> Later we developed a bug database but during gta3, the testers would simply print out every bug. Every programmer, level designer and artist had a physical pile of sheets on their desk. If you felt the bug was more easily fixed by someone else you would simply put it on that persons pile.
As someone who writes copious little todo lists on post-it notes with little check boxes I can X out when they're done... I kinda love this. Not really remote-work friendly, though.
The uniqueness of the physical object being moved around plays a real role, though. I can also imagine the print out accumulating notes as it gets passed around.
Make sure to get the extra sticky ones though. We once lost track of quite some bugs because the glue let go and the post-its fell into the air-vents below.
Archive.org can memorialise websites, but if nobody knows the website exists it is lost to memory. I have personally seen this happen when websites disappear from collective consciousness.
They show an IIS "404" page for part of one of my sites. It was always served under linux / apache. They have the rest of the site still; i dunno why they wouldn't archive the "Annotated Constitution"
I recall in some interview that Rockstar never wants to show footage of the development process or have any "behind the scenes". Even video interviews at their office is rare (I know of only one). Their reason for it is that it would ruin the "magic" when you play the game.
Especially back in the day, you'd pop in the DVD in the PS2, and you'd get to see Liberty/Vice city or San Andreas quickly (— no install required).
You rarely see an interview of a producer/developer as well.
Honestly, for their current "modern" games, it is understandable. But almost 20 year old games? Come on.
What a weird position for them to take. I've A) never felt BTS stuff ruined "the magic" of a game, and B) found Rockstar's games all that "magical" (well, other than RDR). I mean, prior to GTA4, their games were a clunky mess.
Some of those "OGs" must be really full of themselves if they think a few superficial 20-year-old development stories are "ruining the Rockstar mystique".
> The Gta team had loads of outspoken characters on it. Most teams were quietly getting on with stuff but this wasn't the way at gta. There were arguments and tempers would flare at times. Maybe colourful people were what was needed to think it was a good idea to make the player a criminal.
and IIRC it was around 2018 when we started hearing about what it was like to work at Rockstar, it was basically a boys club, so the news of the OGs thinking 20-year-old development stories are "ruining the Rockstar mystique" doesn't surprise me at all.
The Sims is one of the top selling and most profitable game franchises of all time, the original and current teams were anything but a boys club, and it had and has a lot of women and LGBTQ+ developers and artists working on it and players playing it. And it was around and successful long before your precious Gamergate.
From my personal experiences, yes because they were boys clubs. But not because they were men, because they weren’t pc or driven by diversity. It would be great if the “boys club” was 50% women, as long as it wasn’t like a modern Ubisoft dev team that looks like an HRs wet dream. The end result are sterile boring games that aren’t funny or interesting.
Isn't it funny that the least funny people always complain about their inability to make jokes anymore?
Plus the misattribution of watered-down safe products from corporations as being because they're "pc or driven by diversity" instead of driven by profits and avoiding controversy because it would hurt their bottom line.
It's like saying that babies are to blame for bad children's programming.
How about someone who is not widely known, but still considered quite highly as a funny person? Here's what she literally said: "Jokes used to be accepted as jokes [...] Morality police now dictate what we can and can’t say. " - https://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2023/02/10/52508/go...
I feel you should think long and hard before making a statement as orthogonal to reality as "The least funny people complain about their inability to make jokes".
I think you're really missing the point, so I'm not going to go source my anecdote about regular people in a conversation about boys clubs in the office. I've summed it up quite thoroughly throughout this thread.
If we really want to talk about these actual comedians (who are all very funny in their own right), I would say that Bill Burr is a snowflake who had a bad set, Dave Chappelle should really learn to not make jokes at the expense of people who are currently facing severe systemic oppression, and John Cleese is an over-reacting octogenarian, far past his prime and aligning himself with an anti-vax fake news network; not the arbiter of truth you think he is.
They aren't coming across as particularly sympathetic to me, and the comedy scene will forget them if they're not able to adapt their material to a changing generation. Comedy is temporally bound and what is good comedy changes over time.
People find different things funny, so there should be a diversity of choice in comedy. I've been to sets that I personally didn't find funny, but the audience was locals with a different sense of humour than me and they loved it. It wasn't bad, just not my style, but it didn't operate at the expense of someone else. I've been to sets where the comedian on stage floundered and lashed out at the audience for being too sensitive, and the next comedian killed it without being 'sensitive' to the audience, just by being funny.
