In the Witcher 3 you are playing a specific character created by the developers. It's a bit like a JRPG in that sense. Most western RPGs have you play as your own character.
>However, some people find computers frustrating, stupid or boring. Such a person probably wouldn't enjoy a job working with them all the time - and it's difficult to build the skills that let you advance your career if you're averse to or bored by practising them.
It's funny really because I thought I was perfect for software development as a teenager. Already knew how to program, spent a huge amount of my free time on a computer, good at maths and sciences in general, etc.
Once I actually got into software development I found the whole thing rather irksome. The company I worked for was a great place to work full of really lovely people, free lunches, paid internships (yay NZ), etc. But software development? Nope. Awful industry. Computers are shit.
As soon as I got out of software, I immediately found my interest in programming as a hobby come back. Unsurprisingly people don't really like doing something as a hobby when they're paid to do it for 40 hours per week already.
>I made it a hard and fast rule: if I found two technologies that could solve a problem, I would choose the one more people were using. I didn’t want to include an obscure graphics API and then discover that no one had ever called set_color() followed by resize_window() (resizing is hard) and somehow those two functions in sequence cause a segfault. I don’t want to be the guy that finds a bug in the compiler. I just need to ship the product.
Then he links to issues for Qt and Go. They're certainly not obscure. What kind of weird argument is this? If anything, the argument there is that it doesn't matter how popular something is, as even extremely popular things like Qt and Go will still have bugs.
>As a further point of fact, Facebook (and Google; Facebook is not alone here) stalks even people who _can't_ have a Facebook account. For example, children under 13 in the US.
Surely this is illegal, though? One way to get the laws to ban this sort of dragnet commercial surveillance of people would be to appeal to the 'think of the children' argument and ban companies from tracking information about anyone under 13. That would also stop them from tracking information about anyone that hasn't totally confirmed that they're over 13.
The one regulation that could save a nation from FB, Twitter and Instagram is to ban advertising. All of it. Ban all advertising anywhere for any reason.
Uber is (in my opinion) a scam, and (objectively) not ride sharing.
'Ride sharing' does not even begin to describe Uber. There is no sharing going on whatsoever. It's a taxi company that just ignores the law on principle to gain an advantage, while also spending VC money like crazy in a very illegally anticompetitive manner.
I don't see the VC money and avoiding regulation to be essential parts of the business though. I very rarely take a cab, and am not price sensitive. I tried Lyft, albeit not Uber, and like people repeatedly say, the good things about it are (a) you get fast response and a direct way to contact the driver, (b) you see how close they are to you on a moving map, (c) you get an up front estimate, and (d) they don't demand cash. While it might slow them down if they weren't subsidizing drivers, or drivers weren't subsidizing them, it wouldn't change the fact that the things they do are actually worth more than a regular cab, so they could charge more and not less, as far as I'm concerned.
If Uber and Lyft are "just taxi companies" then why don't all the other taxi companies just make a similar app and then promote the idea their upstart competitors are regulation-avoiding scum? It ought to be more effective than ignoring why people use them.
