo and behold, I understood it right.

People were right that an x86 sandbox is a silly idea for a web standard, this is why it's no longer one.

As it is right now, it's ASM.JS, without the .JS (and so, without the backwards compatibility).

Random statements alert:

- "Cool" fuzzy term, no specific definition given.

- "Lose" fuzzy term, no specific definition given.