Valve wrote literal research papers on player experience and level design. The stuff they came up with have just become the norm in other games. For example, Valve found that players never look up without a reason to. They came up with ways to get the player to look up without directly telling them to with level design choices. Things like rays of light coming in from above, or ropes hanging from the ceiling.

Functional Programming Theory: 500 pages of lambda calculus and endofunctors

Functional Programming Practice: Quicksort

Palworld had trailers featuring gameplay in 2021. Besides that, there are lots of games where you throw an object to add a character to your party. Including another earlier game by PocketPair called Craftopia. World of Warcraft added “battle pets” where you can throw a cage to catch animals and add them to your battle pets roster to fight against other trainers in 2012.

if this.time_of_year and this.time_of_day and this.part_of_country and this.location == 'kitchen':
    is_viewable = False

It’s the same outcome either way. You don’t have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! What changes?

People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you’ll never use? What’s the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You’ve decided there’s some event that is so bad you’d end the world if it happened. I’m not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don’t get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn’t do that though.

They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won’t be used!

No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn’t even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It’s just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?

no Swedish law is being violated

Unfortunately, Swedish courts disagreed

Excuse me, but my waifu has plenty of assets!

See that mountain? You can fast travel to it!

The president can do that, but states are still allowed to have their own drug laws. States can’t make something illegal if there is a federal law saying it’s legal. States can make something illegal if there is no federal law regarding it. It’s why states can make abortion laws since there’s no federal abortion law.

Descheduling cannabis is essentially the same thing as having no federal law and letting the states decide. It’s not the same as legalization.

My understanding is the president cannot fully legalize cannabis on their own. Best thing they can do is stop enforcement at the federal level, but the president can’t stop states from continuing to enforce it at the state level.

Reminds me of when Canada lost internet to 12 million of it’s 33 million people because one company messed up doing maintenance.

GNU/gle

Or as I’ve taken to calling it, grep

I did contract negotiations for a while. Something that I always remember being told was “you can’t be more excited to sign than the other person”. It’ll lead to you making bad deals. If the other side doesn’t want to sign, neither do you.

My boss always said he preferred no contract over a bad contract. I once suggested that even a contract that pays out a bit is better than nothing. He countered by saying there’s an opportunity cost in fulfilling a contract. We could be too busy fulfilling poor contracts that we have no time to negotiate and accept good ones. In that case, a poor contract could be seen as less valuable than nothing. I’ve had negotiations that lasted less than 15 minutes. I give a standard quote, they’d lowball, I’d say there’s no way, they said they’d leave, I say here’s the door. Done.

Have you tried mixing in a 1/4 cup of non-toxic glue?

It’s normal for people to change how they speak based on the audience they’re speaking to. Here’s an interesting video focusing on “gay voice” but notes it’s not just a thing gay men do. Everyone does it. The thing is, it’s consistent, not random. If the person at your work isn’t changing their voice based on who they’re talking to, but randomly, they’re just being weird.

That’s not workplace drama, you’ve described interacting with people. It’s difficult to say if it’s always been like this but social media hasn’t helped. People are now used to expressing their beliefs and opinions to everybody, no matter how polarizing or unpopular they might be. It’s not limited to the workplace.

For not caring about what people think, just remember that nobody’s opinion matters. Your favourite colour is yellow? Cool. You don’t like Taylor Swift? Great. You think all atheists should be killed? Neat. Opinions are like points on Whose Line Is It Anyway. They’re made up and they don’t matter.

Do or do not, there is no try
- Yoda

Seems like it should be really easy to find a democrate candidate who is both better than Biden and not a Nazi.

If you have a 64 bit computer, you gotta delete system32.