> Why would anyone try to sell me a device by talking about how easy it is to repair it? What I expect is that it would never need a repair and if it needs a repair the vendor will handle it.
Because people value reparability, which someone posted evidence for. Buying a computing device that you can use and depend on for decades is a laudable goal, and reparability is table stakes for that goal because stuff breaks.
IMHO Framework's value comes from modularity, repairability is just a perk of modularity. I like it but it comes at cost of design features like thickness, weight or robustness.
I have used Does the Dog Die in the past, great site. I've seen enough horrific things for a lifetime, real and simulated. Why should I see more, if I've had enough? There's more than enough content for me without spending time watching gratuitous simulated murder or torture of animals. Tends to be a red flag for overall quality of the piece anyways.
That's a stretch. That sketch is about one-upmanship as to who suffered more. (Which is also toxic behavior when taken out of comedic contexts. I know people who do this unironically and it's not healthy.)
Agree with the parent, it's great to develop a richer context on top of the OP and have everyone benefit as a result, but there's no need to put one down in order to raise another. They're both cool and interesting.
In my day there were no graphics cards. You had to write the bits into special parts of memory yourself. And you considered yourself lucky to get 140 pixels on a line.
Not all games, and not for all definitions of playing them.
Some games are tests and potentially builders of skill of various kinds, and the investments made are compounding: self control in the face of stress, economic decision-making, system design, tactical thinking in 3D space, and so on. Some games allow us to go Elsewhere and we change profoundly as a result.
You can’t necessarily, unless you write it at a higher level of abstraction* and trust the engineers are correct when they say it’s feasible to implement in a reasonable amount of time. Now your team is aligned and coordinated, even if the team consists of one person.
> “I do feel apologetic toward anyone who feels there’s just too much to overcome in my games,” Miyazaki told me. He held his head in his hands, then smiled. “I just want as many players as possible to experience the joy that comes from overcoming hardship.”
It's been great to see how their games have inspired so many people. If you go search any of the subreddits for their games, it's not rare to see testimonials of how the game "saved their life". It helped them learn to believe in themselves. To believe that they can change and overcome the challenges that are facing them, things they previously despaired were insurmountable. To use terminology from the Dark Souls series, they were hollow and through mastery of the game they were able to reverse it.
Although they didn't have quite such an effect for me, these experiences nevertheless have built confidence that I otherwise wouldn't have. Just because something is difficult, just because I don't understand it now, doesn't mean it will always be that way. If I keep at it, if I think and experiment enough, the thing at hand becomes legible and one day soon, doing that thing that used to be so hard will become second nature. It's an empowering experience.
I've always thought that the only way to lose at Dark Souls is to give up, and go Hollow.
It's a small missed opportunity that From Software didn't indicate where in the Game players went Hollow; that is, if a player died, show their bloodstain and how they died. If a player died and hasn't resumed playing for a very long time (they gave up), then put a new hollowed enemy instead of a bloodstain.
Not necessarily (in general)! It could be that those other two locations are part of the eyes for someone in management. This report not adding a status update could represent 10% of 25% of the stuff they're tracking on a regular basis. Do you notice if some small percentage of all the things you're tracking stops reporting? Or does it fall through the cracks? I'm betting the people tracking that work in the other two locations would notice if everyone stopped reporting.
Should they notice the reporting drop off? Yeah. But we're only human and must rely on process and the cooperation of other humans for everything to work efficiently.
(In no way am I saying someone should have to report in four places. They should fix their process so they're reporting in one place and anyone who need eyes on those people can check there.)
Push vs pull solves it neatly; the idea of requiring subordinates manually / proactively to push status updates to various management nodes seems kind of absurd.
Well sure; basic communication skills are prerequisite (and assumed). I was talking about GP's ref to formal processes that required frequently pushing updates to 4 different upstream management nodes, which I maintain is doing it wrong.
However, Slack doesn't allow you to a) stay alertable to a subset of the company (e.g. people you are working heads down with on a project) while b) ignoring everyone else in the company. Even if you stick those people in a common channel and mute the rest of the channels you are in, people can still jeopardize your focus with a single at-mention or DM. Just anyone can hijack your sidebar.
Slack doesn't respect something as simple and fundamental as the focus of a small team within a larger org. But if they did that, they wouldn't sell as many subscriptions, because it would be less addictive, I guess?
This isn’t a slack thing, it’s a humans thing. Whether it’s a telephone, a marked urgent email, am @mention, or whatever. If someone wants to get your attention, that’s not a technology problem.
Yeah, I feel you. However, remember that these are games. It's fun to play. It's unlikely in real-life that you will get the opportunity to control resources and strategy on the level that Factorio and such offer. Enjoy the opportunity to build. To imagine and see where your imagination takes you. It's good practice, mental exercise.
Much like with story-telling in the form of books and movies, playing (good) games is an opportunity to learn about yourself and reality, and then grow in response.
You are the player of games. Be mindful so the game doesn't play you. ;) It sounds like you're doing well to recognize "enough," when the trade-offs don't make sense anymore, though a bit late. Maybe next time you'll slow down before anxiety need kick in. Good luck, have fun!
> My sleep statistics tells me that I slept an average of 5:25 hours over the last 7 days, 5:49 hours over the last 30 days, and 5:57 over the last 180 days hours, meaning that I’m awake for 18 hours per day instead of 16.5 hours. I usually sleep 5.5-6 hours during the night and take a nap a few times a week when sleepy during the day.
> This means that I’m gaining 33 days of life every year. 1 more year of life every 11 years. 5 more years of life every 55 years.
> Why are people not all over this?
Because that's not how humans work. You're gaining 33 days of being not-asleep in sum per year. More accurately, you're getting however many more minutes per wakeful period. And gaining minutes of being not-asleep per day is very different from "gaining days of life every year". Life != being awake. Things are happening during sleep. Useful things.
Personally, I spent many years doing what you're recommending when I was younger. Felt low-level sleepy all the time. Used caffeine off-and-on to blunt the effect. Now I've gotten into a good enough homeostasis that I don't need alarms and I don't oversleep. I never feel sleepy except for the moments before falling asleep at night or on the rare occasions where I have to wake up early. I love sleep now. I protect it and it protects me.
The quality of a day depends on how it was spent. The quality of a life is the summation of all those days. Adding 30 minutes to each day's wakeful period is not some huge gain in efficiency like you're making it out to be. And for me, gaining thirty more minutes actually makes the quality of the rest of the minutes in that day worse. I low-key despise society for making me think I needed to do more such that sacrificing my sleep and normal alertness for more time spent awake was a good trade.
I recommend looking into the concept of healthspan. Optimize for area under the curve, not time spent awake.
So what you are saying is that, just like me, in your 20s you were optimize for getting shit done and now, being older, you optimize for feeling good and don't care about doing as much and think that optimizing for doing earlier was a mistake for you. This is reasonable!
No. I am able to do much more now, now that I respect the signals my body is sending. Sometimes I have to force things, reality demands it, but generally I work with my body on any given day, not against it. The increase quality and amount of work is undeniable, generally and on average.
I can only imagine how much more capable I would be if I had had a better relationship with sleep and my body in general when I was younger, so the benefits of those behaviors could have compounded over a longer time frame.
> Why would anyone try to sell me a device by talking about how easy it is to repair it? What I expect is that it would never need a repair and if it needs a repair the vendor will handle it.
Because people value reparability, which someone posted evidence for. Buying a computing device that you can use and depend on for decades is a laudable goal, and reparability is table stakes for that goal because stuff breaks.