That's good, because the "O" should never be dotted. You use slash OR dot for zero, unless you vaguely remember them both as useful for disambiguating but forgot that both marks are for zero and vary by typeface. Mostly dotted zero was just during the dot matrix era. I wouldn't mind being shown counter examples.
The Luddites weren't against automation, they were retaliating against the capital class. Their demands were to have dignified work, not for automation to go away. They attacked the machines because it was the tool the capital class used to deny them their livelihood.
This is why I've been all in on Steam for so long! The catalog is so huge, there's a massive number of fantastic couch multiplayer games. It is indeed a bit more fiddly... I've found that it's generally easier to connect my Steam Deck to the TV and play lower fidelity games than it is to fiddle with a Windows machine that needs to be prepped for friends popping in every other month.
Although, Nintendo is still doing a good job at keeping the couch-social experience alive, and building 1st party games that can be good solo experiences but really shine when played next to a friend sitting on the same couch.
I used to rally friends over for couch gaming years ago. Think I'll try to put something together for Thanksgiving. Been a bit out of the loop - any recent PC couch games you recommend for normies? I think for my group, it'll lean casual / co-operative. Nintendo's always felt too kid-like for us.
"It takes two", "Split Fiction" and "Lego Voyage" are the same style of casual two-player coop. Downside is it's only two players but otherwise may he exactly what you're looking for and very well made.
If you want something a bit different, check out "keep talking or everbody explodes".
Rivals of Aesther - like Super Smash Bros but with Steam Workshop support for player-made characters... TARS (interstellar) vs Ronald McDonald vs Obama anyone??
nidhogg - deserves to be in an arcade cabinet but honestly this one is ALWAYS a hit...just 2player though
Broforce - 80s action stars in 80s action movie multiplayer platformer
Ultimate Chicken Horse - competitively build a platformer level and then race to complete the level first, best with 4 players
TowerFall Ascension - 2-4 players, also deserves to be in an arcade cabinet
Screen Cheat - FPS made for the couch; think N64 Goldeneye or Quake, but all the players are invisible, so the only way to figure out where your opponents are is to look at their quadrants (screencheat)
Overcooked 2 - it's pretty kid-oriented on the surface, but it's a game where you must out-communicate the absolute chaos unfolding around you in order to succeed...such a good couch-multiplayer experience, but best for experienced gamers imho
Rocket League
Magicka
Regular Human Basketball - control giant basketball automatons by jumping inside them and operating the manual controls in a team v team. Minimum 4 players to really work well, supports up to 10 players shared screen
That should get you started! But oops that wasn't my casual coop list, more my "makes for memorable group experiences" list.
It Takes Two, Portal 2, Untitled Goose Game, Halo Master Chief Collection was like $10 recently, all come to mind as positive local coop experiences I've had.
That's been me before. If you're wondering why people ghost at the technical when they seemed like great candidates: sometimes, at least, they like engineering because it's a discipline where they can get things "right" within some defined band / acceptable tolerance. In interview context, where there's somebody watching and judging, the degree of tolerance is unknown, and you know you won't be given time to choose the most correct approach regardless, and that solving the technical problem is just an indirect proxy for solving the "is this person a good social fit" problem (because you know you have the technical ability), all acts as anti-motivator for practicing for leetcode style interviews.
Its easier to say "I just didn't study and that's why I didn't get the job" than it is to say "even though I spent a bunch of time optimizing for this interview scenario and know I absolutely aced the technical interview, they still didn't like me."
Heck, I've been in interviews where I found the technical aspect a relatively easy bar to pass, and I blurted out something strange just to sabotage myself. If they can look past that and still see that I know what I'm doing and bring a lot to the table, I know they are people that I can do my best work with without needing to be constantly second guessing myself in conversation.
Some companies seem to forget that interviews go both ways, and that job candidates are screening for something different than what companies are screening for.
It does if you do DNS over TLS or HTTPS, although I guess that information would still be knowable to your DNS provider if they terminate your TLS behind the scenes
Not quite. In order to make TLS certs work on a per-site basis, requests sent over HTTPS also include a virtual host indicator in cleartext that shows the hostname of the site you’re trying to connect to, so if the IP on the other end is hosting multiple domains it can find the right cert. For this reason some people feel that DNS over TLS is pretty pointless as a privacy measure.
It's still not perfect since you're still leaking information about the privacy set implied by the outer ClientHello, but this possibly isn't much worse than the destination IP address you're leaking anyway.
SNI relies on the client specifying the host name in the unencrypted ClientHello message that initiates a TLS handshake. Encrypted Client Hello involves extra configuration that most websites don't implement.
Everyone is looked at as a young person when they are young. I've definitely had "junior" colleagues that "got it" better than my 50yo colleagues. It's possible I shouldn't say that outloud, because skilled youngsters have a tendency to misidentify themselves as being part of that set while the wise youngsters have a tendency to *underestimate* their own capability or insight. But I don't think you can make that same assumption about a senior thinking back to their early years.
I desperately wish, to this day, that I had been in the position to receive mentorship. I basically hang out on HN as a way to gather it where I can. Attended engineering meetups when I was younger as well. But I never had the benefit of working with engineers senior to myself. I was a junior "business employed person" but when you need to make a roof you do what you can and learn the hard way even if there's no other humans to show you how to make a proper roof. Luckily, you can receive mentorship not just online, but through books, or even just studying the craft of others...but you take what you can get.
Receiving mentorship is such a gift, and as I approach the end of my career, I am still hungry for it, and harboring some degree of wistful envy for those that receive mentorship as an engineer. I've had many great mentors, but my for the most part, engineering mentors have never seen my face, heard my voice, or known my name, and certainly not for the first decade of my professional career as a software developer, where I didn't have any other developers to work with.
You see, the issue is you’re framing your mentorship (or lack thereof) on a very specific topic, that you are already well versed in. Why would someone give you advice in your field? You probably already know…
Mentorship is about more than just “don’t use strings directly in your squeal”, it’s about navigating the organization. Filing proper TPS reports. Encouraging refactoring. Having empathy when shit goes south. Coffee talks. Hikes. Walks. Getting to know them as a person and giving them life advice.
My best mentor taught me, if you keep looking under rocks, all you’ll find is dirt. Look up.
Of course. And I thought I acknowledged that mentorship is many things and there are many things that we need to grow as individuals. I've had a lot of great mentors in my life.
I still think you've missed the point. You can be grateful for the many gifts you've received and still wish to have had engineering guidance from a trusted mentor. There is not enough time in a life to go down every single rabbit hole; it's nice to have experienced people accurately point out where the rabbit holes are. Non-engineers are not equipped to help spot engineering rabbit holes; they might even tell you that engineering itself is ultimately a pointless rabbit hole.
But even then...that's just my own experience and my own wishes for my past self. I try to give what I wish I had had, of course.. think that's what drives most mentorship, and maybe that's the point you're trying to make, that mentorship is given out of that wistful feeling of wishing you had received advice/help and passing along the lessons that took you too long to find.
But still, if your role is getting stuck alone in the server room or whatever with a team of people who don't understand or respect what you do, good luck.
The point I was trying to make (and maybe failed because I got too focused on my own experience) is that really, not everyone gets mentors, even of the broader sort that you're referring to (which I might say are more accurately called friends or peers). But even if we widen the scope of what mentorship is, it's also perfectly reasonable for field-specific mentorship to be a cultural expectation for software engineering. I think it's a good thing to expect this of each other, and to encourage explicitly making space for the practice.
But again, however you want to widen the scope of what mentorship is, not everyone is getting it. The reason people look under rocks is because they don't know where to look. Or they do know where to look but also know they have blind spots and don't know how to get them addressed. "Look up" is nice and all, but it's a bit rude and distracting when you're trying to build something and need help understanding the foundation below your feet. Sometimes you don't need someone telling you to look up, you need help seeing where to look closer.
Seems like it's anybody who wants to just use native js features without complication. Anybody who's been writing modern js and is aware of all it's features has probably had the thought "oh we really don't need almost any of this shit with the web native features we already have, we just need to teach people about those existing features."
Arrow-js looks like it's basically advocating for not using anything but vanilla js by tricking you into thinking it's a framework / lib. I mean, it is that, but it looks like it's barely that, and just sorta shows off how you can use vanilla js features to accomplish what all the various libs do, without introducing a lot of special lib-specific concepts.
Well said. Everybody has power, they just throw it away because exercising your personal power is at best a pita, and at worst, personally dangerous. But retaining access to your personal power requires exercising it from time to time, or it will atrophy.
It's a form of tithing. You give to the propagandists providing the slant you align with, even if they're wealthy billionaires. It's been common for belief communities for centuries. Poor people do it for access to wealthy individuals or as a form of gambling on the promises of the propaganda, and wealthy individuals, when they give, are also doing so for influence (access to poor people en masse). Its propaganda all the way down.
reply