[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Basically Epic like every other publisher has created their own launcher/store.

They aren't trying to compete on features and instead using profits from their franchise to buy market share (e.g. buying store exclusives).

The tone and strategy often comes off as aggressive and hostile.

For example Valve was concerned Microsoft were going to leverage their store to kill Steam. Valve has invested alot in adding windows operability to Linux and ensuring Linux is a good gaming platform. To them this is the hedge against agressive Microsoft business practices.

The Epic CEO thinks Windows is the only operating system and actively prevents Linux support and revoked Linux support from properties they bought.

As a linux user, Valve will keep getting my money and I literally can't give it to Epic because they don't want it.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

If you signup to social media it will pester you for your email contacts, location and hobbies/interests.

Building a signup wizard to use that information to select a instance would seemto be the best approach.

The contacts would let you know what instance most of your friends are located (e.g. look up email addresses).

Topic specific instance, can provide a hobby/interests selection section.

Lastly the location would let you choose a country specific general instance.

It would help push decentralisation but instead of providing choice your asking questions the user is used to being asked.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Thats two hundred years and would cover the end of Plantagenet reign and the Tudor era.

Henry VIII reign happened during that period, at the beginning of your time period everyone would be catholic and at the end Queen Mary of Scotts was executed because the idea of a Catholic on the throne was unthinkable.

The UK is littered with castles and estates, normally they focus on specific historic events which happened at that location.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

A project manager has responsibility for delivery of a project but they typically lack domain specific knowledge. As a result they can't directly deliver something, merely ask subject matter experts for advice and facilitate a team to deliver.

Most PM's cope with the stress of this position poorly.

This cartoon is an example of micro management (a common coping mechanisim), the manager has involved themselves in the low level decisions because that gives a sense of control. If a technical team then tell them its a bad decison the team are effectively attacking their coping mechanisim.

The solution isn't to tell them their technical idea is terrible, when you've fallen down this rabbit hole you have to treat the PM as a stakeholder. They are someone you have to manage, so a common solution is to give them confidence there is a path to delivery, a way to track and understand it.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

SpaceX are launching 26-52 satellites at a time and have sustained 3 launches a week for most of the year.

The satellites are in a Low Earth Orbit, without constant thrust, atmospheric drag will force them to re enter earths atmosphere within a few months. This means they aren't adding to junk in space.

Unlike Nasa, ULA, Arriannespace, RoscosMos, etc.. SpaceX have always performed 2nd Stage Deorbit burns, so they aren't adding to Space junk by launching either.

The Low Earth Orbit is to ensure low latency and the need for constant thrust means the satellites have a short life expectancy by design. That is why SpaceX fought to keep the satellites as cheap as possible (e.g. $250k)

First stage booster reuse and fairing reuse means the majority of the launch cost is the second stage ($15 million).

The whole lot is privately funded

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Because the Tories have upset everyone internationally, so it isn't really an option. If you've been paying attention the EU has been playing a bunch of jobsworth type games with the UK.

Notice how he will do this in 2025, when the current agreement is up for renewel rather than immediately.

You also have the fact rejoin isn't winding the clock back to 2016, firstly we would loose all of our opt outs, things like the rebate, the euro, etc.. I don't think the reality would actually be popular.

Secondly the UK blocked a number of things like the EU Army (personally I think its a terrible idea, countries that don't spend enough looking to combine to "save" money) so it isn't the same EU.

Lastly see above mentioned jobsworth behaviour, I would not be surprised if the EU demanded the UK to complete all the paperwork of a new joiner and drag the process out as long as possible (it takes ~10 years for most countries).

Far better to put the UK on a stable footing and then ask if EU membership is something the UK still wants. It took the 13 years to get to this point, so its unlikely everything will be fixed during the next government. So why bring something like rejoining up?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

The other person was just wrong.

Large scale Hydrogen generation isn't generated in a fossil free way, Hydrogen can be generated is a green way but the infrastructure isn't there to support SLS.

Hydrogen is high ISP (miles per gallon) by rubbish thrust (engine torque).

This means SLS only works with Solid Rocket Boosters, these are highly toxic and release green house contributing material into the upper atmosphere. I suspect you would find Falcon 9/Starship are less polluting as a result.

Lastly the person implies SLS could be fueled by space sources (e.g. the moon).

SLS is a 2.5 stage rocket, the boosters are ditched in Earths Atmosphere and the first stage ditched at the edge of space. The current second stage doesn't quite make low earth orbit.

So someone would have to mine materials on the moon and ship them back. This would be far more expensive than producing hydrogen on Earth.

Hydrogen on the moon makes sense if your in lunar orbit, not from Earth.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Both the US and UK define a biscuit as a small unleavened cake.

For some reason US folks call all but one type of small unleavened cakes "coookies" which is a specific type of biscuit.

It would be like calling all beer "stout".

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

It was an incredibly poor technical choice.

Programming goes through fads where people will claim X can solve every problem. Eventually people realise a languages strengths/weaknesses and communities form.

Rust is the current fad language, its developed a strong following in C/C++ communities but they have nothing to do with middleware (the role Lemmy is using Rust).

It means lemmy devs will have to build everything themselves (instead of focussing on lemmy) and the pool of contributor's will remain small.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

The script is causing poor behaviour by subverting the purpose of the up/down vote system.

The downvote button should be used to indicate a post doesn't add to the conversation. It isn't a dislike/disagree button, your supposed to comment in those situations.

I try to put effort into my comments, when they get randomly downvoted for no reason it can be upsetting.

Obviously you upset the mod and they overreacted, but your behaviour triggered the event.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

This is traditional British food, bangers is slang for Pork Saussage (Cumberland Saussage I am guessing)

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Politicians usually don't know anything about the domains they are put in charge of.

Their role is to provide leadership and direction based on the views of the people they represent.

When dealing with domain specific decisions they should refer to subject matter experts to seek advice and understanding of the available options. The ministries/departments exist to provide that advice and support its implementation.

A ministers job is to use the advice provided by their ministry/department to select a path forward that aligns with the direction the minister has set.

A minister ignoring advice of the ministry/department tells the department the leader doesn't respect or value it. This is really bad leadership.

It also means the minister isn't operating from a position of strength or knowledge. This means your more likely to make poor decisions which move you away from your goal.

I am not saying that aren't wider factors, but you expect the ministry/department to account for that as the minister should explain those.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

stevecrox

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago