I see. That’s not what “security by obscurity” means in my world, but the expression certainly sounds like it could. It’s not like I own the meaning of words, so it’s interesting to hear what it means to others. Could also have been meant figuratively, I suppose.

In what way does “security by obscurity” apply here?

I was.

Maybe this was an intentional leak. Now the Nintendo lawyers can claim they’ve used stolen proprietary code?

I suppose. If you are doing things against TOS and you suspect just might happen, by all means.

The license is with regards to “GOG Service”, not “GOG Contents”. You need the former to get access to the latter, sure. But what isn’t clear about this?

You still own the contents (though, as mentioned, individual titles may have additional blablabla). If you don’t think this distinction makes sense when it comes to GoG vs Steam, then maybe you’re just discussing something entirely different?

That’s for the gog service itself.

What do you mean? Native Linux isn’t that relevant these days. Most games run well through Proton, and some even better than on Windows. Judging by the protondb entry, you wouldn’t notice on Linux that this was a windows game: https://www.protondb.com/app/2142790

Less than 20 minutes on average for me. That is, 20 minutes from leaving home, walking to the nearest voting place, voting, and walking back. Added about 5 minutes or so when part of my work commute.

Which is why I buy games on GoG whenever it’s an option.

My biggest gripe is the lack of respect/understanding for the importance of data models and clear domain boundaries.

Most things that end up as “technical debt” can be traced to this. Sometimes, it’s unavoidable, because what the data models changes, or the requirements of the domain, etc.

And, it’s very innocent looking differences sometimes. Like “We know that the external system state will change from A to B, so we can update that value on our side to B”. Suddenly you have an implicit dependency that you don’t express as such.

Or, things like having enum that represents some kind of concept that isn’t mutually exclusive. Consider enum values of A and B. Turns out this really represented AZ, and BP (for some inherent dependency to concepts Z and P). Someone later on extends this to include ZQ. And now, suddenly the concept of Z, is present in both AZ and ZQ, and some consumer that switches on concept Z, needs to handle the edge case of AZ… And we call this “technical debt”.

I did eventually yes. Thanks for asking. I was exhausted yesterday, and upon reading my comment again, I get the downvotes. Being a second language doesn’t fully explain the wrong tone there. The article was a lot more insightful and in depth than I had mistakenly assumed.

After reading it tho, it seemed a lot more focused on performance than I think would be warranted. But that could be due to different concerns and constraints than where I’m used to working. I’d focus more on the mechanisms that best expresses the intent, and although they do discuss this well, the Venn diagram for the appropriate use of exceptions and error codes don’t overlap as much in my world.

And, it’s not like I’m arguing that they are wrong. It’s an opinion on a choice for a tradeoff that I only think, while allowing the possibility of being wrong, might miss the the mark. Stack unwinding is by its nature less explicit for the state it leaves behind. So it shouldn’t be a question of either error codes or exceptions, but which are most appropriate to express what, and when.

Even for Rust, where monads are preferred and part of the language to express and handle error codes, I would say that the statement of “newer languages like Rust don’t allow the use of exceptions”, seems incorrect to me. Something like panic!("foo"); coupled with panic::catch_unwind(|| { ... } }); I believe would unwind the stack similar to that of a throw/catch.

Anyways. Thanks for reminding me to actually read the post. It was well worth it, and very insightful.

I’m just going to comment on the face value of the title itself, and make assumptions otherwise.

• Exceptions are control flow mechanism. I.e. that can be used for code execution flow, in the same application.

• Error codes are useful across some API boundary.

Does this adequately cover whatever it is they figured out was a good tradeoff?

There are so many good games being made these days. I don’t understand why people still reward bad practices.

The quality of code available for LLMs to learn from is normally distributed with the peak around “shouldn’t pass code review”.

What experienced developers write code at would be on the top 5 percentile, and are used to their colleagues to do the same. The effort put into reviewing code, also takes that into account.

If a team member starts using LLMs to write chunks of code, the quality will at best have the same normal distributed peak as the learning data. Which is a incredibly waste of resources, as you now have to spend 10x more time on reviewing the code, regardless of how often it ends up being ok

Isn’t it called “rogue-like” because that last part of metaprogress was not in rogue? Maybe I’m confusing it with roguelite.

I cannot tell if you are trying to express agreement or disagreement, and I cannot be bothered to check your history to try and deduce which.

If it was supposedly in agreement, then I’d politely suggest you go romance a goat. Rejecting logical fallacies is not the same as disagreeing with the point they failed to make.

I’m genuinely curious. What do you mean by “We’re going to remember you collaborators.”? Feel free to explain in depth, because it sounds awfully like a threat, and I’ve always wanted to have some dialogue with a terrorist (in the literal, dictionary definition of one, that is).

Lol. You throw out logical fallacies, then immediately play martyr. It’s just too good.

Naah, you see. There is a different point of view that you aren’t considering. If you cannot correctly identify racism, all you’re doing is making noise. Which is perfect, if you’d rather quibble over bullshit and ban episodes of Community, while systemic racism is everywhere in the US. Americans have no idea how much US culture is centered around “race”. Everything is viewed through that lens… so, don’t be so quick to dismiss people who might be just a taaaad tired of (mostly) American virtue signaling of what is, and isn’t racism.

Also, of course it didn’t bother anyone, since it had fuck all to do with racism. That’s kinda my point. Racism is a very real thing, and a very real problem. So people who want to make a fuss about these things can go fuck off and see if they can figure out what racism actually is.

PS: I’m also not bothered in the slightest if I name the branch main or master. I’m not sure if you’ll believe that. What I do take offense is the failure to identify that this in fact, has nothing to do with racism, so how about focus on, you know… the problems?

PPS: Feel free to downvote me and move on. I’m annoyed that I brought it up.

Sure. But, people still know what the words mean, right? You don’t get offended by all the racism in Uncle Tom’s cabin, and want to ban the book, right? You wouldn’t get offended if someone cosplayed as a black elf, would you?

Or, maybe you would. People are, after all, fucking morons. Myself included. I don’t really care if I have to call a branch main or master, just so that’s clear. But it’s 100% a fucking stupid reason for the change, and anyone who thinks that matters in any way, I’ll think less of, and probably avoid in social settings.