Here are some funny comedians that I've seen this year that managed to not be transphobic or align themselves with conspiracy theories about vaccinations:
- Arthur Simeon
- The Lucas Brothers
- Malik Elassal
- Alonzo Bodden
- Joyelle Nicole Johnson
- Fortune Feimster
- Steph Tolev
Plus a bunch of others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Check them out if you care to. I don't think any of them are complaining that they can't be funny anymore, they're doing just fine, and I think they're bringing fresh comedy to the scene.
In my opinion, if the old guard wants to show themselves out because they feel like they can't compete, they should feel free to.
> Dave Chappelle should really learn to not make jokes at the expense of people who are currently facing severe systemic oppression
Men trying to force their way into women's spaces on the basis of some imagined 'gender identity' aren't facing oppression, they are the ones doing the oppressing - lobbying for laws and policies to be changed to eradicate female-only spaces everywhere.
It's the same old invasive misogyny we see from men everywhere, except this time it's supposedly progressive.
I'm glad that comedians like Dave Chappelle are poking fun at the ridiculousness of this. Laughing at an oppressive ideology really does help to undermine it.
I explicitly didn't intend to scope my brief comment about "the least funny people" to encapsulate the entirety of humanity and I don't care to discuss this pedantic claim that "well technically N>0; QED".
Most of the comment you're saying doesn't matter was just me talking about comedians because I like comedy. If you don't like comedy, don't continue the conversation. If you disagree with something I said in a human capacity, not a "prove me wrong" capacity, then say so. I'm not as invested in this "claim" as you are to disproving it, clearly.
That's a generous interpretation of the comment. IME "boys clubs" are largely a negative phenomenon I'd rather my loved ones avoid, or at least evaluate critically.
Wow you manage to mix ad hominem, and anecdotal evidence, based on a fiction tale made by current mainstream propaganda industry! "Remember the time when American people had decent education and could use other reasoning than references to TV/streaming series?"
> implicit comparison of GP to an unspecified made up character making racist comments
The guy is implying he can't make jokes anymore because the jokes he wants to make are no longer politically correct, aka racist or sexist or whatever else. Yes I'm going to compare it to times when people lemented they could no longer be racist. What?
> This phrase alone proves that discussing anything with you is of no use.
Sure, that's over the top but don't pretend like "remember when you could say jokes" is anything but a dog whistle for "remember when you could openly mock and deride minorities without them being able to make you feel bad about it" a la Andrew Dice Clay or the terrible shock jocks from 30+ years ago.
A joke is a joke is a joke. Anything can be funny while at the same time some “jokes” are not. There’s a lot of nuance you guys are missing. Luckily the tides are turning back to normalcy and this fad is over
Hilarious that you talk about nuance while explicitly removing nuance from the discussion by saying "A joke is a joke is a joke".
Ok dude, I'll look for your comedy special where you tell women to make you a sammich or put on a terribly racist Chinese accent and talk about eating cats or whatever.
The jokes you mentioned just aren’t funny anymore. They were at one point when they were new. Of course you wouldn’t understand why they were funny in the first place though, as most comedians (after the 1950s I guess) said them because they were ironic, not because they literally though women belong in a kitchen. It’s making fun of stereotypes, but you wouldn’t understand that.
>not because they literally though women belong in a kitchen
Someone should have told that to the 12-18 year olds that would scream it at women as soon as one opened their mouth online in early xbox live during the "videogames are for boys" marketing era.
Since you seem to be arguing in good faith (albeit also in poor taste), when you ask a question like "Remember when you could make jokes?" it pegs your sense of humour to an era where women and minorities were the butt of oft repeated derogatory jokes. These jokes are not even worth considering for their comedic value because they were almost devoid of it in even the scenario that you outline.
A throwaway joke that relies on its shock value to derive any merit because it is not clever in the slightest. A category of joke that oversaturated the online landscape at one point, and now those with any sense of humour are numb to it.
When you repeat these types of jokes where the punchline is "racism" or "sexism" and people roll their eyes and don't laugh, it's not because they're offended, it's because your sense of humour is immature and underdeveloped.
So I repeat my earlier question: "Isn't it funny that the least funny people always complain about their inability to make jokes anymore?"
> No, it's Gamergate's dog whistle. Don't pretend it's not, or that you don't know.
