Titanfall 2 is a fantastic game with perhaps the best single player FPS campaign for fast FPS games, and a skill ceiling that's incredibly high in multiplayer which is still alive to this day. Did you mean to say "terrific" instead of terrible?
Story is just one part of the overall experience. Good is an exaggeration, but not braindead and bland is a good start. There are many like HL, Hexen, Heretic, Blood, NOLF, Bioshock, System shock 1 to name a few.
If that's any help I personally found this attitude with a company called Dygma, specifically with their Dygma Defy keyboard.
They have tons of Youtube videos answering basically every question one could have, and the keyboard is substantially larger with more keys which means less wizardry getting used to these kinds of keyboards. Example: which keyboard to buy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8FeBPREzZA
I might end up buying smaller keyboards in the future if I lean more into the whole "modifier keys to do crazy stuff", but for now I'm extremely satisfied with the no-bullshit comfortable solution that the Defy offers me, and I do not care one bit about not using this or that custom firmware. It just works and works well.
Keyboards like the one in OP are definitely not for people who dont know much about split kbs, or who don't know what ortholinear and columnar and home row modifiers and QMK and ZMK mean.
If Dygma seems too corporate, too expensive, or too locked down of a firmware for you, the Glove80 and the Moonlander would probably be the best picks/search terms.
I very much appreciate the politeness and care the people who responded to my comment are bringing to their responses, but the issue isn't the keyboard layouts, it's the mindset that somehow the apparently terrible UX of the QMK and ZMK software is not just acceptable but beneficial.
I've been using programmable columnar split keyboards with modifier keys for decades, and chording keyboards before that. None of those things are at all new, nor are they particularly difficult. What seems to have been added in recent years is this weird keyboard-hipster-macho mentality that seems to have overtaken the community.
If it takes more than a PhD (which I have) and decades of experience with programmable remapable keyboards (which I also have) to use your keyboard, you're doing it wrong. If, as a professional software product engineer (which realistically most users of this type of keyboard probably are) you can't see that, you're probably way too far down a weird keyboard-hipster well and would probably do well to pull out and spend some time refreshing yourself with a reminder of how empowering good UX actually is. Bad software UX isn't actually "power user" stuff, and pretending bad software UX is an actually good thing is simply denial of how bad one's software UX apparently is.
It seems highly ironic that a community focused on keyboard productivity would fall into this particular hipster macho mindset, but for whatever reason it seems to have taken hold like wildfire. More power to you all, I guess. Definitely keep up the polite and welcoming aspects of the community, and perhaps one day some branch of the community will wake up to the fact that keyboards are a UX affordance, that the keyboard community is deeply passionate about their user experience, and that a good software UX actually matters and would in fact be a good thing and not a bad thing.
I'm not sure if I've angered you or if you're agreeing with me that something no-bullshit like Dygma and their software is much more welcoming than the status quo (even though purists will say "but it isn't QMK or ZMK!!1! and it has too many keys!!1!").
I considered other keyboards and essentially preferred having a UI that makes sense, a keyboard that does more than I need, and a ton of helpful videos that explain things in clear terms.
While I don't have a PhD like you do, I value the attitude as much as you do. So I'm hoping my original message didn't come across as putting you down somehow.
I work at a company that invented an internal syntax to compile into C++ code, that still relies on c-shell and conventions taken when OS/2 was in use there, and with a web of Jenkins instances and homemade wrappers and DBs to build that stuff.
I can safely say that title exists already. And I value my current experience as a humbling example of what is to come as software becomes an older industry, and not just a world of startups and their freshest languages/frameworks/tools.
You could also try the particle for belonging の which is a bit like " 's " in English. Should appear in hiragana (as a standalone syllable) frequently since it is a particle much like the first one they suggested (ha for the theme of a sentence). The second one (su) tends to be at the end of maybe half the verbs, might be why it's less likely.
Another one which might match is Japanese punctuation, such as the comma 、 and the period 。
Nice! The 'の' (237 matches) is even better than 'は' (216 matches). The 'の' matches every Japanese spam in my Spam folder.
I was not able to use comma 、 and the period 。 because I think FastMail disables searches on common punctuations, so those matched nothing.
(In case people are wondering, I sometimes scan through my Spam folder to check for false positives, i.e. things which were incorrectly marked as spam. It's difficult to do that when it is flooded with Japanese spam.)
I was that other kid. Grew up in a pretty tough place, where dodging blades was no euphemism and emotional regulation was on permanent hiatus. Grew up with severe issues in personal life and balance of self, absence of anchors in family and social relationships. Was always curious, always loved understanding things.
When you don't have good people around, you pay the price in time and pain. Those people will save you years and hundreds of thousands - or even millions, simply by showing you the most egregious traps to avoid and the more virtuous behaviours to adopt. They'll make your success more predictable, less reliant on the specifics of your genetic makeup, domestic instability, and odd moments of luck.
I was a good kid. Didn't end up well at all. Figured I could at least try to be a good person to others as time goes on, and pass on the gotchas and virtuous habits I partly figured out myself.
It's still a miserable experience to maintain it, update it, deal with mostly old plugins, dynamically loading the tooling, groovy idiosyncrasies.. and UI/UX that despite recent efforts continues to feel terrible.
Managing the underlying infra is painful, and it remains a security liability even when not making obvious mistakes like exposing it to any open network.
And good luck if you're having that fun at a windows shop and aren't using a managed instance (or 5).
>It's still a miserable experience to maintain it...
