Sometimes I let people explain something I already know because they either explain it better or add more detail. Even a well described reminder is useful and interesting if told well.
Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.
... when that question of should I leave becomes repetitive enough then the answer is usually then yes but not yet. The not yet part is really the warning that you need to prepare to leave or prepare to change.
If you have doubts about staying then you also have no doubt that something is wrong.
But honestly, if you can't pick up the basics of factorio in a few minutes you're less qualified than the nine-year-olds and sixty-year-olds I've taught programming to. No background in programming or software development at all. That's a very low standard.
And yes, I've used factorio in those lessons as a tool. It's great for teaching refactoring in a visual way with no code at all. I usually set a class homework project involving the factorio demo. It works well.
It's really not that hard to play factorio.
Ok. With all that said and even with all those happy experiences I still wouldn't use factorio for interviews because I think leetcode and similar are also bad approaches. Same with algorithm questions. They're out as well.
I've moved on from gamification and thoroughly removed all such interventions from everything. I found the extrinsic nature of the mechanisms wasn't helping and were creating a distraction in and of themselves.
Metrics are generally overrated in my view. The ones that matter really matter but the rest are just noise that slows and obfuscates.
I think the usual retort is that at any moment and for any inexplicable reason your entire infrastructure can be deleted for some reason you barely know let alone comprehend. This seems to be the case for apps at least.
I neither support nor deny this belief but it's an increasingly common impression.
I'd be interested in the backstory to this. (Like everyone else I guess)
Seems like I dodged a bullet. I was looking at this a few months ago. Decided to play with love2d instead. Did a few projects in it. Then I got into unreal engine. A further distraction via cryengine used up the remainder of my time. I was about to get into the machinery in September.
Wow. Godot was to be October. So yeah. Bring that forwards.
That EULA is likely a bad idea in general. It's also most likely against the law in some jurisdictions. The backstory would be of interest mainly for probably avoiding these Devs in future if there wasn't a good reason for the debacle. Sour taste all round.
The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general.
"Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...
Three paragraphs and you dismiss it with a sentence. Since you're criticising I think you could have done better.
The asking questions approach is a great way to dig out the weeds especially when someone's thinking appears to be a mess. Especially if you think they are somehow malicious or have a less than positive intent.
But water freezes and gets bigger. It's inflationary!
So in real terms they're paying people less AND company exec bonuses are well beyond reasonable. Yet any argument towards a pay rise on that minimum wage is seen as inflationary.
Recent wars didn't exactly help with funding health sciences. Seems to be a few questions around our specie's priorities as of late. Still fighting over dirt and who has the highest or fancier sandcastle.
It's a pity we can't compete on cures created or something more useful like, I don't know, carbon removed from atmosphere. There's an interesting competition worth winning.
I don't think we need to muddy the water by saying bad software. Just write the word software. It's multiple layers upon layers. This isn't automatically bad.
There's so much more going on. I don't know if the complexity is all required but we're doing more now. There's just more going on. That's how it is. We need the abstractions. Maybe not all of them. But we need more abstractions and tools running now. There's so much to manage.
I don't see us reducing this complexity that much other than consolidation and some simplification to clean things as they get sorted further. But there is still a need for the layers. It's not 2005. Things are more complex.
The nearest analogy is would you like to code everything in line numbered BASIC or would you like to do it using some modern equivalent? Even with the additional layers there has been real progress in the tools. Improvements across a multitude of metrics. It's not all complexity for the sake of complexity.
Smile. It's another stage of progress. The old mess will fall away. At the next stage what we see as an improvement now will be the next stage's mess.
There's a whole slew of problems that will need even newer tools.
We haven't even scratched the surface of the automation we'll require in ten years time.
This puts into light how the usd works. And how inflationary money printing is. Every dollar printed might as well be seen as debt or burden. That's an interesting aside.
More relevant to stablecoins:
If the stablecoins need constant funding then what is their real value? Why should someone hold them? Why spend them? Why owe them? Constant funding itself isn't bad as such but how much and how often are what decide value.
This is not to say they are useful or useless. But it certainly seems like the market hasn't got a firm answer either. The greater market is at least certainly ambivalent about them.
Contrast what would happen if any of these stablecoins were used for purchasing crude oil or wheat or some other international commodity. In that case we'd see very different views on their value.
What I found interesting is the iterative process. Failure is simply experience you carry forward to inform future decisions. Its not necessarily a permanent judgement that cripples you.
Stackless Python allows you to run hundreds of thousands of tiny tasks, called "tasklets", in a single main thread. These tasklets can run completely decoupled, or they can communicate via "channels".
Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.