My observation is that "Dog whistle" is the new "They're a Nazi", which itself is the new "Think of the children".
They're all cognitive kill-switches and all mean the same thing - "I need to shutdown this conversation immediately".
Maybe there's a legit reason for shutting down a conversation, maybe there isn't, but the legitimacy of the reason is irrelevant to the fact that they are intended to shut down the conversation.
It's shaming language, designed to shame the other party into silence.
> I argue: "I can't make jokes anymore" means "I want to make sexist and racist jokes"
But that's not, to me, an argument - it's a expression of opinion, and you're free to hold one.
If you're saying that I misinterpreted it, maybe consider that it doesn't look like an argument - there's no evidence presented, there's no sequence of assertions, there's no antecedents, no consequence, no logical connectives ...
In short, there's no logic presented, which is why it looks, to me, like an opinion, and not a completely unreasonable one. One that I felt was made in good faith and so I could engage with in good faith.
> You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
Ever read the last psychiatrist? A favourite phrase of his is "If you're reading it, it's for you." which sort of applies here - the claims of dog whistles/nazis/whatever are not to alert the general audience, but a rallying call to others of the same ideology.
It's a way to say "Come help me fight this argument because we believe the same things."
Dog whistle, social shibboleth, coded message, fill in the blanks yourself. It's just leading a reader to the start of a path and if they're aligned with your thinking, they will follow it one way. If they're not, or not critical of the patterns associated with this argument, they will be more charitable, or not do the exercise at all.
Being able to identify the conclusion that is not being said does not make me the target of the message. It just makes me someone with too much time invested in the 'culture wars' of today.
The guy said he can't be racist or violent or sexist in his jokes anymore. Why can't we compare that to people who used to murder those who were different than them?
Boys clubs give seats to some incompetent boys just because they are "boys". It follows that there would be a smaller amount of incompetent people if it was not a boys club.
You shouldn't thank boys clubs if you enjoyed those games - there could have been more, better games.
Non-boys clubs give seats to incompetent workers to increase percentages in a report. Boys clubs can hire whoever is more capable with no regard to those percentages.
Surely you can see how this logic is absurd. You can’t limit your pool of workers to only “boys” and then claim you’re hiring the most capable people. You will miss out on all the capable people who aren’t “boys”.
They absolutely do reject people who are “not a culture fit” all the time, how do you think it stays as a boys club? On top of that there’s all the high caliber people who would intentionally avoid applying to work there because of the workplace culture.
Generally, diversity agendas are poorly veiled attempts to force a given group of people to match census data, regardless of that industries realities such as the number of available graduates, etc.
What's telling to me is male college attendance and graduation are both below female levels and yet everyone still act like men run and rule everything and have every advantage. That is patently untrue.
So because there's skewed results at the top, we gotta fuck with the whole group? It's not my fault or your fault that shit's that way at the top. The vast majority of men are just working to pay their bills and live their life like everyone else. Misusing statistics to make it seem like every man has it easy is what I take issue with, because I can straight defy any of those assumptions.
Show me where AVERAGE men have an edge deserving the treatment of a cheat code.
It makes no sense to harm someone because they look like someone else, who misuses their power and status to steamroll others.
Some will claim their actions are equality but can't match those words with proof or evidence. There's just a cultural distaste for white guys because we're all assumed to be living the high life, when we're not. It's simply not fucking true, and I don't care how much hate I get for it. It's founded on prejudice anyway, the same one those people claim to oppose.
If I have it so easy, why has a judge never once acknowledged my legal rights? Why have the police never helped me when I was the victim of crime?
Fuck a society that's comfortable with the angle of discriminating against common men because rich and powerful men have it easy.
If someone complains about opportunity, you usually look at statistics for said opportunities to see who's excelling and who isn't.
If men were really as on top of everyone as claimed, we'd dominate in every major avenue of life. But we don't, so it pokes a hole in the narrative.
Socially speaking, we are abondoning men in droves. Boys are not getting the social and emotional upbringing needed to integrate in society, and many people just plain don't want men around.
Serial killers and school shootings are predominantly perpetrated by men. There may be a social component to that. I strongly suggest that not only is there an element, it's the primary reason it happens at all.
Men who feel excluded or taken advantage of will eventually strike back at those they consider responsible for harming them. This can be stopped by proper socialization.
That will never happen though because we're so quick to consider little 10 year old Bobby as a potential rapist. I'm sure that's a healthy environment for men, alongside their peers hating masculinity with no adequate replacement!
