I would auction shelf space at my mega chain grocery store to large brands. The highest bidder would have the opportunity to buy up all the shelf space in order to bury any potential competition. The bidder could create 100s of different labels of essentially the same goddamn product, in order to maintain the illusion of choice, maximize consumer confusion, and thus maximize the time a customer spends thinking about the shelf-dominant brand, for some otherwise dead-simple purchase, such as toothpaste.

I would advocate for using each tool, where it makes sense, to achieve a more intelligible graph. This is what I’ve been moving towards on my personal projects (am solo). I imagine with any moderately complex group project it becomes very difficult to keep things neat.

In order of expected usage frequency:

1. Rebase: everything that’s not 2 or 3. keep main and feature lines clean.
2. Merge: ideally, merge should only be used to bring feature branches into main at stable sequence points.
3. Squash: only use squash to remove history that truly is useless. (creating a bug on a feature branch and then solving it two commits later prior to merge).

History should be viewable from log --all --decorate --oneline --graph; not buried in squash commits.

As a long time CRPG fan, I was not into it at all. But expressing that you didn’t enjoy it is wrongthink, and the rabid fans will downvote you to oblivion.

People Make Games did a 2.5 hour deep dive on it. https://youtu.be/JGIGA8taN-M I’m blown away by the amount of work they put into it. Just finished watching it. What a mess. I’m going to need some sleep while I process all of that.

eventually …

So after having watched that, I’m convinced that Robert Kurvitz and Aleksander Rostov were defrauded. I take what the studio employees are saying with a grain of salt. I mean, they are still employed so how can they possibly be trust worthy. Even if Argo wrote Cuno (god bless him). If Kurvitz was difficult to work under, it has nothing to do with the alleged theft of his share in the company. That People Make Games really leaned into his toxicity at the end of this doc kinda ticked me off. Like yeah he shouldn’t have to answer to that. That’s not the story. That’s a distraction. If the Estonian court doesn’t rule in Kurvitz’s and Rostov’s favor, they better have a damn good explanation.

I really don’t understand. Can someone divulge the circumstances or is this all just hearsay? IP law really isn’t all that complicated. Its been in practice for a long time, and generally things only need to go to court when one of the parties didn’t do some basic homework. If the court didn’t rule in the author’s favor I find it hard to believe the author didn’t legitimately give up their rights to that IP.

True, its not the best description of it. I was trying to land on something that would resonate with the type of person i thought it might appeal to, without fully explaining the thing. Maybe I failed lol.

Yeah there’s no track building. Each stage is a physics puzzle where you’re at some section of road, and there’s an infinite stream of cars. You’re allowed to make crude adjustments to verts on the road, in attempt to get the stream of cars to drive to some goal. The puzzles are very satisfying, and even when you’re not at a solution, its just fun watching the wagons fly into whatever direction your road positioning happens to take them.

Also its truly independent in the strict sense of the term. Solo dev, no publisher. Not that I have anything against small publishers.

Sebil Engineering has a really fun mechanic I’ve never seen before. Its like those Hot Wheels tracks you always wanted as a kid but your parents never got you, but even better. I guess its a traffic control game? Anyone have other examples of these?

You misunderstand me. Artists want to be able to dedicate themselves to the development and creation of their art. Unfortunately that requires money. For most people (poor people) the only way to both be making art non-stop, and be able to live at a somewhat normal standard, is to get paid while doing it.

I know many artists. I art majored. Everyone is trying to find a way to make it viable, by figuring out what they are able to sell. Sure, yeah, its for the love of art. It can only be so when you have someone paying your way, or you’re already retired. If your making art as a hobby and a hobby alone, you probably care little about conversations of IP. For one, because your original work is protected immediately upon creation, and for two, IP is about protecting commercial interests. You made the thing for no reason than to satisfy your own interest. You don’t really care if anyone paid you or not, you would have done it anyways, therefore IP doesn’t really concern your hobby. As soon as you take the thing to gallery, and put a price tag on it, you’re no different than anyone else trying to see what they can make a buck off of.

I’ve been on both sides of it, giving one form of art away, while seeing if I could make a living off of an another. Commercial art was not for me. But I respect what IP protection provides to those who do choose to commercialize.

My quote is aligned with your statement. I didn’t say anything specific about what the lifetime should be. Just that I believe its good that there is one. Maybe 50 years is too long. Maybe 34 year is too long too. That number is the compromise line for two competing interests. People will always be pulling in the direction that serves their own.

Artists enter into contracts with publishers willingly. Their work is not stolen. If it was they could easily win a court case for infringement. They bargain their rights because they’re eager for a shot at money. It is very hard breakout without one, if that’s your goal. Consolidation of the networks is a completely different debate, and I agree its egregious and they need to be broken up. But no one is preventing anyone from creating a new super hero, or sci-fi universe. It happens every day, you just have to search a little harder because big networks aren’t paying millions of dollars to put some unknown indie author’s work in your social feed.

Copyright is a tool that gives creators the ability to commercialize their work. That its spirit, nothing more. The abolishment of copyright would be in no way productive imo. At least in the US, we have a lifetime for exclusive rights, at which point the material moves into the public domain. It really seems like a good system to me. If anyone could sell the thing you just spent time and money creating for free, there would be little incentive to create the thing. And its existence doesn’t at all prevent people from offering their creations for free use, by placing directly into the public domain.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The problem with Lemmy is that the demographic is so skewed. Its mostly hyper-tech nerds mixed with political activists. I like tech and politics but its a bit of a toxic brew and I haven’t found myself having that much fun over here. On reddit, there’s comedy and people not being angry because someone isn’t using linux. Lemmy often feels like a glorified arstechnica link aggregator. Its just kind of a sad place compared to reddit. The other day u/shittymorph made some posts that made me laugh super hard. I haven’t laughed at anything over here, because well most of you aren’t funny, haha me neither so don’t feel attacked. But lemmy not attracting comedians, and having the top post in here be “Dont” really makes it seem like the people here prefer being sad and lonely. sorry its not a direct reply to your query, as some actionable advise your seeking, just me attempting to articulate what i enjoy about reddit that I feel like i don’t see here yet. I don’t how to get someone like shittymorph over here. I don’t know if there’s anything that lemmy offers that appeals to a person like that, that’s enough to make them start creating content over here. Maybe we just need people to stand up the sort of communities commedians would be attracted to, even if its a bit out of our wheelhouse, but idk. Authenticity is important and faking it is easily seen through.

deleted by creator

Tab Session Manager

It reduces the probability that a drive by scanner is going to detect a vulnerable service. Camouflage isn’t a guarantee that you aren’t going to be sighted on a battlefield, but it’s still a good idea to reduce the probability of becoming a target in whatever ways you can.

True, but I see this quote repeated so often that it kind of bugs me. It seems to be used in a thought-terminating way. As if we shouldn’t criticize languages. As if they aren’t tools that are able to be improved upon, or they’re all made equal. But I’m sure Bjarne Stroustrup needs to fend off hostility and unfair criticism as much as any programmer with a successful language.