Overcooked is probably best-in-class here. Cooperative zany cooking game. There's a number of derivative titles which are kinda similar if you end up enjoying it.
Your unit tests should just take the result of loading the file as an argument or other type of injection param. Then you can hardcode your unit test config parameters in the test code itself. That's the appropriate place for this kind of indirection.
Storage space is really just tacked proportional to bedrooms, for the most part. My house has what feels like a bunch of extra space because I wanted enough bedrooms for my family. They didn't need to come with so much extra, that's just how they build homes with more than a few bedrooms now.
I would have been left handed when an early childhood injury caused me to switch to right. A few years ago I thought about that and tried re-learning some skills and tasks with the left hand.
It's specific to each task but I can normally get the left handed version as good or better than the right. I am willing to bet most people could do this, you just have to spend a bit of time awkwardly re-learning.
I think what is this ignoring is that "security updates" are generally corrections to defects in the original product.
In principle, a complete product would ship with no defects. You could run it for 1000 years unpatched and it would be no less secure than the day it shipped.
Manufacturers ship security updates because the original product was defective. So it makes sense that they remain on the hook for security updates -- we paid them full price up front.
I am extremely sympathetic to this view--but is it practical? Like, should Apple be forced to continue releasing security fixes for the original iPhone?
A relatively small ongoing investment in a phone with which they earned billions of dollars in profit. Doesn't necessarily require new feature updates, but security updates should be available for a far more significant length of time than the single-digit years the have self-regulated themselves. As an alternative, perhaps these companies should be held responsible for the e-waste of their prematurely expired hardware...
> A relatively small ongoing investment in a phone with which they earned billions of dollars in profit.
That's fair. But what about a product which doesn't turn a profit? The iPhone could have been a total flop, no one knew in advance!
I worry that if releasing a hardware product carried an unlimited support burden, companies would release far fewer products. Less risk taking would lead to less innovation, and so on.
I think I would be more on board with a rule like "once you stop releasing security updates, you must share hardware documentation and unlock the bootloader", so consumers can install their own (presumably patched) operating systems. But this wouldn't actually affect most of society, because 90% of consumers (I'm being generous) are never going to install Linux on their phones.
They could also sell their devices to those users who will install their own OS, or volunteers could help them do it, or simple device specific plug and play installers could be developed.
Yes they should, they should also be forced to unlocked the bootloaders and release specs to the hardware so that 3rd part OSes can target the devices. Hardware recycling is a joke. I have first gen ipad that would make a great photoframe, video play and ebook reader but instead it is a fully functional paper weight.
First gen "Google" Nexus tablet, factory restored before being put in storage and it's got 15 seconds between touching the screen and the UI even attempting to update. It was a decent small tablet when i bought it, too.
My Nokia N800 runs the exact same as it did when i bought it, used, about 4 years after the release. I can even stream transcoded video to it, still. The camera works. The terminal works fine. That's probably why apple has trillions of market cap or whatever and Nokia is making $50 feature phones with touchscreens (i haven't seen any nor do i care, the n900 (910?) should have been a bigger deal and i'm still mad)
Software copyright law should acquire a concept of defense: if it's no longer profitable for you to maintain it, that should delimit the end of the copyright term, with a short grace period of (say) one year.
Hollywood accounting says no movie is ever profitable. Your proposed law would just create a perpetual copyright for companies with sufficiently creative accountants.
How about applying the idea behind ESCROW: if you market hardware with software dependencies, you are required to provide the source to a trusted third party who will release/opensource it if you stop maintaining said software before the expected lifetime of the hardware.
Sounds great, how do you enforce this with the deluge of things like IP cameras and the like from Chinese companies?
100% tariffs? Every outdoor IP camera, for example, is either Chinese manufactured or outlandishly expensive. even a 200% increase in purchase price makes these devices competitive, still.
I'm okay for them to stop supporting it but in return they have to open the bootloader and release all the hardware documentation to not turn it into a brick.
> In principle, a complete product would ship with no defects. You could run it for 1000 years unpatched and it would be no less secure than the day it shipped.
Not necessarily. Something could be perfectly secure today and for the next 100 years but be trivial to crack in 1000 years because the landscape changed so much. Something that is inconceivable to crack by brute force now won’t be as compute power keeps rising.
It’s impossible to cover every base from the start and forever. Who would’ve thought that soundproof glass could be beat with a camera filming an object?
As a web developer I really want all devices to have evergreen browsers, and that in turn implies on-going feature updates at the OS level to support those evergreen browsers.
It also doesn’t really matter whether updates are fixes or features. Somebody has to do the work, and they have to get paid, and only so many years of that work can be baked into the original purchase price, before buyers go to a competitor who offers less support. You paid full price for X years of support, but what happens after that?
5% is honestly meeting that benchmark imo. One in twenty? That's firmly a competitor. Certainly nowhere close to leader but no longer a rounding error you can't even see in a pie chart.
If it's 3 years long? No. If your oldest kid is too old people often don't want to go back to having a baby. In what I've seen, families with lots of kids tend to have them fairly close together (2 - 3 years max). The moment your youngest turns 5 and things become easier, people stop wanting to go back to the baby phase (can't blame them).
Anyway, if we're talking about spacing 2 - 3 years apart, that means you're not working at all. At some point people will want to go back to work, and that may mean not having another kid.
I think flexible policies are great, but the long leaves I don't think are super useful. Kids are not some abnormal condition; they need to be integrated into a full life.
This is just my pet theory. I think places with overly long leaves (especially overly long paternity leaves) actually discourage men from wanting more children (And of course it takes two to tango here).
Sure but the comparable idea with Netflix is like one show. You watch that show and then it's done. It took you maybe 8 hours. This kind of game expects a player to log in week after week, dedicating hundreds and hundreds of hours over the course of years.
But players who want to do that are already invested in other games. They're not going to split out time to play this new one unless it's amazing. This thing was $40 and not well regarded. No one is really surprised at this result.
Yes, it really comes down to motivating users to play your game, either through network effect or by just being that good.
I was just pointing that the amount of time isn't the real issue, it's the competition for that time. Of course, the tighter that time is the tougher the competition will be, and the better a singular live service game needs to be.
Yep. I love gaming, and game nights with a squad, but I can't ass myself to follow every single option.
Also, back when I played Valorant, a regular match could be anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes long. Add up queue times, waiting for people to group up (because there's usually one more person who's almost online, etc), and waiting for the potato-pc users to load in, it could easily turn into 3 hours for 2 to 3 matches.
These days, I'd rather watch a movie, and be in a different chair than the one I'd spent my working day in.
Remember that materials are also largely labor cost, just the labor of all people who harvested refined and transported the materials. This work it largely similar to construction and is subject to the same growth in expenses.
In that situation Tesla would find themselves ultimately compelled to perform on the bids, or pay some sort of damages. They could gum up the works with lawyers for a while but the final bill would get larger as the courts got fed up with their shenanigans.
In this situation the conservation group was fully prepared to make good on their bid.
reply