Yes, but it's only after Sakaguchi left (and with the SE merger) that they had full creative and management control of the big Japanese projects. The FF13 era was a massive disaster and they've never really recovered from that.
Nomura was literally just a monster designer on FF5. I have no idea how it's relevant that he was the monster designer on FF5 to what he's done to the company in a leadership role in the past 20 years.
>The FF13 era was a massive disaster and they've never really recovered from that.
I think they've recovered from that for at least 6 years now, minimum
>I have no idea how it's relevant that he was the monster designer on FF5 to what
he's done to the company in a leadership role in the past 20 years.
well first of all, we're talking about Japan. Seniority trumps a lot of things over there, and Nomura being around for longer than 99% of the company would give him a lot of sway regardless of his named role.
But even leaving that aside, being the creative force behind a major franchise that bolstered the relationship with one of the most powerful companies on earth would get you some sway in any company. Even so, he's not necessarily the end all be all behind any grievances you may have with Square Enix. He's ultiamtely a director first and businessman 10th.
This is what happened in Ireland when new taxes on sugary drinks came in. Drinks that came in 2L bottles now came in 1.75L bottles at the same price. The diet versions with no sugar remained in 2L bottles. Companies like Coke are now only making variants like vanilla or cherry flavours using their diet or zero sugar products
I'm no fan of artificial sweeteners or sweet things in general but the scientific evidence is pretty overwhelming that most of them are far healthier than sugar.
Because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that artificial sweeteners _are_ better for you. They have no proven health impact and eliminate calories. The idea that they're somehow "just as bad" (or even worse) only comes from sugar and corn industry lobbying and marketing efforts.
...but that’s the idea. They want people to drink the artificially sweetened version instead. That’s what the tax is for. If they taxed both the same it wouldn’t work.
Not sure that many OSS projects are going to be interested in merging a patch where a conversation with the patch author for review/feedback can't happen
I get that, but at the same time, there's a ton of reasons why a developer might not want their name attached to a bunch of code.
As a maintainer myself, I can respect that. If the PR is important enough, I'm more than happy to merge it without knowing the author (with some additional tweaking if necessary).
Legally questionable projects. There's plenty of projects on github which can be used for nefarious purposes with disclaimers that it shouldn't be used as such.
But I sometimes submit patches to small projects that I've integrated into personal projects, and pretty much every patch I've ever submitted has been accepted without comment.
I set my git username and email to "<>" at the global level, which completely breaks githubs UI, and people /still/ accept the pull requests.
Initial assumption when reading the thread was that navigating to a data URI would be handled like entry of a data URI into the omnibox and still be allowed.
A small test case confirms that assumption - it works.
Could you have your "get" handler do its thing and have it forward on the arguments it received to the "apply" handler if necessary with an extra flag argument and vice versa?
This is what Stackage(https://www.stackage.org/) LTS releases are in the Haskell world. A compiler and a large subset of the Hackage repository known to compile together and pass tests.
