HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | tikhonj's commentslogin

Oh man, there's a real hit of nostalgia. I played BZFlag a whole bunch back in middle school and high school, and it was one of the first places where I got involved in the community at all (mostly hanging around some phpbb forums!)

Good times.

I don't remember too much of what I did, but I made a couple of maps one of which was hosted on a server for a week or something. It wasn't especially good, but it was a pretty amazing experience that somebody else thought something I made was good enough to try out, and that I could log into a "real" server and see it in action :P


Wow same! I'm so amazed to see this on HN. One of the few amazing open source multi platform games

I remember object-oriented programming being on the same pedestal when I was younger and first learning programming—a lot of OOP folks and mainstream programmers were definitely hostile to other schools of thought like functional or procedural programming.

Hell, I've worked with programmers who, entirely honestly, treated "object oriented programming" as a synecdoche for good programming...


Yes. Which is why it's so much cheaper to live in Manhattan than in the suburbs.

You also have to believe that population growth is fully exponential. But in practice it looks more like a logistic curve, and the factors that slow it down are a lot less dramatic than resource starvation or violence.

You do not have to believe population growth is fully exponential for it to be a valid conclusion. You just have to have human population grow faster than agricultural capacity, which it was.

Additionally, it is reasonable in the 1790s to assume exponential population growth. It would not be until the 1830s that Verhulst would even model it as a logistic curve. Moreover, human population growth really was on a roughly exponential trajectory until very recently.

Obviously we did not experience such catastrophe. But it's also a bit wrong to call it "invalid" when it was a completely logical conclusion to make. If we're going to allow him to invent a magical technology that addresses it in 1798, then all reason goes out the window.


Using today's AI models make games is more like doing a Unity Asset Store flip than a higher-level abstraction. I mean, in a sense, just gluing together bought assets is operating at a "higher level of abstraction", but in a categorically different way compared to using a higher-level language or game engine.

There's a pretty big difference between embedded devices and high-end, general-purpose devices. Apple is very much the latter. Outside specific areas (like cell signal/etc) they are not constrained by hardware to the point that it inevitably impacts software quality—and the complaints people have are not about the parts of the software that are constrained! As far as I know, everybody is actually totally happy with Apple's wireless stack, power management and so on.

Now, is it possible that Apple's software issues are proximally caused by production pressure? Absolutely. That's almost definitely a major contributor. But the production pressure is not inherent to their device business; it's a choice the organization, collectively, makes.


Let’s not beat around the bush. Whoever made this decision in Apple seems pretty close to flat out evil.

There must be at least tens of thousands of ipad users globally (on ipads capable of upgrading to 27) who would would find this a critical loss.

To not mention this at all, not even in fine print release notes, while pushing people to upgrade knowing they cant ever downgrade back in the future, is just sabotage one step removed.

Especially as they did not offer any alternative way to access the functionality.


This is bonkers take.

If you read this article, the author is basically saying “the way this worked before was very opaque and probably almost no one figured it out, but _I_ knew how it worked, and so the change is bad for me”.

Do they have a good point that they have a valid use case? Yes. Do they have the only use case? No. Did Apple do this to try to make things better? Yes. That doesn’t make them “evil”, that makes them trying to make things better.


No.

Flat out removing a functionality that is 100% certain to be critical to many without any way of regaining it via any combination of features found on the iPad…

And without any notice whatsoever, and with no way to downgrade back, gets pretty close to flat out evil.

Don’t try to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Even if they clownishly made it more buried and difficult to find under a dozen submenus… it would still be much less bad in comparison.

(If they never advertised or implied the iPad as being suitable for presentations, education, etc., then that have lessened the severity, but clearly that’s not the case)


> Whoever made this decision in Apple seems pretty close to flat out evil.

Could not be further from the truth. Let’s stop such nasty hate for the most minor of things; there are lots of choices one makes when designing software / interfaces / hardware and not every edge case is immediately apparent.

Disclosure: I work at Apple. I also had nothing to do with this change.


Even though it’s one step removed from literal sabotage, there’s no angle I can see that would render it just a “minor thing”.

It effectively makes it useless for anyone where not showing the presenter’s screen content was critically important.

Unless you know of some alternative method?


I doubt anyone at Apple was sitting in a meeting and was like, "I hated all my teachers in school, let's make it impossible for them to use iPads as presentation devices", and then everyone else agreed with them.

It's also quite possible that there is new under-documneted and opaque way to do what the teacher wants to do.

I think they understand the problem, it's just not as dire a thing to see to the rest of us as you seem to feel.

It's easy to be outraged about everything, it's hard for everyone to do everything right 100% of the time for use cases most have never even heard of.

(I don't work at Apple).


In other words, even for Apple, Harlow's razor applies...

>> Whoever made this decision in Apple seems pretty close to flat out evil.

> Could not be further from the truth. Let’s stop such nasty hate for the most minor of things; there are lots of choices one makes when designing software / interfaces / hardware and not every edge case is immediately apparent.

> Disclosure: I work at Apple. I also had nothing to do with this change.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair


I wonder who is paying you to read Upton Sinclair.

Ill welcome your donation made on my behalf to the EFF.

What a stupid (and unnecessarily ad hominem) take. OP’s salary very much depends on understanding when their company produces crap.

Eh, I live in Berkeley, a lot of the neighborhoods here are amazing, and there are almost no HOAs (besides the kind that keep condo buildings running). It's nicer than the bast majority of American suburbs I've seen. If anything, the amazing yards and cozy houses are only viable because there is no HOA pushing down arbitrary top-down rules on aesthetics. Forcing people to have traditional lawns would have totally killed the place.

You forgot one important detail, the average price of homes in Berkeley. Anybody spending $1M on a 2/1 craftsman bungalow is going to also drop a few extra dollars on landscaping.

That's not true at all. The Bay Area is full of people with plenty of money but who don't care about aesthetics.

Berkeley is indeed a great example of how nice areas can be when the evil of HOAs is not present. I greatly enjoy walking the neighborhood streets of Berkeley whenever I'm there.

Yeah, but Berkeley‘s filter is that each house cost a couple million dollars that keeps out the riffraff.

I find it very annoying. But not annoying enough to make me stop using Steam.

The upsides of having a de facto monopoly, I suppose—lamentably common story in tech.


You can't rely on Python's type hints for serious verification, but it can be great for expressing abstractions and giving people (and, today, agents) better affordances for using them. Even static errors that will not always fire can still help a lot for using a library correctly and for noticing mismatches in your codebase as it evolves over time.

Target learned the security lesson the hard way, but they definitely learned it. When I was there, security was one of the rare parts of the tech org I found legitimately impressive. (But also: I am not a security guy! Maybe their actual practices were compelling but flawed! But the organization as a whole was legitimately serious about it )


Target learned the security lesson the hard way

About the 2013 Target data breach, https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/09/inside-target-corp-days-...


Target is a far outlier in the insane shit that they do in terms of retail security. No one else really approaches them in this regard.


I worked with the Target security team on a few projects and I definitely agree that they take it seriously


Apparently Home Depot has a very good developer culture too.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: