"That code is horrible! Who the hell wrote this?!"
git blames
sees their own name
Isn't that an experience everybody makes? For me it was like a year into working professionally. And I feel it's part of being a professional to know that you're not going to remember it in the long term and therefore provide proper documentation of why you did what.
I am talking more about the knowledge of the code rather than an objective/subjective measure of code "quality".
Code might be bad by some objective/subjective measure, but if you (or the author) can understand, navigate and work on it, that's often better than good quality code that nobody understands because it was written by an agent, especially under the time pressure of an ongoing incident where you need to fix it now.
Even if the good code is easy to understand, you still need to read it and take it in, something you don't need to do because you got it implicitly by writing said code.
> to know that you're not going to remember it in the long term
From my personal experience, while I will not remember code character by character, a quick look is all it takes to refresh my memory and get the general gist of it and what the context was at the time, something I don't have if I'm reading someone else's (or an agent's) code.
git blames
sees their own name
Isn't that an experience everybody makes?
Our fearless leader once did clang-assisted formatting of all of our code. Wherever we look with git blame, we see his name. Of course, we change code, etc, but for some year and a half it was fun.
(to actually go to the specific commit that authored the code I skip two specific revisions, both are formatting changes)
So you seeing your name next to the code you do not like can be an indentation change due to adding condition or something like that.
Are you against the idea of European cooperation in general? Or against the implementation?
If there is to be European cooperation that goes beyond heads of states talking to each other, you're going to need some kind of space where they can do that. Using that building as a symbol seems like an obvious choice albeit not a very creative one. Really struggle to see how that choice can be "extremely insulting".
> Are you against the idea of European cooperation in general? Or against the implementation?
I'm against ugly soulless buildings. Those buildings can't be a symbol for anything, because they, like all modern [1] buildings, were deliberately designed to remove all identity. They are completely generic, no different from modern buildings in Beijing, New York, or Dubai. The only thing they represent is a capitulation, or refusal, of making things beautiful.
I'd vastly prefer some national landmark of the nation that committed war crimes against us in WWI & II, than that.
[1] Or is it "modernist"? Whatever the "style" of basic geometric shapes in steel and glass is called.
The average European does not view those buildings as symbols of European cooperation. They are just another generic office building some nameless and faceless bureaucrats work in. They lack the symbolism and recognizability of some US buildings like the White House, the Capitol, or the Pentagon - which are all inherently linked to the institutions they host.
A movie showing an external shot of the White House establishes that we're going to be looking at the US President next. A movie showing an external shot of the European Parliament establishes... office drones working in the Business Factory?
this is because people don't even recognize the buildings. Even I only recognized the commission and the ECB. I think if we put them on our money, citizens will recognize them more!
I don't think any of these buildings has the recognizability potential. I could recognize the Commission too since I see it on TV every day, but others are generic offices.
The White House has a distinct shape. The Capitol has a distinct shape. The Pentagon absolutely has a distinct shape.
I don't think the ECB will ever be recognizable (or at least won't become recognized via exposure), since it's just a glass tower like thousands of others.
"more or less dead when I was old enough in the early 00s"
Think it was just your peer group then. It's still very much a thing. Did it in my youth twice, once at 16 years once at 18 around 2010. I know my cousin who is >10 years younger than me also did it sometime in the last 5 years. Among my peers it was fairly common but it was not done by the majority. If I'd have to guess I'd say 10-20% did it at some point towards the end of highschool.
We also did party trips but that's just a different kind of trip and doesn't really mean the other thing is dead.
You may have a point but you're discrediting yourself by using extreme hyperbole.
Authoritarianism would be you and your family getting picked up and interrogated sometime at night for this critical comment you just made.
And saying "crime is legal" when referring to cars parked on the sidewalk or you having had a bad experience with a neighbours dog? I think if you reflect a little you'd realise that these are the kind of "crimes" you probably have committed yourself countless times.
Thats some mighty hyperbole, not everybody is breaking some minor (or not so minor) laws 50x a day. Or a year.
Societies where there is high amount of respect towards each other and rules tend to perform much better over long time, ie Switzerland. Its a pleasure to live in such society especially when coming from more messy ones, triple that with small kids.
> Thats some mighty hyperbole, not everybody is breaking some minor (or not so minor) laws 50x a day. Or a year.
How do you know? Do you know of all of the protected species of bug in your country for instance?
In my town there are laws about using profanity in public. I'm sure they would be deemed illegal if charges were brought but the law is still on the books.
I don't want to discount your experience or judge that particular event. I just disagree with calling for authoritarianism in response to that.
Happy that you are happier :) I'm German, so in general I find it refreshing when people manage to live peacefully with each other without having a rule for every single thing. Obviously a dog endangering children is not such a case.
I've never heard or read anything about the EU planning on investing money in Mistral. They're a private company. They're French. It honestly sounds kind of absurd.
No, we want you to backup your claims and provide sources or stop adding pointless low effort anti-EU noise to the conversation. It's frustrating, any time there's any kind of discussion about anything European on HN it gets flooded with shallow, low effort "EU-bad" posts like your contributions here.
If you're going to make that claim at least put some effort in.
This is a mostly American forum and some people want to piss on the EU to elevate themselves. Europeans do the same to the US but about politics, health care, work life balance, and quality of life. You know, the stuff that matters :D
"Modern calculation engine as a building block for the entire government. In collaboration with the Benefits Service (Dienst Toeslagen). Can we develop a general calculation engine for the government? This project explores how such a system could help in executing complex regulations for citizens and businesses, for example, when calculating benefits."
I'm pretty sure that if you build your PWA in a way it works offline through caching (which is easy if it's just a static website), you could host/serve it temporarily and just install it once.
I thought that these type of antitrust laws are in no way enforced anymore in the tech industry. And that it's been that way for decades. I mean the sheer existence of Google shows that right? What about Maps, Mail, Books... basically everything apart from Search? Why would an AI Mode as one category of Search results be any different? They're not actively promoting Gemini in those search results. They're simply augmenting it with this new tool that exists now.
As long it further's American interests globally - monopoly is fine. Other countries need to take notice and start picking winners nationally in order to compete with the large American big tech firms.
Eh, I think this is actually not a specifically American thing. More of a neo-liberal mindset. Competition may be good in the long term. But a monopoly now may mean more money in your pocket now. The tech giants definitely give the US some geo-political power in some cases but in general the US would be better off with more competition.
ed: @er2d, can't reply to your comment for some reason, so doing it here:
I don't agree. In theory a monopoly decreases the necessity for R&D. Of course this becomes more complex if the R&D is funded or steered by the state. But look at the current state of LLMs. There is fierce competition between 3 US companies. But geopolitically it's the same as if there would be one monopoly. The US being the clear technological leader in an industry is not dependent on that industry being a domestic monopoly.
And for the Europe comment:
Also don't agree. Look at Boeing & Airbus. Both are companies where the US & EU have decided that they need to ensure the existence of a domestic airplane manufacturer. So in these cases they support these companies (often in violation of international trade laws). But it has nothing to do with monopolies. If a state decides to support a company to ensure its existence, a monopoly is the logical consequence and not the aim. Because if that industry would be profitable it wouldn't need to be supported in the first place.
But all these tech companies are not in industries that would move off-shore or stop existing because they're not profitable enough, so it's an entirely different setting.
You’re wrong actually I suggest you read a book on industrial organisation and why monopoly is a more efficient market structure in relation to incentives for R&D.
Why do people comment on stuff they barely have an understanding of? Comical. People like you create noise.
Haha that's awesome! I'm in my thirties and these past few months I've been playing Trials rising with a high school friend. We used to play this 15+ years ago in school. Thought about developing my own as well (how hard can it be, it's basically 2D) but getting the physics to feel right was pretty difficult. Good luck! Is there some way I can receive updates on your progress?
Gameplay feedback: I'm a pretty decent player at the original games and I couldn't make it over a single obstacle, the controls seem extremely sensitive/abrupt currently.
What annoyed me about Trials is the artificial assist and magic forces that let you control bike midair and climb vertical walls - True Trials won't be like that, every force is derived from friction, spring compression, and weight transfer.
Making physics feel right is a hard part indeed! Balancing leaning stiffness/damping of every angle and rider's joint is tricky. As you mentioned that controls are sensitive, it's necessary to clear high jumps (e.g. first checkpoint in course3 currently). It's surely takes time to get used to.
"That code is horrible! Who the hell wrote this?!"
git blames
sees their own name
Isn't that an experience everybody makes? For me it was like a year into working professionally. And I feel it's part of being a professional to know that you're not going to remember it in the long term and therefore provide proper documentation of why you did what.