Sure, but some game engines out there do give you quite a bit to work with, too.
And well, I was talking specifically about the guy enjoying the coding without necessarily caring about the end result (like he'd do, if he patched up Starfield without enjoying the game).If that were the case, even designing the physics can be a fun riddle.
I enjoy how it sounds like the guy didn't even start out by playing the game, but rather started modding right away. I do get that. The coding itself is fun.
But yeah, the guy could also be making an own game, if it was just about the coding. At some point, you do want your mod to be part of a game worth playing.
Not sure, what kind of notification sounds you have that you'd need to skip to the end of them. A foghorn?
I was only vaguely aware of the algorithm on Spotify and that not being allowed to skip very often is a thing there, and man, this comment read like a completely deranged monologue from some sort of alternative, dystopian reality.
Ah, true. Thanks.
Theoretically, it was supposed to be pseudo-code, secretly inspired by Rust, but I did get that one mixed up.
And I am actually even a fan of the word unwrap there, because it follows a schema and you can have your IDE auto-complete all the things you can do with an Option.In many of these other languages, you just get weird collections of symbols which you basically have to memorize and which only cover rather specific uses.
I enjoy this:
return a.or(b);
But yeah, that requires an Option type rather than null pointers...
Normally, I would reply to the guy, because, you know, he's a human being, but there's so many replies, I doubt, he can actually read all of them and potentially someone else has already made that point.
Anyways, I feel like something he kind of misses here is that many of us do it from a heartfelt place. Like, we're all techies. We've all used commercial software to a point where we've grown so frustrated with it that we decided it is a waste of time.
So, it's not us saying "Why don't you go and just have more time/money?".Rather, it's us saying "This thing is wasting your time? Here is a solution that I felt wasted less time in the long run.".
Yes, sometimes that does miss the mark, because not every complaint is looking for a solution. Or because we may be frustrated with restrictions of commercial software, which are not a problem for less techy people. Or even because we're embedded in this tech world and are hoping to make it a better place, which someone just quickly visiting may not care about.
But other times, I do just happen to know a lot about technology and a non-techy genuinely did not know about the solution I suggested and is actually really appreciative of me bringing it up. It does happen. And it's not easy to discern who would appreciate a suggestion and who won't.
And you wouldn't have to reverse causality to travel backwards in time. You would just have to travel faster than the speed of light.
If you can travel faster than the speed of light then you can arrive at a destination before you left.
I know practically nothing about all the wormhole theories, because I just don't consider them relevant, but from a logical standpoint, the above does not feel correct to me.
The thing is, you would arrive at your destination before the light would arrive there from where you started. So, you could take out your telescope and potentially watch your own launch.
But that doesn't actually put you into the past. It just looks like it when looking into the direction you came from. Light from the other direction will look like you've fast-forwarded through time, because you now get more recent imagery.
I don't have another explanation why someone might think, this might put you into the past...
Hmm, but why do you think these things haven't occurred yet?
As far as I can tell, the speed of causality means things can have occurred in a certain location in the universe, but it takes time until the effects have permeated into the rest of the universe.
So, it's like a shockwave from an explosion. The explosion happens, but it takes a few seconds until you feel the shockwave.Well, with the difference that you can see an explosion before the shockwave. When we're at the speed of causality, literally no evidence will have arrived in your position until it does.
So, one could go meta-philosophical with basically "If a tree falls in a forest and no one has heard it yet, did it actually already happen?", but yeah, I don't think that's terribly useful here.
And well, if we treat it like a shockwave, let's say you detonate some TNT and step through a wormhole to somewhere 20 km away. You would know that the shockwave will arrive soon, but does that matter? The shockwave will still just continue pushing on.
And I guess, crucially, it did already happen, so you can't do the usual time travel paradox of preventing that it would happen.
That's actually not as obvious as it might sound. The thing is, as far as we know, light seems to have no mass¹. No mass means no inertia. So, if it accelerates at all, it should immediately be at infinite speed. But for some reason, it actually doesn't go faster than what we typically call the speed of light. And we assume, that's the case, because that's actually the speed of causality.
So, it's reversed. It's not that light is just the fastest thing and as a consequence of that, nothing can be transmitted faster. No, it's actually that there appears to be a genuine universal speed limit and light would be going faster, if it could.
¹) Light is still affected by gravity, e.g. can't escape from black holes. We do assume that gravity is just a 'bend in spacetime' because of that, meaning even any massless thing are affected by it, but yeah, we're still struggling to understand what mass actually is then.
Well, I'm going to give the party-pooper response, even though science fiction and pop-science love to fantasize differently:
The past and the future are theoretical concepts. They don't actually exist in the sense that you can 'send' something to them.Obviously, you can write data to a hard drive and then read it out after a week has passed, but presumably that is not what you had in mind.
But that's also the essence of the time travel that the theory of general relativity allows. You can travel forwards more slowly along the time axis by travelling more quickly on the space axis (close to the speed of light), which means you might just need to spend 5 perceived years to end up in the year 2200.Similarly, you could take a hard drive onto this journey and it wouldn't have fallen apart in that time.
Travelling back in time makes no sense in general relativity. You would need to reverse causality for that, which is on an entirely different level from merely slowing causality down.
General relativity would mathematically allow for the existence of wormholes, but that's pushing the theory to extremes where it might simply not be applicable to reality anymore. We certainly have no actual evidence for wormholes.
So, what's the yellow stuff for? To keep the bags from sticking together?
Yeah, I have watched videos of the guy before and would be down for 4 hours of it, but not if it's about how FluffyMcWuffington stole the pixels from sbubby82...
I don't even understand which part of the tree experience these tanks are supposed to replace. Are they really just there to pick up CO2? Because you can also plant a forest outside the city for that.
You'll miss out on all the other tree benefits, but so you also will with these glass tanks.
Yeah, I imagine the reaction to bullying is quite different, depending on whether you still have people standing up for you. Due to toxic masculinity and previous friendships having broken apart just before, I was practically left to my own devices and I was too young to be proud of anything without a third party recognizing it...
I watched it on my phone in 1080p60 and the scale didn't bother me. It's not like I have to read a lot of text and the precise position of the player character is mostly irrelevant, too. Like, if you get hit by a train or something, the screen will flash red and you'll react to it, too, so I'll know what's going on.
Well, and I don't look at the screen at all times anyways. 🙃
Would like to see more of this journey...
Yeah, and from what I understand, learning the language itself isn't the hard part. It actually has rather few concepts. What's difficult, is learning how to program a computer correctly without all the abstractions and safety measures that modern languages provide.
Even structured programming had to be added to COBOL in a later revision. That's if/else, loops and similar.
It hails back to the early days of the ampersand, from when it was basically still just Latin "et": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trebuchet_MS_ampersand.svg
Personally, I do like this font (Fira Mono+Sans), because it still looks professional, without being so boring that I get depression from looking at it.But yeah, that ampersand is pushing it a bit, as I'm not sure everyone else knows that's an ampersand...
Well, openSUSE did it long before everyone else. So, Debian, Fedora, Arch?
I would kind of be surprised by Fedora, too, as I thought, they shipped out-of-the-box automatic snapshotting, but the comment from @[email protected] sounds like that is still a problem...
I think, it's only in the free version of Spotify. So, if you're paying for Spotify Premium, you wouldn't have that problem.
But I mean, I'm obviously completely out of the Spotify loop, so definitely take that one with a grain of salt...