Just your typical internet guy with questionable humor

  • 52 Posts
  • 1.22K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle





  • If you don’t mind, I can spoil the story for you:

    NMS story

    As you try to help Artemis, you discover that they’re just a simulation of a different reality. Some time after you discover that, you have a choice to either keep a version of that simulation working or shut it off. I dunno what the text says if you shut it off, but if you keep it, Artemis isn’t happy because now they know they’re living in a simulation that they cannot escape. Advancing a bit further, you find out that you are also living in a simulation and that the galaxy you’re in is no different from Artemis’. Atlas is the source of the simulation, but it is faulty for unknown reasons.

    Advance some more and you’re then given a choice to reset the galaxy into something “different” - mechanically, it only affects where you restart and how likely you are to find certain types of planets.




  • It affected everyone using the app, no matter the instance. For example, if me, a resident of programming.dev, tried to look for the mod_abuse or power_tripping communities of any instance, I would see no results. If you tried to connect as a user from any of the blacklisted instances, the app wouldn’t even work

    When you use tesseract to connect to one blacklisted such instance , you just get a message informing you that Tesseract is “incompatible with that instance” which leads one to think of a technical issue, like an API mismatch, rather than the dev being an opinionated coward. - https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/72685299

    Regarding the frontend, seems it also worked “behind the scenes” on the browser, which is stated in the post I linked in that quote. Unfortunately, the github links are all 404 now.











  • Richard P. Gabriel, in his essay “The Rise of Worse-is-Better,” expounds on this theme (see Appendix A). His thesis is that the Unix design philosophy requires that all design decisions err on the side of implementation simplicity, and not on the side of correctness, consistency, or completeness. He calls this the “Worse Is Better” philosophy and shows how it yields programs that are technically inferior to programs designed where correctness and consistency are paramount, but that are evolutionarily superior because they port more easily. Just like a virus.

    The highest achievement of the Unix-aesthetic is to have a command that does precisely one function, and does it well (…) This philosophy, in the hands of amateurs, leads to inexplicably mind-numbing botches like the existence of two programs, “head” and “tail,” which print the first part or the last part of a file, depending. Even though their operations are duals of one another, “head” and “tail” are different programs, written by different authors, and take different options!

    From The Unix Hater’s Handbook

    (I like Linux, but it’s not all sunshine and rainbows)