catshirt

69 ms·

1. 241.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   sure- but just like chess, it's about finding an opponent of equal skill to have fun with and play together. SC2 specifically has a few options for this. one really fun option is playing 2v2 vs CPU. or 1 v CPU on easy mode (it is essen
2. 242.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   sure but it's irrelevant. it's like saying "baseball is inaccessible because Derek Jeter is amazing". or "i can't play chess because Carlsen Magnus is a grandmaster". there are so many responses suggesting
3. 243.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   i played SC2 and CSGO on OSX just fine for years. when i switched to better graphics hardware on Windows my CS rank jumped from MG2 to LEM, but i can't attribute this to the OS at all. also, having only one hero to control only gives y
4. 244.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   no I don't. I only dabble with these languages for fun. as a musician before a programmer, I find live coding very novel, but never the optimal way to produce live music. so I know this is not the answer you are looking for at all, and
5. 245.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   > "ChucK is probably one of the easiest ways to get started programming synths" i have to disagree. if you compare to SC, maybe. but because time is a first class citizen of ChucK, it actually complicates the process of program
6. 246.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   cmon now edit: now that i see the price... yeah you could say it sounds a little tinny
7. 247.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   can't take credit for this idea, but i wonder why we haven't created a domain specific language for law & legislation. language intended for verbal communication (ie. english) seems like a really poor option.
8. 248.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   i mean, aren't specified versions crucial for compatibility? what am i missing? on second thought, i guess you are suggesting to specify the major, with an ambiguous minor? but doesn't this require that no package will introduce a
9. 249.▲
   by catshirt 11y ago

   i exercise my own blatant disregard for syntax and grammar rules but christ man, try a comma.
10. 250.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    of course. and we can't stop now- it's working! how convenient for them.
11. 251.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    you nailed it. i didn't have the patience to try to articulate this. it's an unfamiliar medium for telling a story, and it's freaking people out. just sounds so hypocritical and old fashioned to consider this tasteless or imm
12. 252.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    surely then, you found Titanic (DiCaprio) & Pearl Harbor (Affleck) tasteless as well?
13. 253.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    it's pretty short sighted to call this tasteless. you could have, at the very least, tried to explain yourself.
14. 254.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    your source doesn't support your claim at all... > "increase to 11.2 billion in the year 2100" > "may rise to 16 billion by 2100" > "forecasts between 9.3 and 12.6 billion in 2100, and continued growt
15. 255.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    10 days is completely fucking negligible. i'd put myself in jail for 10 days just for the experience. disgusting.
16. 256.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    "As someone who really has social anxiety, this is not it. I have absolutely no issues understanding non-verbal communication. I'm simply scared of certain social situations, for no rational reason." i can't say i have s
17. 257.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    the deleted comment asked how the BigQuery data set was different than http://hn.algolia.com
18. 258.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    in what way is it similar?
19. 259.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    hey, i never said i could prove he was right. :) you make a great point. edit: i assume his point could be better articulated as "open standards have only produced dreck". which leads back to my original post: "to counter,
20. 260.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    you're being unnecessarily literal- we can use variable values for "perfect", most of which are clearly better than the system explained in the article. but, if we must be so literal, i'd say you're not using your i
21. 261.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    jordanlev said "a perfectly architected system would mean it's controlled by one company" not "every system controlled by one company is perfectly architected" to counter, you'd need to find an example of a per
22. 262.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    this sounds like a fish flopping around on land, looking for purpose, and developers to help it make money
23. 263.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    definitely! and, be consistent. an example that is clear and consistent, albeit contrived, would be to wrap arguments when there are more than one: foo bar foo (bin, bar) or if that's too "iffy" for you, you just always wrap
24. 264.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    i'm not the type to call a title "misleading", and this is definitely not misleading in the traditional intentional sense... but, lets be clear here. a LOT more than " 50% of people " do 0 searches per day. i mean s
25. 265.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    so sad how jarring this perspective is and yet i still can't stop...
26. 266.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    now that you mention it, at least they didn't take the opportunity to make me click through at least 24 pages to see 12 pictures
27. 267.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    this guys website is awesome, his course looks awesome, and his projects & mission are admirable. consider me mancrushing.
28. 268.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    in 6 years here this is the first post i felt compelled to comment on without even reading the article. the comments here reinforce my decision... if you have read the GraphQL docs, and built a sufficiently complex REST API, there is litera
29. 269.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    > The article doesn't really give me the confidence that I could open a shop in that area, be nice to people and everything would be fine and dandy... what i can't reconcile is that it did kind of did give me that confidence.
30. 270.▲
    by catshirt 11y ago

    memorandum: "we are laundering money. please do not rob us"