domain:streamable.com
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10m ago
I played, it's very much in "wait" territory imo. It has potential. I like the way you assign families to jobs, and how you can turn people's homes into artisan workshops. I also like the addition of combat to the city builder format. But I also think it's very much half baked even by early access standards. The map takes way too long to traverse, the AI has no chill, some techs seem to not work at all, and so on.
I think that if the dev can keep at it, Manor Lords is going to be great someday. But it's pretty meh at the moment.
NunoSempere
12m ago
Here is a link to coverage of this topic on Linux Weekly News: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/970824/8002d283c35edf86/
Incidentally one of the few publications I pay for subscribing, because coverage is generally thoughtful and informative
NunoSempere
17m ago
Our biographies sound eerily similar, I also took the IB, gave up on college, built a career partly out of programming. I tried harder in highschool though, and IT isn't quite what I do.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
20m ago
I reject the concept that as soon as epsilon regulation of an industry is put into place, it necessarily and logically follows that there is a slippery slope that results in innovation dying. I think you need at least some argument further. It's easy to just 'declare' bankruptcy a slippery slope, but we know that many end up not.
Nobody is arguing that "the moment any regulation is in place, it is inevitable that we will slide all the way down the slippery slope of increasing regulation and all innovation in that industry will die". The argument is, instead, that adding a regulation increases the chance that we will slide down that slippery slope. That chance may be worth it, if the step is small and the benefit of the regulation is large, but in the case of the entirety of ETSI EN 303 645 (not just section 5.1 in isolation), I don't think that's the case, and I certainly don't think it's a slam-dunk that it's worth the cost.
Section 5.1, "You are not allowed to use a default password on an network interface as the sole means of authorization for the administrative functions of an IoT device", if well-implemented, is probably such a high-benefit low-risk regulation.
Section 5.4.1, "sensitive security parameters in persistent storage shall be stored securely by the device," seems a bit more likely to be a costly provision, and IMO one that misunderstands how hardware security works (there is no such thing as robust security against an attacker with physical access).
They double down on the idea that manufacturers can make something robust to physical access in section 5.4.2, "where a hard-coded unique per device identity is used in a device for security purposes, it shall be implemented in such a way that it resists tampering by means such as physical, electrical or software."
And then there's perplexing stuff like 5.6.4 "where a debug interface is physically accessible, it shall be disabled in software.". Does this mean if you sell a color-changing light bulb, and the bulb has a usbc port, you're not allowed to expose logs across the network and instead have to expose them only over the usbc port? I would guess not, but I'd also guess that if I was in the UK the legal team at my company would be very unhappy if I just went with my guess without consulting them.
And that's really the crux of the issue, introducing regulation like this means that companies now have to make a choice between exposing themselves to legal risks, making dumb development decisions based on the most conservative possible interpretation of the law, or involve the legal department way more frequently for development decisions.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
35m ago
So while people might have supported the ADA if it was 1% of the budget, they might start getting pissed at the program when it balloons up to 10% of the budget and a bunch of reverse lottery sob stories start showing up in the news. And suddenly instead of 10% or even 1% of the budget, you get 0% for your cause and no one trusts you with a 1% allotment cuz they will all remember the horror days of 10%.
Except that's not what happens. Your program lasts forever because it sounds good to the normies and has strong built-in constituencies. So there's no incentive NOT to do this; if you do it you win.
Felagund
38m ago
What exactly do you mean by neoliberal?
I've never seen it used in the way you're using it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
51m ago
It's weird to have more than one person give you "advice" suggesting you try to become a drug dealer, right?
*yea
More options
Context Copy link