To be specific, the suit against the mother was against the mother's estate, since the mother was murdered by the shooter... like right away. The suit was settled by the estate.
The suit against Remington ended in a settlement, probably because Remington didn't want a chance in hell to set any legal precedent. The fact that the families got settlements is really a symptom of how unsettled the issue of gun control is in America. Like it's completely inane that it's fully legal to manufacture and sell AR-15 rifles to basically anyone, BUT that somehow marketing them to civilians is inappropriate. Remington settled because they just don't want any possibility of the status quo moving against them.
This is not even remotely true. I have done a decent amount of shooting, some dedicated training, and own multiple firearms of different types including AR style rifles. Your sort of rhetoric is at best disingenuous and not even remotely true.
If you have ever trained with any rifle you will quickly realize that while there are hunting oriented semi-automatic rifles out there, the minimized recoil, the high rate of fire, the lightweight nature, and all the ergonomic accessories make AR style rifles incredibly fast and easy to shoot. Using a red dot site you can fire two rounds to the chest and one to the head at 25 yards in under 2 seconds with a small amount practice and training. Minimally trained people can do the same with iron sites in under 3.
I am a big fan of the AR platform because of these reasons. They are not unique to the AR, but they are unique to a class of gun that is designed with these characteristics in mind. These are not the characteristics of hunting rifles.
Honesty is important, even if it works against your beliefs!
> I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy.
I don't know if it's healthy or sustainable, but it definitely sounds healthier than ignoring the tragedy altogether.
Agreed. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution, but it is the best way we have _right now_ to visit consequences on people/orgs that enabled the tragedy. If our society sees everything in cost/benefit, then increasing the costs of actions that lead to tragedies like this is one of the best things we can do.
They did, if even indirectly. Just like how McDonald's holds some responsibility for the obesity epidemic.
The company that makes rifles makes them to be sold. It is in the company's best interest that as many mass shootings happen as possible. By providing guns, they DID contribute to the tragedy. We can tell, because if they had never produced that gun then it would've never shot anyone.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that the reason gun laws are so lax is because these companies lobby for it to be so. Again, they are incentivized to cause as many people to die as possible. Incentives matter. If mass shootings were the next blue jeans, these companies would quickly overthrow Apple.
Blame is very hard and tricky, but any institution or system in place is responsible for an intuitional failure. And that's what mass shootings are - an institutional failure.
> Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back.
> Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families?
The lawsuit wasn't about responsibility or compensation for the school shooting. It was about the years of harassment and death threats that the families of those killed had to endure from people who believed the lies that Alex Jones repeatedly told about them.
> Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back.
How about not slandering the parents of the victims causing Jones' followers harass and threaten them? He could have admitted he was wrong (which he only did finally at trial and under oath - far too late), but chose to double down. What about that misery?
Jones is not a victim here. He chose greed, but got owned. The motives of the families, lawyers, etc are whataboutism at best. You're essentially arguing that if somebody throws a punch at another person, said person has no right to hit back because hitting back won't take away your black eye.
> but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy
I don't know, this, to me, is the proper set of incentives. Nobody wants to lose money, so you better do everything you can to prevent these tragedies. If we just sob a little and move on, the systems in place will not change.
Each thread is tied to an OS thread, which is tied to a CPU core/hyper-thread. You get like ~6000 threads on a modern OS and CPU.
Your program needs one million threads that sleep for 2 seconds, read some data and then finish. Guess what? Your execution is going to take hours, or get some kind of exception that you run out of threads because after the first ~6000 threads are taken, your OS can no longer give threads to anything else.
With Green threads, the threads are fake aka virtual and controlled by the language's runtime, be it JVM, CLR, Go's runtime etc. Runtime is usually smart enough to recognize sleeps and, while waiting for something, schedule another thread in its space.[1] So now all one million threads start near instantly and work almost all in parallel.
And somehow all these programmers who never care about performance because “computers are fast” become micro-optimizers, willing to restructure every line of code to save a few KB of RAM and rare handful of ms for a context switch.
If you’re talking about the course where you write a linked list, hash table, quick sort, etc. That’s pretty basic and fundamental stuff. And I don’t know why you would like programming.
If you’re talking about the course where you prove the runtime of an algorithm using mathematical induction techniques, well that’s more of interest to mathematicians and researchers. Learn what you can, know where to look back if needed, but it’s ok.
> What will the state of your UI be when that happens?
If you can't do anything else until you know whether it was a success or failure, then you ensure that. E.g. you disable every single button that allows the user to do something else before the previous operation completes.
Basically the theory is usually that you can allow the UI to "read" the program state while a "write" operation is still in flight. Typically this results in the user being able to for example scroll a document so it re-renders correctly etc. After the in-flight operation succeeds/fails, you can show the user the message if required, then enable new operations to happen. But the UI never stopped pumping messages so it was always responsive at least.
