Are you sure that a dinosaur laid a chicken egg? Or did a chicken hatch from a dinosaur egg? When does a dinosaur end being a dinosaur and begin being a chicken anyways?

He was Austrian, BTW.

I do think it’s worth the money however, especially since it allows you to cutomize your search results by white-/blacklisting sites and making certain sites rank higher or lower based on your direct feedback. Plus, I like their approach to openness and considerations on how to improve searching without bogging down the standard search.

I should have elaborated on it a bit more, my bad.

While it’s true that DDoS is more of an active technology rather than a CYA thing. It does however also act as insurance when it comes to the “blame game”: if your site goes down it’s not your fault but the provider’s fault, meaning you might be able to recoup lost profits through a lawsuit.

Of course the only way to avoid this for the provider is to provide better and stronger systems, which normally would grow homogenous through more customers and/or growing fees for all customers, which would pay for better capacity and stronger protection by itself.

However here we have a client that is a high value target that others might want to take down at all costs. Even if they didn’t sue, a strong enough attack might, alongside naturally expected DDoS on other clients, not only take down this customer’s server, but others as well, which really isn’t something you want, for the reasons stated above. And rapidly increasing security could be not worth it, as it could devolve into an arms race by proxy with a high risk of the customer leaving if you raise their fees to much, leaving you with a system which’s maintenance will now dig into your profits due to a lost big income stream, or make other customers leave if you raise the general fee.

I don’t want TP convince anyone they are not like jerks, but rather highlight why a corporation would do something like this to a (most likely) lucrative client.

I think the main problem is that people try to shoehorn OOP mechanics into everything, leading to code that is hard to understand. Not to mention that this is basically encouraged by companies as well, to look “futuristic”. A great example of this approach going horribly wrong is FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition.

OOP can be great to abstract complex concepts into a more human readable format, especially when it comes to states. But overall it should be used rarely, as it creates a giant code overhead, and only as far as actually needed.

And insurances provide monetary compensation until you become a common liability, too high to be covered by any sort of fee. DDOS protection is just the same. It’s only feasible if it happens rarely, like they usually happen. However if it’s a common occurrence it will just eat up the profits made by the fees and then some, which just is stupid to do in any case.

That is very true, especially when it comes to any administrative task. However I’d argue that these jobs are less likely to be replaced, as these jobs are born out of a system that is favoring bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy over efficiency. Challenging that system would result in a shift in the power dynamics, often towards subordinates, which, of course, wouldn’t really be accepted by leading positions.

Vintage Story is nice but fuck those bears. Zero chill and you either have to relocate or do continuous kamikaze charges just to get rid of them.

Ignoring the shady practices of Brave Software, this doesn’t really solve the problem. Sites will still use way too much scripting to be flashy, and that will continue to be a problem for everyone, because some of these sites willbe needed for some and will require all scripts to function properly.

What might help more in the long run is complain to the site owners that their site, despite you having an up to date browser, does not work on your phone. Sure, some of those complaints will fall on deaf ears, but even some changing means progress.

Generally, they offer a giant infrastruture that no other game selling platform offers:

• cloud saving
• community hub for sharing user content
• inbuilt forum
• mod database
• better shop visibility through intelligent algorithms
• community events like NEXT fest

overall, you get what you pay for.

Because even the official name of the problem contains it.

Honestly it’s pretty sad how Viruses changed from a sort of artform to just a money making scheme / espionage tools.

AFAIK, the only publicly available build is an outdated image based on debian instead of arch and not really worth running due to its state.

Linus Torvals talk at the Aalto University. Specifically a segment where he talks about how hard it is to work with Nvidia when it comes to the Linux kernel.

And it wasn’t the goal to appease the community, but the shareholders.

They wouldn’t understand why a new product isn’t earning like gangbusters when it’s a sequel to a live service game. They only see a flop that “has to leech off” the profits of its predecessors, making it a liability in the eyes of those people. They mostly care about short term profits, not long term strategies.

You could also do the Overwatch thing and shut down the servers of the previous game so people either have to accept the new game or leave. Solves the problem in the eyes of the executives.

One thing I would say justifies a new game is when you want to resolve a problem that’s ingrained in the existing content, making these changes fight with the majority of the game. A new iteration, a clean slate, can help with that a lot.

This sounds more like more of a holdout shooter in the vein of COD Zombies and KF than more objective-based shooters like L4D (and Payday and Deep Rock Galactic, to name some other games in that category).

I find it annoying when outlets try to compare anything horde shooter based with L4D. It harms the game they are talking about, since these games can’t compete with the more quiet yet tense moments and their fallout L4D offers due to their design.

It could also be an interpretation thing. We often forget how riddled with context our natural language is.

But what about things that do not understand this context? For them, the request to “jump high” is not as easy. What distance is high? You could argue that athletes jump high, but in the eyes of the athlete they jump normal and they are expected to jump that high regularly, so that can’t fit the bill for the wishgranter.

What about jumping to the stratosphere? We already get gimped by context, because you can’t get a good context because jumping up there dwarfs in comparison to the humanly inconcievable distances such as jumping from one end of the universe to the opposite end. So using a distance is also a bust.

The last resort is reference. Frogs can be defined as “an animal that jumps high”, so turning you into a frog is the safest bet to fulfill the wish without violating it through ambiguity, because you can’t deny that you can see frogs as an animal that jumps high.

Isn’t it also that originally captured genies had more superhuman abilities rather than unlimited power? As in they could perform a human could if they were not bound by physical limitations, but materializing stuff out of thin air is impossible for them.

Another thing I heard is that the entities that could actually do that had a witch-like deal to them, meaning that refusing a request from such a spirit most likely had some dire consequences for you.