The world has a problem with men and it needs to get over it. We're an entire half of the species and we're not fucking going anywhere.
You must either acknowledge that boy clubs are more incompetent, or that you believe that boys are inherently more competent. In the latter case there is no point in discussing further.
Those are not the only two options. For example if the distribution of interested candiates is already skewed towards one gender then forcing gender quotas means you need to hire inferior candiates even if both genders have the same distribution of capability.
That said, not only discounting that either gender could be better at certain jobs but refusing to talk to someone because you suspect that may be their opinion is beyond absurd and that kind of politicized gut-based and evidence-fearing thinking may be another reason why organizations that don't pay attention to gender politics are more capable than those that do.
Unbalanced pool of interested candidates is a factor, that's true, but the lack of interest is again a "boys club" syndrome from as early as school. And it's not like this "boys club" only happens at school stage and goes away at the workplace stage.
There are some physical jobs that have some gender bias due to their physicality. Software development is not one of them. This is like debating e.g. covid deniers or whatever nutjobs you will, not worth my time but not evidence fearing.
At a working level boys clubs work well. The culture dives commotion and high levels of cooperation. The problem often arises in management where the Alpha male gets promoted but doesn’t actually have the organizational skills to handle delicate problems or manage work effectively. The resulting management culture becomes toxic and unproductive quickly.
For a short while diverse leadership and management structure was an indicator that companies were promoting based on competence. But once someone realized that that was the case companies started stuffing the pool to pretend they were promoting competency without actually doing that.
We had many female and LGBTQ+ designers and artists working on The Sims because they were excellent at what they did, and their unique perspectives that most straight white men simply didn't have were essential to the game's popularity and success across all genders and ages and cultures, and for you to slanderously claim with no evidence that they were incompetent, chosen because of their gender, or to increase percentages in a report, is idiotic, incorrect, insulting, assinie, and misogynistic.
Another part of the "rockstar mystique" is who received the billions of dollars in "internal royalties" that has been diverted from the revenue stream over the years. Wikipedia mentions a legal dispute between 3 people (2 Housers and Benzies) splitting royalties, so I assume that normal employees see little to none of it. The secretive weirdness and unfairness of the whole thing convinced me not to own their parent company stock (take-two interactive).
I do my own local mirrors because I suspect we will wake up one day and find something has happened to Wayback, so I just zipped that up and uploaded it as a "text collection" item. Here's my wget mirror shell function:
(Linebreaks added to avoid yuge horizontal scrollbar)
I suppose the new hotness would be to stuff the entire thing into a WARC/WACZ, but I haven't looked into that yet since I do my mirrors to a compression-enabled ZFS filesystem already anyway.
Keep in mind that the website author has the ability to delete content from archive.org (and I've seen a pretty significant website for a community I'm a part of do so when it shut down, ostensibly for "GDPR compliance" reasons.)
All it takes is a robot.txt file with the right entries in it.
We need something like archive.org, but which reflects the wishes of historians and preservationists, not paranoid website owners.
Do we need that? I feel like the right to be forgotten needs to be protected too. I’m already uncomfortable with the extent to which everything I write can live forever
> It's on my to-do list to automatically mirror all HN submissions as well
I recently emailed that suggestion to dang as well - both Web Archive and Archive Today (aka archive.is/ws/ph/wh/whatever), as the former is more likely to stick around and the latter is better than 12ft at bypassing paywalls. It's on their to-do list as well.
I'm a huge side project procrastinator, but if this comes after HN performance improvements on dang's to-do list I feel like I might beat them to it ;)
Yes, but the only people who know who that is are the people who came into his cubicle and asked him for it. Everyone else on earth probably has no clue; even other people who worked there.
In this case, it's seemingly some co-workers that objected and not random other people on earth. More than those few cubicle visitors knew what this person was working on. And the sniper story is just one story, there are loads more stories with other details that a co-worker could likely use to identify the person. A pseudonym does nothing.
I understand, there's always more to a story than what a single person recalls. However, often people want to control the narrative of what transpired in projects and want to have a favorable recounting of events unfolded.
I've experienced a similar situation when I wanted to write a post about a nice project. Someone who wasn't involved in the work took offense (perhaps because they weren't acknowledged?) and used politics to suppress the text. It's quite unfortunate but happens a lot.
