The idea was to get people to include more substance. Instead of just saying "Washington crossed the Delaware" to get students to include reasons why, impacts, further narrative, etc. IDK if it was effective or not. Probably at least a little; there's only so many ways to rewrite the same thing over and over. I know in my case though I submitted essays below the word count a few times, but since I actually included the content they were looking for I didn't have any problems
It's a bit more complicated than that (on Windows) because Steam doesn't make a virtual gamepad to the OS. The way Steam handles the input is by hooking into the games individually. So to use Steam for other games, you need to add them to Steam as non-steam games.
Even open source controller (not just Steam Controller) remapping tools and similar used ViGEmBus which is no longer maintained. You can have it do mouse/keyboard though, those don't require custom drivers.
Yeah, I can read about the parts that I want right now. If I open a video editor to splice two clips together, I don't need to know about input devices. If I want to do that, I can go read the manual for that at that time.
Plus, there's no way I'm going to remember whatever the tour tells me by that time anyway. To actually learn the product you need experience to lock in what the manual says
Yeah, it's all about communities, not platforms. What happens is that people find a community they like, then the platform underneath it dies (IRC, MySpace, Digg, etc) and they can't find the same community on a new platform. I've made a lot of friends on Discord, and ionce a year or so when it looks like Discord's about to finally give up we talk about our plans to migrate the community to a different platform. But since the community is the important part, we don't really care about the ills of the platform until it starts to actively hurt the community
I've had success with other games (haven't tried KSA yet) adding them as a non-Steam game and using Proton like that. But yeah not being on Steam and me having to eg check for updates on my own, remember another login to download on a new computer, etc means that I'm going to stick with KSP 1 for a while at least
In one of my classes they had to explicitly ban people from using Python in their psuedocode submissions lol. (Generally this meant things like "no list comprehensions" and similar Python syntax details).
CS degrees are about computer science, not software engineering. The fact that the best available degree for a software developer is generally a CS degree is a historical accident, but regardless universities unfortunately don't tend to cater towards what CS students are actually getting their degree for
Patrick tends to describe systems in a vaguely disapproving tone of voice. It may be because he disagrees with the participants in the system (the SPLC in this case), it may be because he disagrees with the system itself and how it's used, or it may even be that he agrees with the system and how participants use the system and is using a somewhat negative tone in order to not appear biased. Regardless, the result is that it's easy to feel defensive if you do support the subject of one of his articles (again, the SPLC in this case), while people who don't like the subjects can point to his generally well reasoned and comprehensive article as evidence the subject isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've seen it happen before here on HN where people will get nitpicky about details of the article and miss the overall point, and I think it's because the negative tone makes people defensive.
Regardless, I'd encourage you to think about the actual moral actions presented in this article. Is the system that the SPLC used and extended an inherently bad system (in this case, acting as a source of disallowed organizations for banks)? Furthermore, given the existence of that system, was the SPLC's use of it bad? Are the SPLC's goals good or bad? Were their methods in the timeline taking up the latter half of the article good? Despite the generally negative tone of the article, I think they were a morally acceptable method of achieving their goals. Essentially, the article is describing the SPLC's efforts to use large-scale community organizing and pressuring organizations to accomplish their moral goals. The article's disapproving tone makes this sound like a conspiracy and... it kinda is. But then, can't you describe almost any charity as a conspiracy to accomplish a moral goal? As the article notes, the SPLC has used similar tactics in the past to combat, eg, the KKK, and I doubt many people would imagine that as a conspiracy to target and censure particular law-abiding citizens.
In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing (well, the factual bank fraud is, but not the conspiracy to implement moral goals). The description of the methods they used are essentially a negatively-worded description of just about any sort of charitable organization. You could describe the DNC as a conspiracy to install into power authoritarians who want to curb speech they don't want ("hate speech"), for example, or you could describe it as a grassroots organization to ensure people are fairly represented in government and their wishes (curbing racism) are achieved.
It seems to me that an organization dedicated to stopping hate groups also funding those same hate groups (which, I might add, it relies upon for its continued existence/relevance) is fairly problematic.
> In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing
I think the main thing to criticize, is that
1. Banks are deputized as ersatz law enforcement, and will cooperate in ways you would otherwise expect to warrant a warrant, or do damage to people you would otherwise expect a court to gate.
2. Government has set up laws that on their face sound reasonable, but are extremely easy to run afoul of, and extremely easy to prosecute.
3. Banks have delegated decision making to private entities, which confounds oversight and is probably extremely under regulated vs anyone’s expectations
4. A lot of this power is wielded at the discretion of political actors at both ends
5. The main lesson of American politics since Nov 2016 is that we need more guardrails than “discretion”
People who think their opponents are Evil with a capital E generally think that way, yes. See the prevalence of “Punch a Nazi. Lots of Republicans don’t see Democrats as legitimate political opponents and the opposite is very very much true.
Violence against those who are advocating for violence against innocent people seems completely justified. Calling them political opponents sounds like an attempt to white wash what's actually going on.
Ok, but me and my buddies think you use tenuous judgement to characterize words as violence, and enable people to use physical violence in “retaliation”.
That’s a bright line violence against innocents, so we’re closing all your checking accounts and preventing you from paying for anything without cash. And if people try to help you, we’ll say loudly in polite society that they traffic in blood money.
> The self-checking pairs ensure that if a CPU performs an erroneous calculation due to a radiation event, the error is detected immediately and the system responds.
How does a pair determine which of the pair did the calculation correctly?
It doesn't have to. It raises an error that the system can detect and take action on. Usually that'll be some combination of interrupt/reset and an external pin to let the rest of the system know what's happened.
What raises the error, and how does the system know that an error has happened? Like, if you have two processors calculating 2+2, and one comes out to 4 and the other to 5, how does the system know which one is correct? Actually, typing it out I think I get it now. It doesn't need to know which one is correct, it just has to redo the calculation if there's ever a disagreement. Then if somehow both processors calculate 2+2=5 simultaneously, the next computer over will disagree and everyone will repeat the calculation, and that's why they have 3 levels of paired redundancy and the chance of 8 simultaneous single-event upsets is low enough for their risk tolerance. Ok, now I get it.
Almost all of the music I listen to is instrumental. Like the article says, lyrics distract me from whatever I'm doing, and I rarely listen to music for the sake of listening to music, it's always something I'm going while doing something else. At most I might listen to lyrics while driving, but I'll pause the music if the driving situation gets complicated (like in stop and go traffic where I need to get over 3 lanes)
reply