yakcyll

In this particular context there really isn't any difference. Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads, but their revenue is mostly supported by ad money from Google, and Google, being an ad giant, can simply cut that stream off. The common sentiment seems to be that this would spell a life and death situation for the company and for the browser as a whole, which essentially makes Firefox a hostage to the whims of an ideologically hostile corporate entity.

There really doesn't seem to be anything new or unique to their solution. I'm personally not surprised, because it is what has worked for thirty years.

I presume you know this, but maybe for others: judging by what was written in that paragraph, I'd indeed assume he means the same paradigm that has been driving replicated real-time simulations since at least QuakeWorld - some world-state updates (in this case _"object transforms, velocities, and player positions"_, among others) don't have to be reliable, because in case you miss one and need a retransmit, by the time you receive it, it's already invalid - the next tick of the simulation has already been processed and you will get updated info anyway (IIRC this is essentially John Carmack's insight from his .plan files).

The command messages (player operations and events) _need_ to be reliable, because they essentially serve as the source of truth when it comes to the state of the world. Each game client depends on them to maintain a state that is the same for everyone (assuming determinism the Teardown team has been working on ensuring).

They mentioned switching to the Steam networking backend, which for games is essentially GNS.

It's worth remembering when deciding on rolling out your own engine that this is a multi-layer trade-off as well, I have an anecdote on this.

I have decided a couple years back that my setup will have a hand-rolled physics engine, specifically for the reasons you outlined - having complete understanding over what the code does, how it's structured and how it manages data - but after starting actually-not-so-arduous process of getting it together, it quickly became rather clear that whatever I could implement would pale in comparison to solutions that are robust, field-tested and generally created by professionals.

Physics development in particular is known for wonky nonsense, but there are better and worse heuristics and ways to deal with their shortcomings; a handful of books and Youtube presentations still couldn't prepare me for the actual depth of the problems ahead. What I have now works, is relatively stable in initial demos and I am proud of it, I'm going to tweak and use it in the game I'm working on. It is however pretty obvious already that a lot of time is yet to be spent on massaging jank out of the equations.

I wholeheartedly recommend spending more than several weeks on implementing various subsystems if one either is generally interested in how these things work or silently wishes for that badge of honour (it shines brightly). However, as they say, if you want to make games, do NOT make an engine. Not just because of the time it takes - it doesn't have to take that much (even though it usually does) - but also because along with total control over the medium for expressing your creative vision, it gives you total responsibility for it as well. Sometimes it's better to work in the confines of rules set out by actual engine developers.

There is a very big difference between engaging with your own stream of consciousness and being spoon-fed stimuli without any effortful engagement. While I get the sentiment that the parent comment may be snarkily over-generalizing (for the record, I don't think that it does), this retort doesn't land at all.

> It's great because what we call plagiarism in academic setting, in the real world work we call collaboration, cooperation, standing on the shoulders of giants, not reinventing the wheel, getting shit done, and such.

That is absolutely not true. A much closer analogue of industry collaboration in the academic setting would be cross-university programs and peer review. The actual analogue of plagiarism is taking work of another and regurgitating it with small or no changes at all while not providing any sources. I'm sure you see what this sounds more akin to.

The corollary to this is that companies do this because they are incentivised to do so by their very fundamental goal - to make profit. Whatever pressure that does not lead to a loss on the quarterly report is, in practice, no pressure at all. If we truly want these predatory practices to stop, we have to start promoting different incentives, different priorities, and by 'we' I really mean 'each and every one of us collectively'.

I have a feeling we, collectively, glance over the question, and over the author's stance on the subject, and almost dismissively say 'yeah, sure', without the amount of thought that they deserve.

Many thanks for this level-headed response, I'll save that if you don't mind.

The title originally claimed 575M hours spent every year by Europeans on cookie banners. That's 12 seconds on average a day per person. Hardly anything to complain about.

All the time settings that are or were historically used in Go tournaments had their own quirks and idiosyncrasies that added charm to the time management issue. At the same time, I can understand the tediousness of Canadian being an argument not to use it anymore. Last time I played with it was at a tournament in Brussels where they were using old-school chess clocks, effectively making it the only viable solution.

Nowadays, as mentioned, Fischer trumps all with its simplicity, but some still enjoy playing with byoyomi (supported both by newer chess clocks and by old Ing clocks), since they got used to managing their thinking time in regular intervals once base time was spent. Personally, I've been advocating using Fischer for the longest time, since said management strategies were more natural to me in this case, and I'm glad DGT clocks became the common standard at tournaments now.

With the topics of ADHD and autism entering mainstream Internet conversations more often, I think it's kind of predictable that stuff like this will start showing up more regularly.

Considering how much people can struggle with these issues, even in spite of proper medical care, it's safe to assume for the time being that this falls under the magic device category.

No need for question marks. I think we really need to square off with the idea that, while we will personally not cause or contribute highly to major shifts in how the world operates, there are ways to contribute - even a simple e-mail to your representatives - that should be undertaken in earnest by each and every one of us, even if we don't feel that they will make an impact. Most people don't - and that's why the impact is negligible. We really should assertively encourage each other to participate, even to the smallest degree.

I think I and a lot of people around me got used to the relative comfort in life. To the sceptics this may sounds like just more scaremongering, but let's face it, it _has_ been getting worse in many more ways than we wanted or expected over the last decade. The least we can do to try to revert this trend is to attend a march, send an e-mail or try to spare some time to vote. Nobody can ignore the fact, that it will not reverse itself on its own.

I agree with the perspective that it's impossible to tell exactly, with confidence, how harmful they are and what each of us should do. The topic may not be fresh, but the awareness of the dangers is. If you aren't willing to go with the intuition that having non-degradable artificial compounds in your body sounds 'bad', then I'd personally go for what seems to be a reasonable middle ground, likely what most of us are already doing, which is - stay on the look out. Assimilate trustworthy data (on the question of what constitutes trustworthy data - that which comes from sources striving for integrity and rigor and not from anecdotes), be ready to adjust, steel yourself for possibly drastic changes in the future.

Personally, I find the argument that the data we currently have is not enough to force us to make such changes absolutely understandable - but at the same time, I find this kind of inertia unwarranted in the age where the world looked almost unrecognisable just a decade ago.