carmackfan

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   You don't need to precisely know about the future to know that inheritance isn't for sharing behavior. Unfortunate it's not really taught properly.
2. 2.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   Your problem was a misuse of inheritance, not encapsulation or interfaces.
3. 3.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   Many social/legal constructs are for lack of a better term, idiotic. Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies? Exclusive control over a scarce resource. If a resource isn't scarce, where your control
4. 4.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   Appeal to law fallacy.
5. 5.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   You're missing the point. Ownership implies the resource is scarce. If the resource is a pattern, which cannot be physically owned and my usage of the pattern doesn't prevent others from using the pattern, it's nonsensical to
6. 6.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   > You can own your likeness. How?
7. 7.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   That wasn't my point. We can own physical items, land etc. Because it's a scarce resource. If me "owning" something doesn't prevent you from also "owning" it, the concept of ownership of that item is absur
8. 8.▲
   by carmackfan 2y ago

   This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.