Don’t most games with expensive cosmetics lock them behind paywalls?
I assume there is lots of cheating because of every game having matchmaking system for fair with rankings. And there’s a huge amount of people that feel locked into low ranking because of bad teammates (which makes no sense statistically speaking), and if they just bump something they would do well.
There’s others who just want to showoff an high ranking.
And the guys that just want a cheap win, at the expense of ruining everyone else game.
And then there’s the business of this. Cheat tool makers making money of these lind of people. High ranking players selling boosting services or high ranking accounts (smurfing and cheating feels very similar on the loosing side). And even the high ranking players selling player providing boosting can cheat to perform the service in less time.
Skill based matchmaking with any form of public ranking (showing a number or tier) will always be full of people trying to game the system instead of trying to get better at the game. Specially in team games.
And Europe is actually resisting better than US due to election system. Here in best case scenario they are number 2, and took them a long time to get there after Trump
In the US, a populist just needs to win a primary, ie 50% of 50% of the American votes, and he is immediately at least nr2 in the run, and they get the support of one of the major parties.
Saying that populists / extremists also exist in Europe is just a bad comparison.
The extreme right won the Dutch elections though - and they’re not the only country - so your argument that “best case (...) number 2” isn’t true. They can and do win elections.
What did winning mean, though? Is it Republican-style minority rule where they can work the system push through policies which a majority of Americans oppose, or a coalition government where half of his coalition is pledged to rein in his more extreme positions?
> its own philosophical tradition, and the Christianity that merely influences Japanese thought, it doesn't swim in savior narrative like the West's cultural canon.
Really? I see Japanese works with as much if not more savior narrative than western’s.
Maybe you don’t see it due to you mostly consuming romance anime, have you also tried western romance?
Western romance, kill me now. It's the same idiot misogynistic white dude trying to woo the same hotter, smarter, better in every way woman and conquering her into marriage.
If I'm interpreting parent correctly, they're arguing that had the Chinese recently visited the Americas, the Portuguese and Spanish would have encountered native populations which were already decimated by disease. As this isn't the case, the epidemiological argument against shortly prior Chinese encounters with American populations is strong.
That post Portuguese/Spanish contact native American populations were annihilated by disease is now well established fact. That again argues against earlier Chinese contact.
>native American populations were annihilated by disease is now well established fact
Conveniently formulated historic fact absolving settlers IMO. Apropo to topic.
Convincing argument from indigenous is that indigenous in NA didn't get wiped out "because of" disease, worst historic pandemics wipe out like 50% of population over ~10 years before some sort of immunity kicks into population and gen pop rebuilds a few generations after that. Indigenous NA got wiped due to generations of increased deprivation enforced by settlers over 100+ years that made them suspectible to disease/fatality. It's like how malaria, dysentery, starvation was primary cause of death in prison camps, but really it's the fact that prison camp conditions allowed those diseases to spread in enviroment of artificially sustained deprivation.
90% population wipes over multipe generations isn't how disease operates, it's not natural epidemiologic behavior on continental scale. 90% population wipes happens because of coordinated genocide over generations across continent, blaming "contact" and "disease" is deflection. Hence if prevous visitors (can be whoever) didn't stick around for 100 years to coordinate a genocide, the indigenous people would still be around to greet Portugese/Spaniards, because they would have had ~100 years to recover/rebuild from whatever contact disease from prior meeting.
And those populations would recover within few generations, like every other continental spanning peoples that's dealt with small pox since 1500BCE and before. No disease keeps populations across large span of geography at 10% pre outbreak over 100 years. It takes human intervention to force a specific people below replacement level for that long. When smallpox epidemics explodes, it wipes out 50%+ within a few YEARS. And then population RECOVERS, within a few generations. Populations develop some level of immunity OR social learned epidemiological responses to curtail outbreaks. Of course disease can kill, but it does not explain why indigenous population levels did not recover, especially on multi generational timelines. Not debating whether disease increases mortality, but saying disease is cause conveniently ignores the fact that persistent deprivation maintained by settlers over generations caused conditions where disease spread/has increased lethality, combined with repression prevented indigenous populations from recovering.
