> It's insane that people think you need to do all this just to get a live updating counter.
Dismissing this guy's tutorial because he didn't clone Facebook is kind of short sided. Everything is about trade offs. You don't need to make your React app isomorphic if you don't mind a slower initial load and lack of SEO. You don't need to use Mongo, you can pass data from your RDBMS directly to your components as props when you render server side or have them call your REST API using an isomorphic request library. You don't need to use ES6 if you use something like webpack and babel.
Don't get me wrong, it's a massively comprehensive piece of work. I'm jealous of the author's chops - they know more about this than I do. But after all this time writing applications small and large, doing isomorphic JS dev feels like a massive step back.
That's one of those statements that seems obviously true, but I think it probably a lot more complicated in real life. Most people don't write things that they want covered by copyright (although it might be anyway).
For example, this message is would be copyrighted by me in most countries. I have absolutely no problem with you making a copy of it (or any other message I've written on HN). To be fair, I completely forget if there is a license clause in the HN agreement that I clicked on when I got my account, but if there isn't I hereby release every message I have ever written on HN under CC0. I don't feel in any way diminished by my action ;-)
Even with software, the vast majority of things I write, I assign copyright to the people who pay me. In fact, copyright is not important to the way I work. I don't write it and then hope someone will pay me after the fact. I have a contract which says that they will pay me for my effort of writing software. Heck, as the old Dilbert cartoon showed, I could twiddle my thumbs all day and I would still get paid (for a while).
Even for the programming I do outside of work, while I usually choose the GPL, if there was not copyright I wouldn't need to worry about licenses and I would still write the code. It would affect me slightly, but I wouldn't be marching down the street trying to reinstate copyright because people were "stealing" my code.
I have had old posts on usenet (yes, I'm that old) stuck on websites even with the wrong attribution (people taking "credit" for my crappy writing... suckers). There is no way I am worried enough to send a takedown request.
I don't think I'm unusual in this respect. In fact, I think the vast majority of people operate the same way. The people who do care are the people who create something in advance (usually without getting paid) and who hope to monetize it later. I have no problem imagining that most of them would cry foul when their work is copied. Every body else (i.e. most of the people in the world)? Not so much.
Most stuff people create ends up having little or no monetary value so copyright is never an issue for them whether they wanted to be covered by it or not. It's when something they create ends up having lots of value that they start caring about copyright.
I have a feeling, in time, detection of of even very small snippets of copyright infringements will be very easily detected by RIAA.
In time, RIAA will be one of the biggest entities on the planet?
In time, they will be sending every offending individual isp a demand letter. The fines will be low of course, at first, but will rise like traffic infractions have in the past twenty years? (I've heard this is alwready taking place?)
In time, we will still use the Internet, but it will end up being so filled with so many potential fines, it might not be worth going on? Notice in the mail from RIAA, "We see you visited www.ingringement of 1-1-2020. The blog had a copy written JPEG on the landing page. Since you looked at the picture, please send us $20.00 and we won't collate all infractions of isp 255:255:255.01 and take you to court."
I see the day, when you hear people saying, "Yea, It's just not worth the risk of a fine."
If I'm alive to see it. I could picture myself saying, "I never should have gotten rid of all my physical books, and I should have kept all those disks of music and entertainment?"
They are collectors items now--who would have thought?"
I would like to see every isp provider purge history immediatly, if technically and legally possible? I'm not sure if ISPs like Comcast, Version, and AT&T could provide access to the Internet without keeping track of individual isp addresses. I don't know why they need to keep a detailed history of every isp we clicked on? Something like TOR, but a commercial version, that every customer would be required to use according to TOS.
Right now they(Facebook, and Google) could be proactive, and start deleting just some of our data on the servers--instead of buying just more space? (and yes,
I know you own the information.) Start with deleting the information you keep on us that over 10 years ago? Please? We might remember the act of kindness when you are begging for customers in the future?
Yeah, the conversation degrades into wishful thinking pretty fast when you ask how we should distribute IP costs once we do away with the patent and copyright system.
Software patents may be broken, but we shouldn't throw away everything because of it.
There are people against copyright in principle though a very small number of people.
Mainly what I see is similar to using amendments to "poison" legislation. The abuse at the core of the current crazy USA rules (and then the USA forcing other countries to adopt USA rules) has poisoned the merits of copyright so much that many people find the current copyright reality abhorrent.
Now it also isn't the greatest comparison as the "poison" amendments are specifically created to exploit voting blocks to have to support the amendment that then creates legislation that can't gain enough votes to pass.
And the copyright law has been created by politicians giving companies that pay them lots of money legislation they want. There was no intent to create an unpalatable system so that people would revolt and demand change. So far it hasn't been so unpalatable as to cause the whole thing to collapse under the weight of poisonous amendments. And in fact with TPP we likely to see the USA again forcing new poisonous provisions onto our vassal states.
But what has happened is those poisonous provision have created a large number of people that are extremely unhappy with the current state of copyright. They just so far have been readily outmaneuvered over and over by the copyright cartel folks (as is happening with TPP, most likely, yet again).
It seems we might be getting close to a tipping point, but maybe not. But in any event I think the anti-copyright talk is much more anti-the-poisonous-copyright-extentions-that-have-nearly-no-economic-justification. I feel that way myself. While at the same time believing sensible copyright rules (the USA constitution seems about right in spirit) are wise. Something close to the years we originally had instead of all the extensions that have been added seems reasonable to me. I'm sure not to others. I feel very strongly the current rules are vastly too restrictive on moving work to the public domain and it is doing great damage to our economy as things stand now.
Agreed, not allowed to disclose anything further than this but close friend helped a client fight for some copyright issues...only to find out that said client had actually stolen works in the past. When karma bites you in the arse, it bites hard.
The trailer implies that these games offer worlds of boundless possibility, what it really is, is worlds with a bunch of generated primitives and sliders to change some numerical parameter. It's not that the trailers for these games lie, it's just we subconsciously expected more.
To achieve what we expect, the programmer needs to implement features that allow emergent gameplay and unpredictable situations to arise alongside procedurally generated settings. There are few single player games that actually pull this off. Dwarf Fortress, ARMA, and GTA V to name a few.
Yeah, sort of like those "32 in 1" and "112 tele-games" Atari cartridges, where each "game" was a permutation on the number of players, how the players were organized into "teams" combined with difficulty levels, or some such modifier. In reality, it was just the same game, and maybe you passed the controller around differently.
Or the cheap "pop station" handhelds that blatantly give you multiple copies of the same game, just with different "sprites": snowboarding, skiing, motorcycle racing, car racing, bike racing, etc all effectively identical.
Any programmer who codes needs to type. Just like any programmer who creates a game needs to design it. When I say the programmer needs to implement something I don't mention obvious processes like "game design" just like I don't mention typing. I also think a dedicated role of a game designer is not required in many games, especially indie ones.
Additionally, emergent gameplay, by it's nature of being emergent is not really designed. It's a sort of iterative process of implementing a feature and testing the consequences.
Surprisingly it is very similar to Minecraft, even more advanced in some areas, for example more diverse lifeforms and gear. I think Minecraft is more interesting simply because it is in 3D and you can actually build real things in it, in contrast to 2D where you only get to do cross-sections.
I wonder if you could make a 2D procedurally-generated exploration game interesting.
Terraria is a much better game than Starbound, the platforming is better done, the design is tighter, the bosses way more interesting. But it's still a pale imitation of Minecraft.
Ultimately Minecraft does more by doing less. The art and design are more interesting because they're cute and different. The roughness becomes part of the charm. Notch understood keenly that mechanics are way more important than polish.
Minecraft has a tighter focus, it doesn't waste developer time doing stupid shit for stupid reasons. So much crap that went into Starbound I could really just do without. The procedurally generated worlds, who really cares about the zillions of worlds you can explore, after you've visited five or so, you've seen them all. A lot of design effort went into making a stupid thing look and feel good.
It's like they went and built an MVP by throwing shit against the wall. You're just wasting your potential audience's time by not doing basic research. I see a ton of games like this, crap that might be good in the future, but I don't want to tough it out because the game isn't fun to play now.
Now, Starbound in all likelihood still made a shitload of money, goes to show you how much opportunity is still there in video games, but the free lunch is going to end at some point.
No Man's Sky doesn't let you build much, if anything.
