You’re not alone. I recall getting sniped from every direction at some points, with very tough 1:1 battles and boss battles that just kinda “happen” out in the open.

they’re just mad because they didn’t think to do what Uber is doing and now they’re dying.

That and they’re mad because their virtual monopoly status didn’t protect them from market disruption. They just sat back, assuming that there was no way these rogue taxi services were going to evade the law for long. The fact that an entire industry acted on such a bad take suggests, to me, a lot of anti-competitive bullshit behind the scenes.

Anyway, I agree. All they had to do was either add rideshare-like features to their service, merge with rideshare services, or become one themselves. The investment capital was clearly there, and making a modernization pitch with brand recognition of an established taxi company would have been a slam-dunk.

Just automatically started uploading everything on my hard drive to an account I didn’t set up

Wait, what?

Real question here: has anyone else had luck side-stepping the Live365 signup during/after install? I’ve done this, and I’m very confused that more people haven’t.

Is that MIT (munch it today) or GPL (generally pleasing w/lettuce) licensed?

I’ve been in situations where I wanted to retain credit/ownership of ideas and code, but wanted to be able to use them in the workplace. So building a MIT/BSD licensed library on the weekend and then importing it on Monday was the only game in town. I get the portfolio piece and my job is easier as a result. But I stick to non-novel and non-patentable stuff - “small” work really, as Stallman is quoted here..

In some work environments, GPL or “GPL with an exception” would never get the kind of traction it should. Lots of places I’ve worked lack the legal and logistical framework for wrangling licenses and exceptions. It’s hard to handle such cases if there’s literally nobody to talk to about it, while you have automated systems that flag GPL license landmines anyway. The framing is a kind of security problem, not a license problem, so you never really get to start.

The two licenses have distinct use cases, and only overlap for some definitions of “free” software. I also think both the comic artist and OP set up a fallacious argument. I’ll add that in no way do I support Intel’s shenanigans here.

The comic author takes one specific case of an MIT licensed product being used in a commercial product, and pits it against another GPL product. This ignores situations where MIT is the right answer, where GPL is the wrong one, situations where legal action on GPL violations has failed, and all cases where the author’s intent is considered (Tanenbaum doesn’t mind). From that I conclude that this falls under The Cherry Picking Fallacy. While humorous, it’s a really bad argument.

But don’t take it from me, learn from the master of logic himself.

commonly referred to as “cuck licenses”

This sentiment makes the enclosing sentence an Ad-hominem fallacy, by attacking the would-be MIT license party as having poor morals and/or low social standing. Permissive licenses absolutely do allow others to modify code without limit, but that is suggested to be a bad thing on moral grounds alone. That said, I’d love to see a citation here because that’s the first I’ve heard of this pejorative used to describe software licensing.

I think what burns people the most is that after Photoshop 5 or so, GIMP stopped keeping up with all the improvements in the later Photoshop versions. People making the jump from 2024 Photoshop to 1996 Photoshop UI/UX are gonna have a bad time.

Edit: as a software developer I can say that I’ve never seen a user more frustrated, sometimes even irrationally so, when they are forced to re-learn muscle memory to perform a familiar task. I’ve also seen people practically riot at the mere suggestion that this will happen. If you wish to curry favor with your userbase, never ever, remove keyboard accelerators, move toolbars around, break workflow, etc.

Hate that my government is apparently dead set on all of us driving massive trucks and SUVs spending thousands to money lenders, auto manufacturers, and dealerships over realist vehicles.

Doubly so if those parties are campaign contributors. Always follow the money.

Computer, set a sexy course for the sexiest year…

If it’s open, looks don’t matter. Also doesn’t matter if the drivers are trash, or if it runs zero games. It’s all fixable trash - that’s the point.

(Also, that’s not a GPU, but it’s the thought that counts)

a lot of devs love watching stuff like speedrunning

True, but some of them hate it. But with the growing presence of speedrunning friendly features in new titles (looking at you, Supergiant), I think that’s becoming less of a problem.

Either way, these “devs watch” reaction videos are fantastic.

Exactly. And while we’re educating the forum here, Wikipedia has the details on the loophole that circumvents this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#Provenance

Sometimes referred to as the Brady bill loophole,[9] the Brady law loophole,[10] the gun law loophole,[11] or the private sale loophole,[12][13][14] the term refers to a perceived gap in laws that address what types of sales and transfers of firearms require records and or background checks, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.[15] Private parties are not legally required by federal law to: ask for identification, complete any forms, or keep any sales records, as long as the sale is not made in interstate commerce (across state lines) and does not fall under purview of the National Firearms Act. In addition to federal legislation, firearm laws vary by state.[16]

I am not a lawyer. I do not sell firearms.

The gist I get is that this opens up enough loopholes to permit unlicensed mules/fences on either side of the transaction. Depending on what political leanings and circumstances are in play, this legal framework might actually encourage that behavior.

The problem is that requirements refinement has been unceremoniously dumped in your lap. The failure here is organizational; maybe you have a design person involved, maybe devs are expected to do this. Either way, your job now also includes communications.

One strategy I’ve used is to draw a low-fi example of what they’re going to get - Figma is great at this these days. Then I add it to the issue and push the whole thing back for early approval in order to suss out these finer points.

Not to come off as misanthropic here, but many people are hot garbage at describing what’s in their head. Most of the time, it’s all abstract concepts up there until you start asking the real questions. They really do need a whole-ass conversation to sharpen that mental image. Or in this case, what they want that feature to look like. Incidentally, this is also the reason why therapy is a thing, and why it takes people years to make sense of themselves, and that outcome is usually far more crucial than anything we’re doing at the keyboard.

Honestly I don’t mind the indentation since C isn’t going to give us many ways to address this with as little code.

That said, with compilers that are good at inlining trivial functions, I really do appreciate the “it does what it says on the tin” approach to using functions on things like this. Even if they’re only used once. Comments would help too.

The logic in these if statements is inscrutable on a cold read like this. To me, that’s a maintenance risk; imagine seeing a snippet this size on a PR. Having functions that name what the hell is going on could only help.

In a one-liner competition, sure.

In my codebase? I’d pull a “let’s linger after standup about your PR” and have the coder sweat through a 10 minute soapbox about nothing before laying down the law.

One nit: whatever IDE is displaying single-character surrogates for == and != needs to stop. In a world where one could literally type those Unicode symbols in, and break a build, I think everyone is better off seeing the actual syntax.

I would sooner see men step up and call out the bad actors

And I would be happy to join you in doing this, but this is not the company I keep. In my life I can barely count the number of times I have, or could have, on one hand. Meanwhile, when talking to women about this sort of thing, everyone has awful stories but they all involve people that simply are not a part of their social sphere (and by extension mine) anymore.

I fear that we, as a society, have done such a good job of pushing bad actors out to the margins that we no longer have eyes on the problem.

can also get a gun and blast these things before it gets out of hand

Honestly, I get the distinct impression that everything in the hunting section at your local Walmart is going to be woefully ineffective. May I recommend a defensive position with difficult to traverse stairs?

It’s even easier than that. Both of these genres have design features that require minimal balancing, making for an even faster dev cycle.

Roguelikes side-step the need for traditional game balance by providing meta progression and building inevitable-death-by-impossible-odds into the core game. For Roguelikes that actually have an ending, all the developer needs to do is provide enough meta progression perks to overcome the game’s peak difficulty, for even the worst of players. Everyone else gets bragging rights for beating the game faster than that. Either way, the lack of balance and “fairness” in the core design are features, not flaws.

Deck builders follow in Magic The Gathering’s footsteps: you never need to fully balance it. Ever. The random draw mechanisms, combined with a deep inventory of resource and item/creature/action cards, make it unlikely that a player gets an overpowered hand all the time. Pepper a few ridiculously overpowered cards in there, and it just feels more fun. Plus, if you keep the gravy train going with regular add-ons, the lack of balance is even further masked by all the possible choices. And yes, some player will min/max a deck at great personal expense and wipe the floor with their opponents because it was never fair in the first place, and doing so is a feature.