That doesn't cover games not on Steam, is incorrect in at least one case about playability, and an analysis of currently active players does not account for people who play multiple games.
Squash is just something you do at the point of merging. It's a single option during the merge and doesn't have you doing any more work than a merge that you don't squash. I don't know about github, but I know in gitlab it's a simple checkbox in the merge request (and it can be set to be checked by default by the admin if they want).
That's great for you, but squashing commits doesn't do anything for our team. It hides somewhat useful information, which never seemed like a good thing to me.
Other teams at my company are obsessive about squashing, and I am glad I don't work on those teams. They are frustrating to work with, they are notoriously slow to ship anything, and their product still breaks even with all their processes and hurdles to getting anything shipped. Teams that demand squashing simply don't impress me at all.
As someone squarely in gen y. I've had the same feelings about me doing stuff that others are associating with gen z.
I think there may be two things at play here. One is that some people are just bad at adapting to social shifts and assume that everyone is the same way as them. The other is that people have gotten loose with usage of generation terms. So for some older people "gen z" = "person younger than me", while for some younger people "boomer" = "person older than me"
And both of those are problems with the speaker, so now I just ignore them and happily keep on doing the "gen z" things.
FWIW I mean just as a thing that gen-z popularized, I don’t think they think they own the idea (well, I hope they don’t, I’m not gen-z and I use them).
Anyway, the oldest gen-z is just about pushing 30 now, so they get to join us lame people with sore backs.
"Annoying" is probably a more accurate word to describe what they're thinking. Coworkers have to remember to not use the reaction buttons with this one specific person who responds like an ass to them.
> Or, another strain of thought goes, technologies that are yet to be developed will suddenly appear to save the day...
We have technologies that can reduce our carbon emissions... and they get fought against by the people saying that they're not worried because tech will be invented that solves the problems
Reducing emissions, even to zero, isn’t enough any more. We have to remove the excess carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere if we don’t want the planet to continue heating for centuries to come.
The removal is what people claim some technology will magically appear to solve.
What you are talking about is climate tipping points, that is amount of warming which causes one or more of earth systems which previously prevented further warming to fail.
Now we have evidence which seems to suggest we have reached our first such tipping point[1], low latitude coral reef die-off. So even if we stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere tomorrow, these corals are still going to die (most likely) and they are not coming back for at least a few centuries, meaning the CO2 which they store will be released into the atmosphere causing even further warming.
This is only the first of a more then a dozen tipping points, and since we have passed this one we are also likely to pass a couple more (Greenland Icesheet and North Atlantic conveyor), however that is not certain. And it is possible that if we take drastic action (which we 10000% should) we can (possibly) prevent other tipping points and even possibly use existing technology (like planting trees, reclaiming swamps, etc) to offset the carbon released by the dying corals.
So in short, while technically true, reducing emission to zero isn’t enough any more. We are not at a point (yet; possibly) where we can’t stop the warming with existing technology. But we must absolutely absolutely absolutely, and dear I say, absolute-effing-lutely reduce our emissions to zero, not net zero, but absolute zero, and we mast do it as fast as we can, no matter how much it costs.
I’m talking about the fact that we’ve already released a ton of carbon and we can’t get it back out of the air. The carbon itself isn’t the global warming. The heat it traps is. Even if we stop emissions right this second, the carbon already in the air will continue trapping heat as long as it’s there. Natural cycles will take centuries to remove it.
I am not sure that is how carbon induced greenhouse effect works. The warming has pretty immediate effects and is pretty correlated with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The only warming beyond that (as I understand it) is from positive feedback loops via these tipping points. All else being equal (and without tipping points) if we stopped emitting carbon today, the rise in temperature would also stop relatively quickly. And if we did find a way (by some miracle) to remove carbon from the atmosphere it would start to cool again relatively quickly.
or the Green parties straight oppose them (as the UK Green Party does with Nuclear) one of a few reasons why I'd never support them (they also support unilateral nuclear disarmament and us leaving NATO...while their is an active land war in Europe with one side been a nuclear power and us supporting the other).
It's frustrating that intelligent solutions we can have now are just ignored.
Couldn't they do that with physical SIM cards? On their end, record the IMEI of the first device they see connecting with a specific SIM card and then disallow connections if that SIM is used with a different IMEI.
I'm not sure if that's legal, but even if they did it, it's a lot more opaque. If they started doing it, many people would assume it to be a technical fault by the provider or the phone manufacturer, and the ensuing support calls and drama would probably cost way too much for this to be worth it in the first place. However, with eSIM, they get to redefine all the rules, since the customer has to learn how to use them from scratch anyway. And they also get access to nice, digital, software-driven workflows that can make the need to pay up apparent, as opposed to just randomly cutting service to the user.
Rust taught me that a language does not have to be purely functional to have everything be an expression, and ever since I first used Rust years ago I've been wishing every other language worked that way. It's such a nice way to avoid or limit the scope of mutations
Would be nice if anything that supports multiline messages let you toggle into a multiline mode where enter always puts in newlines and a combo like ctrl+enter sends the message.
But anti-cheat was first developed in a time where server browsers were the norm. Punkbuster was developed back in 2000 (independently of Valve) for HL1/CS, which had no matchmaking system. So you're just plain wrong about the motivation.