This isn't Minecraft. Or Civilization. The worlds are not just procedurally generated on first visit, they're procedurally regenerated on every visit, says "How does No Man's Sky Actually Work"[1] You apparently can't affect the worlds much, if at all. The interactive elements are mostly in space, from the trailers. Planets are basically backgrounds.
Everyone's world is generated from the same random seed (so everyone's galaxy is identical) and you'll be able to see who discovered certain places first.
However, there is no simultaneous multiplayer. You won't see other players running around your world.
Why? It was a very fun game and the narrative arch was a work of beauty. The creature editor and Sporepedia granted unlimited possibilities. My real guess is that entitled players were simply out of touch with the industry capabilities.
I'm gonna answer with a comment I made here some time ago:
"Spore was a disappointment by design. Will Wright prefered "The Sim's sales than Half Life's scores"[1]. They catered to the Sim's public. That's why you have a "design everything" feature. And mechanics so simple.
I remember sprinting through the game, realizing the phases had really simple and boring mechanics, and designing all stuff in less than a minute. When I finally reached the space phase it got a little meatier, but no enough to cater my interest for long. And It had severe interaction problems (I have an interstellar empire, but I have to navigate to each planet to collect its manufactured resources? Come on!)
It was a game with a premise for the hardcore strategy/sim fans that was made to be like the Sims. Biggest disapointment in gaming ever!"
The tl;dr summary in some reviews was that it's five games in one, but each one lacks depth and possibilities and the endgame / last stage is kinda repetitive.
But still can't make a profit ? At some point the numbers have to match how much assets and profit the company is actually generating. Uber's profit is nowhere even near 5% of its valuation.
This fundamentally misunderstands growth businesses. Companies in growth phase pump all of their resources into sustaining growth. Once your growth tops out, you flip the switch and turn on the money spigot.
Remember, profit is basically returning money back to your shareholders. If you have an investment opportunity that's 10x better than public markets (100% growth vs 10% growth), why would you ever want to return money back?
"Remember, profit is basically returning money back to your shareholders."
No, paying a dividend is returning money back to your shareholders. Profit (revenue in excess of expenses) can be re-invested back into the company, for example, to hire more people or finance the development of new products. That's how companies grow once they no longer have VC funding (or if they never had VC funding to begin with).
For example, Google is a very profitable company, but none of that profit is being returned to their shareholders since they don't pay a dividend. It's all being reinvested into the company. (The only way a Google shareholder can benefit from Google's increased value is by selling their stock to somebody else.)
I should have clarified that over a long enough timescale, profit has to go somewhere and the only place it can go is shareholders. Right now, Google's profit is sitting as massive cash hoards. Profit that gets reinvested back into the company isn't profit anymore. It's just spending.
Of course, even the word profit itself is ambiguous because it's potentially referring to multiple different concepts. The aim, for this was to illustrate at a high level why investors generally don't want a company to be profitable until they want it to be very profitable.
Moderation on 4chan and /b/ has increased over the last year. Mostly to prevent the posting of peoples personal information. But the posting of shock images has also decreased. I don't know if they are being removed as well.
Mootles himself said that the reason 4chan works is because people make terrible asses of themselves every once in a while, and despite that can still contribute to society and culture. Anonimity ensures that even if you do fuck up, you still arn't ostracized, the benefit being that you will take risks and maybe make something amazing.
The idea of individually singling someone out to make their lives miserable, for something stupid they've done, seems anathema to 4chan's culture. Or at least what makes 4chan's culture work. I see no problem with 4chan's mods removing dox.
You're an idiot, so are we all, but people don't forgive as easily as they should.
So have an upvote, make another post, and try again! Stick around Giorgi.
I've never seen a single site that uses Google login over Facebook. Facebook also owns mobile login on the iPhone. Google is closer to shutting down Google+ than winning any war with Facebook.
> I've never seen a single site that uses Google login over Facebook.
My comment was about the user's choice. Most big publishers with a lot of reach (HuffPost, NYTimes, etc.) will give you more than one OAuth option. And in those cases people are choosing Google more than ever.
For mobile apps, you're right, Facebook OAuth is popular on the iPhone. But on Android...
It probably wouldn't have garnered as much attention, however, this appears to be a common sentiment of those largely considered rich and/or successful. It doesn't make the advice less valuable.