How so? I've been maintaining an instance for a decade, and it really doesn't seem that bad. Updating plugins we do about monthly, it's largely clicking a couple buttons in the UI. Updating Jenkins itself is an apt update. Groovy takes a bit to grok, sure, LLMs help a lot here. The UX isn't that bad, IMHO, but I can see why some would say that. We've switched over almost entirely to using a couple runners, docker, and Jenkinsfiles, which works great. We do still run deploys directly on the Jenkins box, largely because we need to run them single-threaded so they don't step on each-other with load balancer rotations.
Your use case is just fine because you're barely actually using Jenkins.
I can give you a few examples of where it falls short:
- security: there are constant CVEs about anything and everything in Jenkins
- upgrade paths: if your company uses lots of plugins, the resulting spaghetti is of Italian proportions
- if said company is in a Windows-only infra, on prem, and they still decided to use Jenkins then good luck doing anything. Try putting an agent on a non-system disk for example, Windows paths aren't handled and you find yourself already passing very specific "pre" commands that your master will send over ssh.
- Said ssh connection can be lost due to a variety of things for which there are quite a few combinations of parameters when invoking Jenkins
- While we're at it, SSO isn't exactly supported in Windows environments. There are two external plugins you can try, one created because the other doesn't work, and even then good luck with that.
- At scale you end up having to be at least minimally interested in GC tuning, as Jenkins runs within the JVM
- UI: normal "Views" are not informative, and a bunch of custom views need to be made but rarely work with all sorts of plugins that people using your CI can consider crucial (say, parametrized cronjobs)
- Using the functionnalities Jenkins offers to "install tooling". Try to get it to use a certain version of node in a pipeline. Any current typical CI solution turns that into a straightforward task that's extendable, but in Jenkins you have to configure a very archaic and barely-working "tooling" area in your system to use that, and this barely works beyond the most basic tools.
- Having to maintain enterprise-level groovy libraries. Good luck. It's Groovy but not exactly Groovy. It's all inside the JVM, but inside Jenkins's abstractions of it inside of the JVM.
- Good luck monitoring lots of agents and doing typical tasks with them. Maintenance Windows are slowly coming in, monitoring sort-of-kinda-works via plugins..
I've maintainted instances in small companies and larger ones. With less custom stuff and with a lot more. Compiling C++, C#, Java/Kotlin, Objective-C/Swift. Building webapps, iOS SDKs, Android SDKs, and native Windows apps.
Jenkins can do everything if you bend it the way you want with some plugins and custom code. That's a strength that nothing else offers, but by and large it is a weakness of CI in the long run. Being opinionated isn't amazing, but sometimes it is required to be less complex, easier to maintain, more secure, easier to use, etc.
We think that everything is made of things but we forget that everything is mostly made of nothing, and it's the gaps between things that make it all be.
See also: atomic size vs distance between atoms in any structure, on perceptual levels the visual saccadic movement and how much the brain fills in the gaps.
I hate this phrase because how do you even define "made of nothing" or "gaps between" when talking about objects as fuzzy as electrons, and how would you define where something "is" or "isn't " other than interactions? If an electron cloud is interacting with another electron cloud why do we say that space is empty? Because the measured radius of an electron is so much smaller than we observe?
Like you say, it's just a more intuitive classical analogy for people who don't want to waste good years of their life (like me) to understand the mathematical detail of theoretical physics.
The electron doesn't actually have a measured radius (in our current theories). QFT describes it as point-like excitation of an underlying quantum field. The only connection between our quantum theories (that is really just slightly hand wavy math) and reality is that our theories can predict the statistics of observing a particle or interaction in a given state. So maybe a slightly more coherent explanation is that for a given region between atoms in solid matter, the probability of observing an electron (or any particle) is extremely small. Its like a quantum mechanical cat who's territory extends across mountains and forests, you're probably not gonna stumble across it on any given day, unlike a (quantum) house cat that lives in someones apartment. More generally there are no big "lumps" in the wave-functions, it's very thinly spread like too little butter on toast.
Auto filter for sources, downrank sources you dislike, sort results by recency, have an engine that actually respects what country or language you're trying to search into, and finally present results visually the way you want them.
It's worth trying to use it actively for a month or so, and you'll see if you need it or not. I would not to back to google even if Google paid me.
Is that his device or his search term? Either way, my view of the internet is probably different than the average with pihole + ublock. Three pages of ads is kind of unbelievable.
Two things that would deserve clarification (although outside of the scope of the research here) are:
(1) When is it time to leave? At what threshold? Is it around an arm's length of free space between people?
And (2) Where to go? Straight line towards an exit? Perpendicular to the crowd? Exactly against the flow? Along the flow but towards edges? Probably depends on a lot of parameters..
A naive application of fluid dynamics would suggest that the answer to 2 is to go perpendicular to the flow until you reach a wall, then go against the flow towards an exit.
In the middle of a crowd/fluid your motion is determined by the humans/molecules around you. The closer you get to a wall, the fewer particles have an influence on you. Just make sure it's not a wall people are moving towards.
Not sure if anyone has studied how well this holds up to humans. Human crowds have very fluid-like behavior, but of course they don't behave perfectly like a liquid in a pipe
Is there anything to the notion that you might prefer to be batted around in the “soft body” portion of the dense-crowd “fluid” rather than pinned between several tons of soft bodies in motion and a hard limit? You seem rather more crushable than an individual molecule might be…
(edit: “crowd crush safety expert” Paul Wertheimer, who came to some notoriety through studying mosh pits from within them, apparently suggests—at least in situations where the crowd is moving toward a clear focal point—you’re right: he recommends the edges
That said I note that the authors of TFA draw a distinction between dense-crowd situations undergoing unidirectional flow and the steady, confined dense crowd whose behavior they describe.)
I don’t recall where, but for some reason I remember learning that if people start to bump into you too many times, that’s a warning shot to get out. It was something like “bumps per second”.
