All the best stuff is online, though. My kids have found some of their favorite hobbies and interests from online videos they found. They enjoy using the internet for all the same reasons the rest of us do. I love computers and technology and the internet, and my kids and I play games together and build computers and explore technology. I have taught them a lot about internet safety (both personal and technological), and I am very impressed with their skills and abilities.
I would never tell another parent they were wrong for choosing not to allow their kids to use the internet or consume certain types of media. Those are very personal choices.
My wife and I have deliberately have chosen what to allow our kids to do, and continually have talks with each other and with the kids about our internet usage.
I don’t feel the need or desire to seek advice or approval from random internet commenters.
To all here saying this is was only a pilot error. I'll ask you, do you also think it is only a programmer error when a critical memory-safety bug is introduced in C? And that they should be the only one responsible and face jail-time (or death, like here)? Or is there more at play? Why use C in safety-critical code, why wasn't it catched by reviewers, fuzzing, testing, etc ?
Error is not binary, it's a statistic. Even perfectly trained pilots/programmers do make errors depending on the situation. What you should ask is what the error chance is, and if it acceptable.
As the accident report shows, the exact same pitot tube failure happened at least 15 times and recovered by the pilots. The 16th time, it killed more than two hundred people. Do you think a 1/16 chance of dying is appropriate in modern aviation safety?
On the other hand, the Final Fantasy set release was the most fun I’ve had at a pre-release event. Personally I’d have preferred Dragon Quest with some sweet Toriyama art, but you take what you can get. I met people who had stopped playing MTG decades ago but came back for the pre-release to see some of their favourite characters. Good conversations. I’ll also say that while in the big scheme of things of course FF MTG was a financial decision, the bulk of it felt like a labour of love in the sense of “how can we translate this FF idea to MTG” with some awesome results. Cards like Overkill¹ and the concept of summons² (a mix of creature and saga). They also made sure there was something for everyone. All FF were represented, go get your favourites.
I didn’t attend the TNMT pre-release but had fun speculating on e.g. what colour each turtle would be. Within the constraints, I think they got it right (even if Sneak VS Ninjutsu is unnecessary complexity). I’m curious about Star Trek too. I can imagine four or five legendaries for Rom³ (a secondary character) alone and they could all coexist.
So yeah, they’re doing it for money and I do think there are too many of them, but at least they’re not half-assing it every time and are letting the designers really work with the possibilities. There’s only so much you can do with a generic fantasy setting.
I groaned through the LoTR set (some of the cards were really cool), but I noped TF out at Final Fantasy with Spiderman on the horizon, and I'm 100% never going back. I've been playing on and off since 1993, so they're absolutely burning their brand.
Yep, I've sold my entire collection at this point (all digital on MODO) and will likely never go back. I think planeswalkers were the beginning of the end for me, and its been a non-stop slide of power creep and paid promotions ever since.
I loved the Warhammer 40k sets and the LotR sets. Didn't care about the others. Other people loved the FF or Avatar. Different people have different tastes (everybody hated Spiderman though).
The canonical MtG lore is not exactly deep and refined anyway.
What would be the required budget to host an alternative registry? I'm surprised any GAFAM still hasn't stepped-in and started building their alternative, at least for NPM to up its game in order not to become completely irrelevant.
at amazon, they maintain a private internal registry of packages with approved licenses and audits. this has been in place for several years. i assume other big corps enforce similar policies
This is Amazon, the company where the stuff they rolled their own now makes more money than the business it was rolled for: https://aws.amazon.com/codeartifact/
I was going to ask how this world is not bot overrun, but I saw that instead players need to pay to get access? (Which is probably the only viable way to keep batting manageable).
The server often has long wait times due to the number of players trying to join, so you can pay for "priority access" and jump right to the front of the queue.
For me Svelte and LLM completely removed my need for Tailwind. Turns out I was using it primarily to avoid CSS collision, and (to me) more logical syntax, rather than the self-imposed constraints.
Concretely, how are you going to manage PR reviews? Even with today’s staff they are very slow (weeks for a round of NITS at a time), so with more developers leaving they’re going to explode and further discourage external contributors.
Like most large projects, we triage every new PR, and make decisions about which ones to invest what level of maintainer time into. We try pretty hard to efficiently review visibly high-quality PRs and those from highly engaged contributors who are visibly learning from the feedback we give.
Review latencies vary for myriad reasons. For example, when preparing to publish a major release like Zulip 12.0, there's about a month wherein we mostly only review PRs that might go into that release.
Historically, the great majority of PRs in zulip/zulip have been reviewed by two maintainers before being merged. First a "maintainer review", and then a second "integration review" by me. My reviewing everything is a quite unusual practice for a project of this scale, and I would not recommend anyone else try it. But it has worked for us, and everyone appreciated my having the complete context that comes with this practice.
All of our maintainers are very good at reviewing Zulip work. Thus, the great majority of those integration reviews involve my suggesting readability/documentation improvements, or merging the PR with just a comment thanking everyone who helped. So we're making the obvious adjustment wherein the other longtime maintainers also do integration reviews.
I plan to hold regular office hours for more active project maintainers to use my time as they wish. It is likely that some of that time will be used doing reviews.
> Yes, i used AI to resort it,
It may be not "generated", as in it's a true story, but the writing is AI.
reply