this is great also. ive heard a lot of people say that companies shouldnt release games in a bugg state because it would tank the games reputation. that would be a valid argument if it were being made b the people making money off the games, but the people wanting the game to be delaed to fix bugs are the consumers, who unlike the developers, have nothing to lose by a game being rushed and then patched later.see, this is what something called "early access" comes in so that people can play a game early and the devs can get feedback, while also not tanking the game's reputation and making those people angry. everyone wins. hastily patched games are bad and so are multi year delays with no info on the game, and it doesnt have to be one or the other.
Releasing an unpolished game and just patching it later is significantly more expensive than just delaying the game, and the reputational damage that a particularly poor release like Cyberpunk does has real monetary implications on the company. They went from the Witcher studio with an extremely high stock price to their stock price tanking (and not recovering) in almost no time at all due how much of a turd their game was at launch.recently, a lot of glitchy, unpolished games have been released, and people have been saying ¨take your time. we can wait.¨ I disagree. I think you should focus on releasing the game, no matter how unpolished it is. you see, there are these things called patches, where game developers will take a game that they already released, and fix its glitches. now, why would you not release a game to fix glitches, if you can just release it early, fix the glitches, and end up with the same final product? Its not a choice between playing an unpolished game now, or playing a polished game later, its a choice between playing an unpolished game now and a polished game later, or just playing a polished game later. people are like ¨we can wait."well then go ahead and wait, youll get the game you want whether they release it in an unpolished state or not.
The number of times I've figured out a problem by going "of course, this is a pointer under the hood" stands in stark contrast to the courses and languages encompassing said problems continuing to deny that there is even a thing called a pointer (because they have a reputation of being hard to learn or something?) in the first place.We need to stop telling beginner programmers to learn Python/JavaScript as their first language. Beginner programmers should be learning C, not Python/JavaScript. Teach people fundamentals in C, introduce the foundational high-level programming concepts in C++, and only then once they are somewhat fluent start introducing people to these very high-level languages.
These "idiot-proof" languages are great for experienced programmers because they allow you to code at the speed of thought in exchange for having a lower ceiling on performance. However, by introducing concepts to a beginner in an "idiot-proof" environment like Python, you actively teach them falsehoods about programming. Also, by abstracting the computer away from them, you make it harder for them to grasp really basic, easy, and fundamental concepts like memory and types down the line, and looking back on it, I think starting out in Python completely set me on the wrong path by orienting my thinking around lines of code in the editor rather than around data in relation to other data, memory, and processes.
After all, the best way to idiot-proof something is to make it so an idiot can't use it. And the way that you get someone to graduate from being an idiot is by forcing them to learn shit from the bottom up like we do in LITERALLY EVERY FIELD except programming. Teach people imperative programming before you teach them declarative programming, and teach them about memory at the same time that you are teaching them about processes.
Retweet to scare a front-end developer:The number of times I've figured out a problem by going "of course, this is a pointer under the hood" stands in stark contrast to the courses and languages encompassing said problems continuing to deny that there is even a thing called a pointer (because they have a reputation of being hard to learn or something?) in the first place.
L + ratio + george better + you fell offAlso, Ringo is the best Beatle
Also, Ringo is the best Beatle
this guy looks sick. thank you for introducing me.i think the best beetle is the giraffe weevil
Almost as cold as this takeas much im born and raised here New York got no right being as expensive as it is for how cold it gets. lol
hot take: battle against a true hero from undertale isnt even a top 10 song from that game, and i genuinely cant see the argument for it. also, BIG SHOT is a contender for the best song ever.Hot Take: FINALE and ASGORE/bergentrückung, from Undertale, are hella underrated and outshined by Megalovania.
hot take: battle against a true hero from undertale isnt even a top 10 song from that game, and i genuinely cant see the argument for it. also, BIG SHOT is a contender for the best song ever.
Also, Battle Against a True Hero is another hell of a song forgotten on the wonderful sea of Undertale Soundtrack.I personally don't see Big Shot having the same hype and melody building from Bergentrückung and Finale in Undertale, that song only blowed up due to Spamton's character becoming one of Undertale's peaks, aside Megalovania and it's memorable sound.
if you need an explenation, i have an in depth analysis of it somewhere in the video game threadI personally don't see Big Shot having the same hype and melody building from Bergentrückung and Finale in Undertale, that song only blowed up due to Spamton's character becoming one of Undertale's peaks, aside Megalovania and it's memorable sound.
If you live on a farm or have other agricultural duties, children are a huge asset, they are pulling their weight and bring in more money than they costThe best to place to raise a family is in more rural areas
If you live on a farm or have other agricultural duties, children are a huge asset, they are pulling their weight and bring in more money than they cost
But if you just live in a rural area, idk. I grew up in a big city and I couldn't imagine it any other way. Being always in the center of life and always having something to do was and still is irreplaceable for me. Sure it may be more dangerous, but if you teach your kids streets smarts and the city you're in is somewhat on the safer side, I don't think growing up in a city is any worse than growing up rurally
I agree with you, but not because of thatIts not about living on a farm or any of that.
Living rurally allows your children to grow up closer to the outdoors. It keeps them more in-tune with nature.