I just wanted to say that I checked the site yesterday on two different devices, and there was no link (the relevant text was visible, but not a link).

I happened to look again today, and now the link is available on both devices.

Yeah, I'm sure that almost all of us have felt this way at one time or another. But the thing is, every team behind every moronic, bone-headed interface "update" that you've ever hated also sees themselves in the programmer's position in this meme.

Let me know if you find one that uses AI to find groupings of my search terms in its catalogues instead of using AI to reduce my search to the nearest common searches made by others, over some arbitrary popularity threshold.

Theoretical search: "slip banana peel 1980s comedy movie"
Expected results in 2010: Pages about people slipping on banana peels, mostly in comedy movies, mostly from the 80s.
Expected results in 2024: More than I ever wanted to know about buying bananas online, the health impacts of eating too many or not enough bananas, and whatever "celebrities" have recently said something about them. Nothing about movies from the 80s.

Unfortunately we all know what happens when you tell hackers that something's going to be very hard to break into.

I understand that they were excited about the idea and wanted to share it with gamers, but if they actually wanted to give the system the best chance of success, they should've kept their mouth shut.

Thr34dN3cr0 wrote (14:12 5/17/2019):

Does anyone have a way to fix this in the latest version? I've been looking all day but none of the answers I've found work.

Thr34dN3cr0 wrote (14:48 5/17/2019):

nvm figured it out.

"If you wish to be a writer, write."

Epictetus delivered this burn over 1900 years ago.

Re: the Acceptance stage.

Years ago I worked at a family-run business with a good working environment. The staff were once told a story of how, earlier in the company's history, a manager made a mistake that caused the company a substantial monetary loss.

The manager immediately offered their resignation, but the owner said to them, "Why would I let you go now? I've just spent all this money so you could learn a valuable lesson!"

So yeah, generally, most managers' reaction to accidentally deleting vital data from production is going to be to fire the developer as a knee-jerk "retaliation", but if you think about it, the best response is to keep that developer; your data isn't coming back either way, but this developer has just learned to be a lot more careful in the future. Why would you send them to a potential competitor?

It's a persistent dynamic memory allocation that's accessed by multiple processes! :)

This is a short, interesting video, but there's really nothing here for any competent programmer, even a fresh graduate. It turns out they they update the software by sending the update by radio (/s). The video hardly goes any deeper than that, and also makes a couple of very minor layman-level flubs.

There is a preservation effort for the old NASA computing hardware from the missions in the 50s and 60s, and you can find videos about it on YouTube. They go into much more detail without requiring much prior knowledge about specific technologies from the period. Here's one I watched recently about the ROM and RAM used in some Apollo missions: https://youtu.be/hckwxq8rnr0?si=EKiLO-ZpQnJa-TQn

One thing that struck me about the video was how the writers expressed surprise that it was still working and also so adaptable. And my thought was, "Well, yeah, it was designed by people who knew what they were doing, with a good budget, lead by managers whose goal was to make excellent equipment, rather than maximize short-term profits."

This isn't a slight against you, OP, or this game, but I'm just suddenly struck by the way that, "aside from the first few hours," or more commonly, "it gets better a couple of hours in," has become a fairly common and even somewhat acceptable thing to say in support of a game, as part of a recommendation.

As I get older I'm finding that I actually want my games to have a length more akin to a movie or miniseries. If a game hasn't shown me something worthwhile within an hour or so, I'm probably quitting it and never coming back.

I once had a manager hand me a project brief and ask me how quickly I thought I could complete it. I was managing my own workload (it was a bad situation), but it was a very small project and I felt that I had time to put everything else on hold and focus on it. So, I said that I might be able to get it done in four days, but I wouldn't commit to less than a week just to be sure.

The manger started off on this half-threatening, half-disappointed rant about how the project had a deadline set in stone (in four days' time), and how the head of the company had committed to it in public (which in hindsight was absolute rot). I was young and nervous, but fortunately for me every project brief had a timeline of who had seen it, and more importantly, when they had received it. I noticed that this brief had originated over three months prior, and had been sitting on this manager's desk for almost a month. I was the first developer in the chain. That gave me the guts to say that my estimate was firm, and that if anyone actually came down the ladder looking for heads to set rolling (one of the manager's threats), they could come to me and I would explain.

In the end nothing ever came of it because I managed to get the job done in three days. They tried to put the screws to me over that small of a project.

Yes, refuse to federate from the get-go. By the time the hostilities become open, it'll be far too late not only to attempt to repair any existing damage, but even to avoid further damage coming down the line like a juggernaut.

Plenty of large corporations have shown time and again that SOP is to take over and kill any potential threats before they can develop. When a corporation finds another corporation using their resources for gain, even while still following terms and conditions, the lawyers come out and the fur flies. Why should we be pushovers just because we're not rich and don't have a legal fiction to hide behind?

The Fediverse is a direct competitor to monolithic social networks. That's definitely how they see us, and it's how we should see them. I know that there's a "share and share alike" ethos behind all of this, and that blocking any entity arbitrarily feels wrong and unfair, but it really isn't. I also know that, assuming that things go well, one day there will be successful business ventures that evolve naturally from the Fediverse, and the community is going to have to decide how to respond to those situations in time. But right now we're a group of little pigs playing in a somewhat secure pen, and a huge, voracious wolf is asking us to open the gate so it can join in our game. By the time we realize that we haven't seen Jerry or Louise for a while, the wolf will have changed the lock on the gate and spread rumors about us to the other animals.

If people still feel uncomfortable with refusing a large corporation "just because", then make a policy: "Due to the dangers inherent in unequal business relationships, it is our general policy to refuse federation with any entity with an average annual turnover in excess of US$200,000." You can always make exceptions, and even change the policy later, but it can ease your conscience that you aren't unfairly targeting one entity without justification; you're sticking to a sensible policy.