Company apologies don't work, they buy time until people stop giving a fuck.
Personal apologies generally don't work if they're anything beyond what is demanded by conversational etiquette, since the people demanding them usually just want an admission of guilt they can hold over you forever as leverage, and anybody who agrees with you will be disappointed.
Well evidently not for you. But please don't assume everybody's mind or personality works the same way yours does. You were told to not judge everybody by the same subjective yardstick and your immediate response is to.. project and judge everybody by the same yardstick.
The ability to generate side project ideas or the interest in investing huge amounts of time into a project on your own time are largely orthogonal to the ability to actually build things when it's your job.
There was no assumption that other minds work like mine in this respect.
The point I evidently failed to get across was that there are lots of ideas around and you don't need to generate them yourself. People who like generating ideas generate far more than they can hope to work on and often would love to see others carry them forward.
This does raise the question of how many cases are actually up in the air at all. One would think that given the IQ distribution of criminals a majority of cases involving arrests are quite open and shut, with suspects usually being caught either red handed or after not covering their tracks at all.
A justice system optimized for public safety will err on the side of putting aggressive, anti-social individuals behind bars rather than making absolutely sure they really did do the thing most of them were caught doing. Public safety is therefore orthogonal or even somewhat opposed to the pursuit of truth.
>6 months and dozens of applications to get a job offer.
I honestly can't tell if this is supposed to be good or bad. Graduated in 2020 and spent over a year looking for work with several hundred applications sent. Ended up enrolling in a masters because of it, only got a job last month.
Back in those days developers were still doing most of the hiring decisions so with a sanely looking resume you could get an interview and if you could pass for knowing programming you could get a job (apart from in the post-dotcom bust and 2008 when firms just didn't hire).
At some point during the 20 years since, orgs decided that HR was to handle hiring. HR trying to add value by having the BEST candidate in their mind and decides that nice-to-haves are promoted to requirements, anyone over 55 (because they would not stay long enough, even while younger ones change jobs within 2 years) is culled as is anyone with less than 5 years of experience (unless possibly if you're below 25).
Then orgs go around complaining that it's hard to recruit people, Go figure.
I thought it was bad, since most applied for jobs while studying (the big companies that come to the uni type of thing) and had jobs lined up. I decided not to disrupt my studies with this so waited until I graduated to look for work.
>At some point you browser will just turn into another operating system running on top of your operating system.
Nowadays making calls to the browser API is hardly any different from making system calls, and provides about as much generality independent of the actual operating system. Might just be my new showing but I don't think I remember it being any other way.
>That is the normal social mobility we should expect in a democratic society
That might be what we expect from a perfectly egalitarian society, but expecting any free, democratic society to come even close to perfect egalitarianism is completely delusional.
That is not egalitarianism (which would mean something closer to everyone owning the exact same amounts), it is the standard definition of "equality of opportunity".
Where do you place the cutoff for opportunity? Are things like innate ability, motivation, interest in lucrative pursuits for their own merits, luck of the draw not also just another kind of opportunity? There is no standard because nobody can agree on a standard. The only thing we can say for certain is that the kind of society you propose will never be attained through free and democratic political processes. Make of that what you will.
There is no standard definition of "equality of opportunity"; and many definitions that are regularly-used focus primarily on an absence of unreasonable discrimination in application processes rather than fairness in the Rawlsian sense.
>whatever strawman of the week is used to attack a caricature of a position
Is it really a strawman when a non-negligible number of people in your political camp espouse a position without so much as a hint of irony or exaggeration? Denying the existence of the radicals won't win you any credibility with fence sitters and moderates.
It's an artifact of the projection also being used to slide off walls smoothly, and then just reusing that idea - which could be a accident, or an "accident" (choosing by what feels better).
Goldsrc surfing was most exploitable in the form of "wall-running" by strafing against rounded surfaces(e.g. the cylindrical sewer pipe interiors in cs_siege and cs_militia, I think, both did this). Same bug, different mechanism, easier to control.
accelerations map directly to actions of the user (forces). It seems fairly natural, not strange, to control velocities and positions in terms of accelerations. The same thing happens in real life.
applying a force perpendicular to the velocity does not change the speed, only the direction. Only the component of the force tangent to the velocity vector (the projection) is relevant for controlling the max speed
They're not measuring the projection of the acceleration vector on the velocity vector, they're measuring the projection of the velocity vector on the acceleration vector and limiting that. Which makes no sense for a speed limiting method as evidenced by the fact that strafejumping exists. What you said is true and also irrelevant.
To get a true speed limit you would compute the new velocity vector, compute its magnitude and rescale the components by the ratio under the limit. Which is slightly more computationally expensive I suppose.