> you disable every single button that allows the user to do something else before the previous operation completes.
Wow you mean the whole program becomes unresponsive? Crazy!
To address your main point, yes, scrolling, hover, etc can continue to work. But now you genuinely have two things your program is doing at once, and these must be coordinated.
A gui framework typically handles this, with a separate thread (or separate OS process). So your thread that responds to events can block while the render/refresh continues doing its thing.
With this design the problem goes away. Instead of writing code that disables the ui, issues a callback, waits to respond, you just literally write:
If (!file.delete()) {
Showerror()
}
This is the kind of code you can read, and put breakpoints on.
> Wow you mean the whole program becomes unresponsive? Crazy!
Yes a normal single threaded GUI normally becomes unresponsive if the user invokes blocking IO on the main (UI) thread. By "unresponsive" in this context I mean "does not process messages the message queue".
That the user can't e.g. perform a certain operation is in this context not the same kind of "unresponsive". It responds (it could even tell him that he can't do it, or why he can't). It would be unresponsive if it gave the appearance that he could do something, but when he tries to, the UI doesn't respond and start the operation he requests.
> Instead of writing code that disables the ui, issues a callback, waits to respond, you just literally write: If (!file.delete()) { Showerror() }
That's typically how I'd write code regardless of whether it's explicitly async. "Disabling everything" usually isn't necessary, what you disable is of course the operations thare logically forbidden to perfom until the first operation completes. In a perfect world you don't have those. But often, you do.
I had lots of pending requests, the goal was to have as many as possible (since the whole job took about 30 min) without freezing the UI.
When the callback happens there is work to do. The pattern is to do this work immediately.
Then there were as many as [not] possible bits of work to do simultaneously. Since the amount of work per job is unpredictable deliberately making the amount of simultaneous jobs unpredictable is insanity.
Synchronously I can do [say] 50 requests per second, parse 55 and have a buffer.
The solution to the riddle is not to limit the number of requests by 90% and extend the task to take 5 hours while not using 90% of the resources. Then UI freezes only become less frequent, they don't go away.
Instead I store all data from all callbacks in an array along with a description and use a setInterval to parse a configurable number of responses per second while adjusting the new requests to the size of the backlog.
What is your program going to work on while it waits for the task? Usually nothing. You need to read some data before analyzing it, etc.
While you wait the OS can switch to other threads.
The only question here is whether you want to return that time to the operating system or to your language runtime.
> they’re just hiding the complexity
async/await feels helpful because you can write normal code again! If else, for loops, etc.
Oh wait that’s also what the UNIX operating system does. It abstracts away all this blocking and context switching so you can write normal code.
> If adding async to a function is too much
The authors point is a good one. You essentially have two languages and classes of functions. The regular version and the async version. Lots of duplication and a tendency for everything to become async.
while we’re waiting for the OS to ‘save us’ from async/await, let’s not ignore the fact that writing code that doesn’t hang, crash, or block the main thread is a skill for a reason.
Hang implies there is something you are not responding to.
Let me ask again. What are you imagining your main thread should be doing while it is waiting for essential data?
responding to new inputs means changing state. But your program is already in another. Two separate program execution states are best described by two separate threads.
> crash
Crash early, crash often. If invariants can’t be maintained, don’t pretend otherwise.
"Ah, the ‘crash early, crash often’ mantra — truly inspiring. I guess when your program explodes because it can’t handle concurrency, we should just sit back, crack open a cold one, and toast to ‘maintaining invariants.’
And sure, let’s talk about state. If handling multiple states at once is ‘extremely difficult,’ then yes, async/await might not be the best for anyone who panics when their program has to juggle more than one thing. But that's kind of the point.
Async/await is like giving you a leash for your concurrency so you don’t need to wrangle state machines on a pogo stick. But hey, if you’re happier living on the edge of crashville because ‘the OS scheduler will save me,’ who am I to interrupt your Zen?”
- In quake brushes are not just visual, but are also used to solve collisions. Without brushes you need separate “collision meshes”.
- brush based editors are much faster for prototyping space shapes. Art can always be improved later and is even outsourced. Gameplay is harder to get right.
- brushes are easier to reason about in processing for auto generating UV coordinates and light mapping
> just make smaller models and combine them in creative ways
This is a cost saving choice, not a better game choice.
What games do you want to play? The ones where the space is tailor made? Or the ones with a lot of copy paste?
Also if you look at the spaces in the article, they don’t have a lot of clutter anyway.
“You can see the frame of the room is made up of four static pieces which I’ve been glued together. This type of prefabbing makes it impossible to add little details or variations into the structure of an existing asset, you need to change the one, or make a new one.”
