Check out Godot! It Looks very promising. I mess around with MonoGame but will look at switching over once they fix some of the bugs with the newly added c# support.
The rage yes maybe, but Star Citizen is definitely not off topic. Article mentions WC1-3, it's a franchise article. SC is Origin's canceled Privateer Online [:)] without the license.
For the Wing Commander community, they're inseparable despite the licensing.
This is the 'everything is related to everything' theory of on-topicness. It comes up about seven times every time something is off-topic. Its main problem is that it's complete nonsense.
The system will be "fixed"... by firing the current operator as an example to the next.
Maybe, maybe someone will print out a list of procedures and tape it up somewhere, telling the new operator that they're required to press the correct button, perhaps in bold and underline for maximum effect. But that's probably it.
For many, many DDoS scenarios this does not work. The spurious packets may saturate an upstream ISP, causing that ISP to unilaterally apply a null route or block for all packets for the targeted origin IP. No CloudFlare packets would arrive at all.
If one is concerned about DDoS, one should work with their ISPs on the plan of action for various scenarios. Finding out their procedures when ones' hair is on fire is not fun.
It's not so much about changing the IP address, but moving the targeted system out from behind the clogged tube. Changing IP address may or may not do that.
You're staking out some pretty tough ground, there. Human error can be unconscious or reflexive, and that type of UI element is sometimes barely a speedbump, cognitively.
Occasionally I reflexively click-through a confirmation dialogue box and regret it. I feel like I've been trained by the software industry for decades to bludgeon my way through these confirmations, many of which are unnecessary to begin with. I basically have muscle memory for it, the skids are greased for clicking-through. I know I'm not the only one.
So, I could see myself making this type of slip. It's really hard to know the balance between human and system error for this incident, but to me it looks like the system naively assumes a perfect human. Even if the incident turns out to have been an intentionally malicious act, the problem with the system would still remain.
Agreed, click-through should be nigh impossible. You need to do something that deviates so much from the normal routine that you don't accidentally do it.
One way to do this is to let the operator do a simple task that can't be clicked through.
YouTube is just distribution. It's like crediting heavy trucks for winning WW2, or crediting YCombinator News's CDN for writing this witty and insightful message.
New for me, too. Looks like accelerationism is a bit of everything. Legitimate applied philosophy, I guess the communists were some early accelerationists.
I feel like this is the link someone above me should have shared:
SEEMS LIKE philosophy-type sub-communities trying to figure out how to use all this new tech these past few decades to achieve 'post-capitalism'. Lots of room for different political tribes, in that direction.
Tempted to check out a book related to this stuff, but I haven't exactly had my philosophical world rocked yet by anything I've read about it yet.
I began trying to phrase my comment above in a fashion as "values free" as possible simply to illustrate different "enforcement challenges" in different crimes. It seems the comments keep coming to back my comment being interpreted in value-based fashion.
Not that I wouldn't want to engage in a discussion of the merits of drug legalization but here I'd want keep the thread that "victimless" can simply be conceived of as a "how" question concerning a particular kind of act without recourse to asking the question of "whether" the act should happen.
In the crimes usually described as victimless, the main thing is that all the individuals "actively involved" are seeking to make the act happened. To say this is not to claim that those who might be effected once the act happened aren't harmed, scared, victimized, etc. We would thus distinguish "active victims" (those mugged, murder, robbed, etc) and passive victims (relatives, friends, society...). So we could perhaps distinguish "active-victim-less" crimes and say all crimes have passive victims - for those who want this set of value judgments.
You are a victim. ‘Victimless’ is of course a relative descriptor. A ‘victimless crime’ is generally a crime without violations of civil liability. Drug use is still widely considered non-victimless, on the grounds that drug use generates wide untamely chaos and cruelty. And so we banned it. When I say drug use is a victimless crime, I mean to reasses that view. To me, it’s an unfocused assessment of the issue and a reactionary solution to boot.
Losing friends to drug overdoses is terrible and not to be devalued. I’ve lost 2 close friends to drug overdoses: one heroine and another prescription painkillers, both while I was off at college. I really understand.
If we map an event chain to the tragedy, things get existential fast. We have to ask why they used the drugs. Maybe it was peer pressure, maybe depression, self-esteem. My cousin is addicted to painkillers prescribed to him for a back injury from his best friend hitting him with a jet ski. My point is just that things are usually very complicated. Naturally, we want someone to blame, but let’s be cautious, lest we create new problems.
Concluding we are victims of the substance makes sense in numerous ways, but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and has failed outright as a solution to the problem (see war on drugs) and I think we can do better.
If we intend to prevent it from happening again to you and others, we want to look at the causes with an open mind.
I would argue that in a lot of cases, people become victims due to the current laws and societal standards surrounding drug use.
The illegality of (for example) heroin drives:
* uncertainty of quality/content of drugs purchased --> higher risk of harm/overdose from use
* often, reliance on crime to fund --> financial and/or criminal impact on families/friends, and/or wider society
* social exclusion of users --> emotional impact on families/friends
If heroin was legal, regulated, freely/cheaply available, and then became no more socially unacceptable than (for example) alcohol or cannabis, then most of the current 'victims' would cease to be victims any longer.
