There’s a mile of difference between saying “consumers need to get comfortable not owning their games” and “we want consumers to get comfortable not owning their games (but using subscription services instead)”.

The former statement is extremely arrogant. The latter is just obvious. And it’s reasonable even if you or I personally don’t want to get our games on a subscription model - millions of people get their music through Spotify and it suits them just fine even though other people don’t want that. So it’s a way of straw-manning the people pushing subscriptions so you can hate them.

The point of the dishonest article is to make you believe the CEO feels entitled to gamers becoming OK with subscription models. What he actually feels is a hope that subscription models will take off. It’s rage-bait. Did it work?

Misinformation. An article not as blatantly trying to manipulate people: https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft-exec-says-gamers-need-to-get-comfortable-not-owning-their-games-for-subscriptions-to-take-off?utm_source=twit

Hey if you’re colourblind, all blues can be blurple. And so can all purples!

The requirement to not track users with cookies does not extend to cookies that make the site work in the first place, such as those which track your login session, or your refusal of other cookies.

This is pretty trivial if you know that the cardinality of (0, 1) is the same as that of R ;)

But clearly, if we add up all the infinite fractions between 0 and 1, they would add up to 1.

0.9 and 0.8 are in that set, so they would add up to at least 1.7. In fact if you give me any positive number I can give you a (finite!) set of (distinct) fractions less than 1 which sum to more than that number. In other words, the sum is infinite.

but each $100 bill is worth more.

But the meme doesn’t talk about the value of each $100 bill; it talks about the value of the bills collectively.

There is a function which, for each real number, gives you a unique number between 0 and 1. For example, 1/(1+e^x). This shows that there are no more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are real numbers. The formalisation of this fact is contained in the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem.

There is a function which, for each real number, gives you a unique number between 0 and 1. For example, 1/(1+e^x). This shows that there are no more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are real numbers. The formalisation of this fact is contained in the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem.

Shouldn’t the engineer be a bit more worried if the cable’s been cut?

If UDP drops packets it’s probably nothing. If TCP drops packets it’s because something’s actually wrong.

If you’re using TCP and losing packets you should be panicking though, because something is very wrong…

Nice shot!

deleted by creator

No-one actually dislikes stuff because it’s lazy. You know what’s lazy? Writing a story in your damn native language - everyone should only write stories in a language they can’t speak. And featuring human beings? Too easy to relate to their emotions - lazy! Feature only animals after having done the necessary research to present their emotions fairly.

When people say lazy as a criticism they usually mean “boring” or “unoriginal” (a “lazy trope” is one that’s been repeated too often) or just “bad” and lazy seems like a more objective way of expressing their dislike.

So don’t be lazy - say what you mean.

I have no reference for the relative difficulty of languages to master, except that I know that all languages are incredibly hard to master to the level of a native speaker.

I mean yes it’s a bit under-nuanced to describe any language as “easy” or “hard”. The single biggest influence is whether you’re already familiar with a similar language. English is going to be much easier if you already know German; Japanese will be much easier if you already know Okinawan. And as you say, written and spoke language can be quite different.

That said, I don’t think it is the case that all of the different factors trade off against one another perfectly. I would expect them to trade off against one another to an extent though, because I would imagine there are forces which cause overly complex languages to become simpler, and more simple languages to become more complex. (One aspect of complexity comes through redundancy, such as requiring agreement between inflections of words when the inflection only conveys information already imparted from the rest of the sentence. But extra redundancy can aid in understanding because the listener generally doesn’t hear everything perfectly)

But yeah, some languages just have incredibly complicated and picky grammar, whilst others have relatively simple grammar. As an English speaker, Japanese grammar has lots of unfamiliar features but could still be simpler than Finnish, which also has lots of unfamiliar grammar but which is very complex.

English is easy. The hardest part about it, which some other languages also feature, is a poor correspondence between the written and spoken language.

“Prove you’re not a machine by training this machine to pass this exact test.”

There is nothing stupid about this unless you believe that the people behind it had no plan to change out the challenges over time.