The article you linked indicates the reason for him not finishing is specifically that he didn't like his game design, which seems orthogonal to coding practices.
He appears to have shipped middleware projects for RAD, and other contract work where he was not in charge of game design.
RAD was what, 15, 20 years ago? What has he released, in terms of proprietary or open source products, since then? Not just games, I mean ANYTHING. Refterm, and... what else? It's not like he was busy with his MSFT or RAD dayjob during this period.
He created Meow Hash somewhat recently and open sourced that. It's not a huge project but it's very useful. A lot of his time goes toward education, his personal projects and contract programming. Not every programmer is dedicated to releasing their own open source or commercial software. I'd bet most programmers don't. Using this as a metric to claim that he has a bad coding approach is ridiculous and laughable. Especially using Handmade Hero as an example... It really reveals your ignorance.
Also, since you care so much, let's see what you've released, smart guy. Preferably code so that we can see how talented you are.
> Also, since you care so much, let's see what you've released, smart guy. Preferably code so that we can see how talented you are.
I'm not the one telling everyone they're doing everything wrong, and did it not occur to you that my perception of what his output ought to have been over that timeframe (especially for someone who rates his own abilities as highly as he does) is informed by my own?
They're just saying they won't encourage news/politics, not that they'll police them off:
> "Politics and hard news are inevitably going to show up on Threads - they have on Instagram as well to some extent - but we're not going to do anything to encourage those verticals."
The article does not advocate tuning out the results; it is advocating awareness of the results and careful consideration of how to proceed. See the detailing of options at the end of the second case study:
>> "As with Tia, Tamera has several choices she can make. She could simply accept these biases as is and do nothing, though at least now she won't be caught off-guard if users complain. She could make changes in the user interface, for example by having it present two gendered responses instead of just one, though she might not want to do that if the input message has a gendered pronoun (e.g., "Will she be there today?"). She could try retraining the embedding model using a bias mitigation technique (e.g., as in Bolukbasi et al.) and examining how this affects downstream performance, or she might mitigate bias in the classifier directly when training her classifier (e.g., as in Dixon et al. [1], Beutel et al. [10], or Zhang et al. [11]). No matter what she decides to do, it's important that Tamera has done this type of analysis so that she's aware of what her product does and can make informed decisions."
Even if it's relatively easy to not get caught, you can't be sure exactly how easy it is, and the downside is catastrophic. So no, I don't think every entity in your thought experiment would be committing fraud. Only ones that knew for sure exactly how easy it is and that they would not get caught for sure. And those ones, by definition, would never be caught so the public would never know ...
You can be sure exactly how easy it is because in a perfectly competitive economy everyone has perfect information, and the experiment's key assumption is getting away with fraud is a endogenous variable in the utility function. The fraudster can manipulate this variable to optimize their utility. This means that every actor knows exactly what they must do to avoid getting caught. It's a simplification so we can consider the implications of the notion that getting away with fraud is as easy as setting your mind to it. Another assumption is entities act solely in their own financial best interest. In this setup, everyone who will be better off by committing some form of fraud, which will be everyone who participates in the economy, will commit fraud.
Oh, okay ... but everyone having perfect information AND fraud being possible to get away with are fundamentally contradictory assumptions; fraud is based on exploiting some people not having perfect information.
They are not fundamentally contradictory, everyone would know they are victims, still if it is in their net benefit to participate, they will. Again, this is an experiment with unrealistic assumptions (getting caught is an endogenous variable), it is intended to bring to bear the the absurdity of the statement that one can control their own fate if they commit fraud.
>...avoiding the ire of the SEC is relatively easy if you set your mind to committing fraud without getting caught.
The experiment is a simple application of the economic theoretic framework to the statement above. Nothing more. There isn't all that much to argue about here, as long as you accept the framework upon which almost all of theoretical economics is based.
Quote:
> The game is always prompting the player about his location. In this regard, Michael Carney from PandoDaily said, “To capture a Portal, and harvest the “energy” contained therein for his respective team, a user must physically go to a location and check in. additional energy is available by travelling specific walking paths, bike paths, and inner-city routes dictated by the company, all while the user’s Android device is transmitting GPS and accelerometer data. In some cases, the user will be required to photograph locations or objects along those routes.”
Quite literally trading magic beans to punters, noice. For high-value pedestrian-only areas it would also be quite viable to send out Google employees or gig-workers. Likely with dedicated hardware, which wouldn't have to be very big or alarming: a consumer WinMR headset is already doing a first approximation of the kind of scanning you'd want.
Yes, you're right -- Diablo did a lot for the ARPG genre, but if you enjoy digging through the history of games there is a ton of interesting ARPG stuff from at least the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game
> And yet, this gluing together of terms like login, logon, backup, and setup as verbs is common, especially in writing about computers. Not for everyone, however. Some well-known software companies, for example, carefully maintain the distinction in their programs and documentation.
But habits are difficult to change. Those who react to the one-word verb as an error will probably have to get used to it, and those who use the one-word verb will have to recognize that others will see it and wince.
