Fun fact: Roko’s basilisk is not from QC. It’s a thought experiment about AI that predates the comic character by about 6 years. The character’s just named after it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

Alternative image for C: Mr. Incredible: “A PARAMETER IS A PARAMETER!”

I played it for about 70 hours like 8 months ago, and quite enjoyed it. Will definitely go back, at some point, to see what’s been improved. There’s a REALLY solid foundation there, I think. I like to say it’s the factorio/automation genre, but distilled down to nothing but the gameplay, in its purest, most-concentrated form. My wife and son picked it back up immediately today, when they realized the big update dropped.

One thing they’ve talked about doing is improving the high-level progression. Specifically, they said their concept for better progression will be that milestone products will feed into future milestones, rather than having them just get thrown away, just like you describe. Not sure if that’s made it into the game yet, or not.

For $25 in Early Access, I think it’s a deal. If you’re really worried about there being enough gameplay/progression to keep you interested, wishlist it, and keep an eye on what the updates are adding.

I’ll take another look, but I didn’t see any such setting when I was trying to diagnose. And I haven’t changed any Plex settings since the last time we had an internet outage and it worked properly, just a month or two ago.

I recently discovered that Plex no longer works over local network, if you lose internet service. A) you can’t login without internet access. B) even if you’re already logged in, apps do not find and recognize your local server without internet access. So, yeah, Plex is already there.

The Steam release of Persona 5 Royal, unfortunately. Which is kind of insane, it’s a single-player game.

There’s some others that I can’t personally attest to, but that sure look good from what I’ve seen. Monster Hunter: Wilds, for example. And the new Doom from a few days ago, if you’re into that sorta thing. Metaphor Re-Fantasio. The new Prince of Persia from last year. Hi-Fi Rush. Rocksmith, of all things.

As of a few months ago (IIRC the timeline) Steam shows this directly on the game’s store page. You’ve got to scroll down for it a little bit, but it’s right under where it lists features of the game, E.G. single-player, controller support, etc.

Ethnic cleansing could turbocharge ethnic cleansing? I mean, I guess, but that’s a really weird way to put it.

Por que, no los dos?

Honestly, if you’re having trouble finding stuff for vanilla JS, I’d recommend looking at jQuery. Not that you should USE jQuery, necessarily, but the library is basically a giant wrapper around all the native JS APIs, so the approach to building stuff is essentially the same: it all focuses on tracking and manipulation of DOM elements.

I do vanilla JS (actually TypeScript) dev at work, daily, and that was my big takeaway from spearheding our team’s migration from jQuery to vanilla TypeScript: I honestly don’t know what benefit jQuery provides, over vanilla, because all the most-common jQuery APIs that we were using have a 1:1 native equivalent.

We do also use 2 third-party libraries alongside vanilla, so I’l mention those: require.js and rx.js. Require you probably don’t need, with modern JS having bundling and module support built-in but we still use it for legacy reasons. But rx.js is a huge recommend, for me. Reactive programming is the IDEAL way to build GUIs, in my opinion.

Sick. I’ve tried a few times in the past to find a frontend for postgres that I liked, and was never able to. Will have to give this a try.

The most straightforward thing to do, on a private LAN, is to make all your own certs, from a custom root cert, and then manually install that cert as “trusted” on each machine. If none of the machines on this network need to accessed from outside the LAN, then you’re golden.

Not really, not on its own. It can GET demanding depending on how big you go with building stuff.

I’m gonna hazard a guess, just cause I’m curious, that you’re coming from JavaScript.

Regardless, the answer’s basically the same across all similar languages where this question makes sense. That is, languages that are largely, if not completely, object-oriented, where memory is managed for you.

Bottom line, object allocation is VERY expensive. Generally, objects are allocated on a heap, so the allocation process itself, in its most basic form, involves walking some portion of a linked list to find an available heap block, updating a header or other info block to track that the block is now in use, maybe sub-dividing the block to avoid wasting space, any making any updates that might be necessary to nodes of the linked list that we traversed.

THEN, we have to run similar operations later for de-allocation. And if we’re talking about a memory-managed language, well, that means running a garbage collector algorithm, periodically, that needs to somehow inspect blocks that are in use to see if they’re still in use, or can be automatically de-allocated. The most common garbage-collector I know of involves tagging all references within other objects, so that the GC can start at the “root” objects and walk the entire tree of references within references, in order to find any that are orphaned, and identify them as collectable.

My bread and butter is C#, so let’s look at an actual example.

public class MyMutableObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; init; }

    public required string Name { get; init; }
}

_immutableInstance = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "First"
};

_mutableInstance = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "First"
};

[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public MyMutableObject MutableEdit()
{
    _mutableInstance.Name = "Second";

    return _mutableInstance;
}

[Benchmark]
public MyImmutableObject ImmutableEdit()
    => _immutableInstance with
    {
        Name = "Second"
    };

Even for the most basic edit operation, immutable copying is slower by more than 7 times, and (obviously) allocates more memory, which translates to more cost to be spent on garbage collection later.

Let’s scale it up to a slightly-more realistic immutable data structure.

public class MyMutableParentObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyMutableChildObject Child { get; set; }
}

public class MyMutableChildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyMutableGrandchildObject FirstGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyMutableGrandchildObject SecondGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyMutableGrandchildObject ThirdGrandchild { get; set; }
}

public class MyMutableGrandchildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableParentObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyImmutableChildObject Child { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableChildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject FirstGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject SecondGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject ThirdGrandchild { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableGrandchildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }
}

_immutableTree = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "Parent",
    Child   = new()
    {
        Id                  = 2,
        Name                = "Child",
        FirstGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 3,
            Name    = "First Grandchild"
        },
        SecondGrandchild    = new()
        {
            Id      = 4,
            Name    = "Second Grandchild"
        },
        ThirdGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 5,
            Name    = "Third Grandchild"
        },
    }
};

_mutableTree = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "Parent",
    Child   = new()
    {
        Id                  = 2,
        Name                = "Child",
        FirstGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 3,
            Name    = "First Grandchild"
        },
        SecondGrandchild    = new()
        {
            Id      = 4,
            Name    = "Second Grandchild"
        },
        ThirdGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 5,
            Name    = "Third Grandchild"
        },
    }
};

[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public MyMutableParentObject MutableEdit()
{
    _mutableTree.Child.SecondGrandchild.Name = "Second Grandchild Edited";

    return _mutableTree;
}

[Benchmark]
public MyImmutableParentObject ImmutableEdit()
    => _immutableTree with
    {
        Child = _immutableTree.Child with
        {
            SecondGrandchild = _immutableTree.Child.SecondGrandchild with
            {
                Name = "Second Grandchild Edited"
            }
        }
    };

Not only is performance worse, but it drops off exponentially, as you scale out the size of your immutable structures.

Now, all this being said, I myself use the immutable object pattern FREQUENTLY, in both C# and JavaScript. There’s a lot of problems you encounter in business logic that it solves really well, and it’s basically the ideal type of data structure for use in reactive programming, which is extremely effective for building GUIs. In other words, I use immutable objects a ton when I’m building out the business layer of a UI, where data is king. If I were writing code within any of the frameworks I use to BUILD those UIs (.NET, WPF, ReactiveExtensions) you can bet I’d be using immutable objects way more sparingly.

Better him than Musk.

A function call of “MyFunction(parameter: GLFW_TRUE)” is more readable than “MyFunction(parameter: 1)”. Not by much, mind you, but if given the choice between these two, one is clearly better. It requires no assumptions about what the reader may or may not already know about the system.It communicates intent without any ambiguity.

It’s fraud. They publicly claimed, point-blank, to do a certain thing for years, and were instead doing the opposite, in the interest of making more money. The affiliate link thing is only one of several points that they’re suing over. The far more egregious one is that they don’t actually “scour the internet to find you the best coupons” They will actively hide better coupons that they know about, if marketplaces pay them to, and still tell you in the browser “this is the best coupon.”

True, but if it’s good for users, it should be the rule for ALL apps

What are you considering as “paint[ing] UI-elements” in this context? I don’t see anything I would describe as “painting” in the code snippets ay those links.

“You’ll sudo shoot your eye out, kid.”