I meant it as an iOS or Android app.
IMHO, Liberals (in the American sense, rather than the pure ideology) change the rules to reduce and even remove viable choices, whilst Fascists just directly do the chosing for you.
In other words, Liberals take the posh, pressure-based path to constrain others so that they ultimatelly do what's best for the Liberal leadership (or suffer if they don't), whilst Fascists just use Force directly or at best with a thin layer of social acceptability in the form of Laws that make your not doing what they want illegal.
Because of the far more covert nature of the way Liberals force choices on others and the many layers than compose the system they use to do it, unlike with the straightforward lasso-on-the-neck of Fascists many people literally can't see that they're being corralled by Liberals into specific choices and think that with Liberals they're free.
As a Leftwinger (real one, not the American notion of left-of-Trump being Leftwing) this is something I've though about a lot.
For example, most people are driven to some level or other by Greed: for example, if you think about it, when people from the "Working class" demand things for the "Working class", are they driven by a pure desire for equality or is it really about benefiting themselves as members of the "Working class"? Ditto for "Positive Discrimination" being demanded by people who will benefit from it - is it really about equality or is it Personal Upside Maximization hidding behind the "group"?
Choices driven by Greed above all often collide with the whole "Greatest good for the greatest number" principle of the Leftwing.
Anyways, "screw you, my moral standpoint is different so I don't care about what you say" as an absolute rule is how the Left fragments, so indeed an absolutist take of "If your Moral standpoint is not exactly the same as mine I won't listen to you" is self-defeating in the strategical sense.
Then again, going totally in the opposite direction - i.e. no people should be shunned due to their Moral standpoint - also ends up with some weird results: if somebody has a moral standpoint that "Slavery is just the Weak being put in their proper place by the Strong, and as Strong people they're superior hence have a right to chose what others do" (I almost puked a little in my mouth writting this), should we really try to do anything else than shun people whose moral standpoint is that?
Personally my compromise is that some Moral standpoints are unnacceptable and those who hold them do not deserve any attempt at finding a middle point between me and them - in other words, even in Morality there are red lines - and whilst we should indeed listen to those who are on the right side of those red lines even if we don't quite have the same Moral standpoint, those on the wrong side of those red lines are beyond salvation and not worth the effort.
The correct way is to judge people for what they activelly support, which also means not slimly implying that by not supporting one side people implicitly support the other - it's a perfectly valid position to not like any of the choices one has been presented with and thus chosing "None of the above" rather than A or B.
"If you're not with us you're against us" is just about the most typically Fascist (and, more in general, authoritarian) argument there is, so those doing it don't be surprised if, even if you're wearing a different mask than outright-Fascist and claiming you have the moral high ground, you're judged as somebody who thinks along the same lines as Fascists rather than along Democratic or Humanitarian lines.
Mind you, the quoted post is impeccably fair in that sense, but here in Lemmy there's a lot of people who, unlike that quote, stray beyond blaming people for their choices into parroting authoritarian logic that blames people for non-choices.
Procedurelly generated stuff is all about storing the differences from the procedural generation.
So for example minecraft saves don't store the terrain, they store how it differs (due to player interaction) from the procedurally generated baseline.
(After all, all you need to recreate an untouched procedurally generate world are the bytes of the seed and nothing else)
Fantasising based on looking at ink blots on a butchered tree.
Yeah, in the recent Far Right meeting in Spain they were all back to the whole anti-EU talk, which by their own criteria makes them Traitors To The Fatherland, since none of the EU nations (even Germany or France) is big enough to be able to be able to face the likes of the US or China on their own rather than as part of a united EU front: they literally want to make their nations weaker.
Personally I think that's because pretty much all of the European Far-Right parties are being paid by foreign interests.
Hey, if anybody can use it (as long as they can pay) then it's Public. (This is actually a frequently used definition of Public in Britain)
I've been working on a survival/RTS game and it's funny that even though the game development framework I'm using (Unity) tends to push you to put most of the code on the visual objects level and that was my original approach, over time I've figured out the whole code is way cleaner and works better (in other words, the best architeture for that software) when almost all of the game is really just a Data layer being manipulated by the player and a separated View layer for the players to visualized it in a nice way - basically a Model-View Controller Architecture, same as you'll find in systems were a server-side application has web and/or smart app UIs.
That said, I have the impression that something like an FPS is a lot less data-driven than an RTS because things like the 3D models that make up the world are a lot more important for data decisions (has the bullet hit an object, can the player move to this position). You can still say that stuff is data (3D models are data, specifically collections of vertices in 3D space with some additional information attached), but model data is generally way more visualization-oriented than what one could metaphorically call a "database".
Here in Europe, everywhere but the UK what Brexit did was force all Far-Right parties to stop with their anti-EU rethoric.
Maybe Trump and the consequences of his actions will have a similar effect around the US and possibly further out (I hope it screws the Far-Right around here that most apes American shit).
However, in the UK Brexit did nothing to tone down the nutty Far Right, quite the contrary.
Just because you and I are starting from the assumption that those headlines are true, doesn't mean Trump supporters start from the same assumptions.
Judging by political discussions I've had with some people (though not related to Trump), people commonly judge political leaders based on how they feel about them, i.e. the impression they have of them, and that feeds in to trusting or not what they say and what is said about them, all of which would explain why the sterotypical loudmoth populist who talks confidently has been historically very successful.
Judging by what I see even withing the small leftwing political party I'm a member of in my own country, even supposedly thinking people (i.e. well educated types) have a strong confirmation bias for the words of leaders they "feel" are trustworthy and against criticism of them, though the stereotype of leader that best works at making those specific people feel thus is different from the brash loudmouth sterotype of Trump.
Zooming back to Trump and the US, I would say that people who still support him have a strong feeling that he's a good leader and that feds into a heavy bias to trust his words and distrust the criticism that appears of him as politically motivated attacks.
I would even go as far as saying that in a World were most authoritative common sources (i.e the Press, many of whom often overtly gloat of being "Opinion Makers") take political sides and hence aren't implicitly trustworthy, I expect this mechanism of anchoring one's trust on an individual that feels right is much more commonly used than it would have been in a Media environment were the Press didn't take sides and tried to shape opinion.
IMHO, Trump and others like him are a symptom of the Press having been increasingly used for Propaganda in the last couple of decades (though there are other effects at play) and hence why you see such types have more success in countries were the Press has longer and deeper taken political sides.
Whilst composition over inheritance is indeed the way to go (and if you read the original Design Patterns book, it's part of the things they talk about in the beginning well before they go into patterns), ECS just distributes the data all over the place which tends to create bugs due to implicit dependencies that are not very visible because things are distributed (so when you change something, other stuff elsewhere might break).
The point of ECS is performance with large numbers of similar entities, rather than being a good architecture in software engineering terms (i.e. resilent to bugs, not brittle when changed, easy to understand as whole and so on).
My impression, having come from totally different areas of software development (server-side, web, smartphone apps, desktop apps) is that Game Development isn't all that sophisticated in the terms of Software Architectures, maybe because it's too close to the metal, too concerned with performance and mainly the playground of young devs who, frankly, lack the experience to have reached the level of being aware of software development as a process and how to design and develop software in such a way as to improve the outcomes of that process.