Adding a single element from each other office would be a neat way to tie them together. For example, the new wave wall with a single lavalamp, hanging rainbow, and dual pendulum.
"Kuszmaul remembers being surprised that a tool normally used to ensure privacy could confer other benefits."
It was surprising to me too! But reflecting on it more closely, most performance isn't about "faster" in a literal sense of "more instructions run per time", but about carefully choosing how to do less work. The security property here being "history independence" is also in a way stating "we don't need to, and literally cannot, do any work that tracks history".
It's definitely an interesting approach to performance, essentially using cryptography as a contraint to prevent more work. What properties do we need, and what properties can we ignore? The question becomes if we MUST ignore this property cryptographically, how does that affect the process and the related performance?
It certainly feels like it may be a useful perspective, a rigorous approach to performance that may be a path to more improvements in key cases.
This level had a circular hallway ring around the outside that had two full rotations around without intersecting, using the 'build' engine's ability to separate areas by their room connections that also drove the 'room over room' technology which was groundbreaking at the time.
It made for fun multiplayer, and the illusion held well there. The central chamber has 4 entrances/exits if I recall, and you would only encounter two of them in each loop around the outside.
I recall building a toy level while experimenting with the engine that "solves" the "3 houses with 3 utilities without crossing" puzzle using this trick as well.
There are a lot of crazy people in industry, unfortunately. Not as much at the big flashy tech startups or places you hear about in the news, but there are still plenty of 'work a day' businesses in corners of industry that do not have expertise in these areas that absolutely should.
I helped my current employer make this transition and it was similar to the description in the article. Controlling database change in source was foreign to them.
Jail time for bugs that should have been preventible and caused harm to users. Mistakes and bugs happen, but we also have methods of mitigating them. Standards, quality controls, tests, analysis, and other care. I specifically said jail time for gross negligence because that means not taking care and allowing harm to users.
If you had an error that leaked private information, it's worth an investigation. If it made it through despite controls, that's understandable. If they find you failed to do analysis on the risk to users privacy, if you failed to have controls in place, if you didn't code review or test the code, then you have made specific choices that harmed users. That should be criminal.
We need to take software engineering seriously as a discipline. We have the potential to do more wide scale aggregate harm than any structural engineering collapse. We need to start acting like it.
software bugs cause mass harm. We can't ask people to never make mistakes, but we can ask that they have appropriate practices, standards, quality controls, and care. Not taking appropriate measures to mitigate risks that can significantly affect millions of users is willful negligence, and should be a crime.
Not the op, but meaningful fines, executive jail time for gross negligence and especially for intentionally taking inappropriate risks, breaking up or closing companies that are shown over time to be unable to safely handle sensitive information. Proper regulation. Consequences that can't be cynically taken as the cost of doing business.
For me, in Chrome, I could not find "Show In Viewer", but the static preview image on the left side has a "launch" text splash when hovering. Clicking it opens a player with play/pause/step and other functionality.
Have we actually seen the real interface? There was the first round, which was a mockup many were told was a 'screenshot', and a follow up that was a second mock up that was closer.
The cue I learned for that was "the stick man is standing on the line | and leaning forward / or backward \ " (Which is of course western reading direction sensitive)
The \1 is from the original puzzle, and refers to the value of the first (capture group). I ran into this issue while filling out the puzzle. The \1 is required to 'propagate' the value in that square to other places. The puzzle is ambiguous without this fix.
Thanks for the pointer, I've added the note in the comments. Hopefully the puzzle is editable.
This is a wonderfully complicated mix of in game rewards, but they aren't DLC, some have exclusive in game rewards you can't get elsewhere. You can buy some Amiibo retail, but others which unlock exclusives in a brand new game are locked behind owning collectibles which aren't retail-available any more (and expensive from third party resellers). Some of the items are cosmetic, nice callbacks to older games and similar. Others provide in game advantages.
That makes the ethical questions very challenging to address. Personally I feel more 'ok' with hackery for the items that aren't available retail, but I hate 'pay to win' in games as well. It's hard to articulate how I feel about the situation. I think the article is spot-on that making these available in DLC packs or something as well would clarify the situation a lot.
Play! This aspect of learning is crucial for children too, but as a developer nothing pushes learning like playing around with things that interest you.
They absolutely care if you call, if you show up to town hall meetings. It matters. They are elected officials, and they do ultimately care and worry that if they do unpopular things they will not get re-elected.
Write your senators numbers on a note by your desk, put them in your phone as contacts. Add your house representatives as well. When you hear about an important issue, make a quick call. Ask them to represent you on upcoming issues. Thank them for their position on issues you support, let them know you are disappointed in them for things you oppose.
I had heard good things about mint, and I liked the 'dashboard' screenshots and such. Then I looked at how it worked, particularly "provide your bank credentials" part.
It didn't take long to realize how incredibly dangerous that was, and leave.
Banks should provide API access for services like this because it mitigates significant security issues.
Yes, good point. It was discussing in past test in the context of "DeCOMification" mainly. It would be interesting to have some insight into new component creation vs use of existing components.