So yes, IMO it's completely debatable 90% of population would STILL be wiped out after 100 years in event of an earlier, pre Columbian exchange where new disease is introduced to the continent. Because unless those visitors stuck around and active took effort to genocide the locals, but using disease as a weapon AND creating conditions where disease can proliferate without response, local population would recover after multiple generations (european population took ~80 years to recover from black death).
Only if spread continental scale which implies prolonged exchange. Otherwise can be isolated to small cohort. You claim there would be 10% population in prior disease exchange. You claim it's not debatable. I use too much words demonstrate otherwise. You seem to agree. Useful information was exchanged.
Time to build a new system and time to onboard a new team member without professional experience in a given language are 2 very difficult things.
Go is much more optimised for quick onboarding, fast feedback, more “code look” consistency across projects then rust.
Now a team that knows both rust and go well might have the same proditivity in rust and go (maybe even more in rust), but with lots of changes in personell, specifically in quick growing departments, go can make a huge difference.
This is obviously just an anecdote, but i’ve seen more companies or departments running mostly a go backend stack, having job postings saying “no go experience required”, than the equivalent other companies (or departments ) focused on any other lang.
How does such a huge company do “full deploys” like this?
At this number of endpoints, only a few % should have been updated (and faced the problems) before a full rolout
This is not a small startup with some SaaS, these guys are in most computers of too many huge companies. Not rolling out the updates to everyone at the same time seems just too obvious
Major clouds have been investing in ARM alternatives.
x86 is still king compatibility matters a lot. But it is not as simple as Su paints for teams of x86 chip designers to switch to arm chip designers and reach top place, specifically because fabs also matter and AMD is the player in the market with less money to pay the fabs.
GPU market would be hard to recover, and reason to use AMD (for the money printing AI) is just budget. Software is not good enough, it’s understandably not in AMD’s DNA, it was simply lacking in budget as it was close to bankruptcy when CUDA started taking off.
emphasis on top, ofc great designers would still design great no matter the ISA, but best and great is different
> What you mean is probably 'as far as public billionaires goes'. And with regards to 'down to earth' like anyone of prominence they don't care about you or wouldn't help you in any way (and couldn't possibly)
That applies to any stranger. Basically, a billionaire is human like any other.
We do idolize Billionaire / celebrity too much, but these unkind takes don't help anyone.
> Don't think for a second they aren't selfish in their own way they would have to be in order to be involved and run an enterprise of that magnitude.
every human is selfish in their own way.
> What does down to earth mean anyway? Most people probably think that it means you appear to be more like the common man and don't have the typical trappings of wealth (or if you do nobody knows about them).
by your definition, he is down to earth. I would not define it like that, but i don't even know how to define it, but i would say that it correlates with not living for the apparatus or "big life" / hype / spend, and enjoying "small" things (ie, good and long lasting friendships, healthy family relations, simply enjoying a meal with people they care)
There's also a lot more room, heat, antenna routing, and power budget in a laptop. They can have something functional, but just generally less efficient (for assorted values of "efficiency") that will work fine in a laptop, but not necessarily in a cell phone form factor.
I assume there is lots of cheating because of every game having matchmaking system for fair with rankings. And there’s a huge amount of people that feel locked into low ranking because of bad teammates (which makes no sense statistically speaking), and if they just bump something they would do well.
There’s others who just want to showoff an high ranking.
And the guys that just want a cheap win, at the expense of ruining everyone else game.
And then there’s the business of this. Cheat tool makers making money of these lind of people. High ranking players selling boosting services or high ranking accounts (smurfing and cheating feels very similar on the loosing side). And even the high ranking players selling player providing boosting can cheat to perform the service in less time.
Skill based matchmaking with any form of public ranking (showing a number or tier) will always be full of people trying to game the system instead of trying to get better at the game. Specially in team games.
reply