I think, the problem is that management wants the expert humans to use the non-expert tools, because they’re non-experts and don’t recognize that it’s slower for experts. There’s also the idea that experts can be more efficient with these tools, because they can correct dumb shit the non-expert tool does.

But yeah, it just feels ridiculous. I need to think about the problem to apply my expertise. The thinking happens as I’m coding. If I’m supposed to not code and rather just have the coding be done by someone/-thing else, then the thinking does not occur and my expertise cannot guarantee for anything.
No, I cannot just do the thinking as I’m doing the review. That’s significantly more time-consuming than coding it myself.

Well, there might’ve been some change that made it even more like the original, which could’ve prompted such a title either way…

Well, there was an effort to solve it on a technological level, via the Do Not Track header (DNT). The idea was that when users actively signal they don’t want to be tracked, then even in weaker jurisdictions, you can’t justify doing it anyways.

But Google and Facebook said outright that they would not honor DNT, which meant virtually no webpages could honor it, since Google Analytics and the Facebook Like-button were omnipresent on the web at that point.
And then Microsoft killed it off for good by enabling it by default in Internet Explorer. That meant the DNT header did not anymore necessarily represent a user actively choosing to not be tracked, so it became meaningless in court.

Well, and after that had failed, the EU came about with the GDPR to solve it with laws.
But here it also needs to be said that a cookie banner is effectively only required, if you implement tracking.^[1]
But of course, the ad industry did not want webpage owners to realize they could avoid needing a cookie banner by removing ads or going for non-tracking ads, so they spread a whole bunch of FUD.

And now we’re here, with cookie banners virtually everywhere, which are often not even GDPR-compliant either (like the PC Gamer cookie banner here), since it’s supposed to be just as easy to decline, as it is to accept. If it is not, then that’s not legally consent, because consent has to be freely given.

TL;DR: Ad industry bad.

There is also pre-made blocklists for uBlock Origin for Cookie Banners, which you judt have to turn on.

Combine with e.g. Cookie Autodelete to automatically remove cookies, and it’s effectively as if you declined.

I would still call it virtually the same game, especially since they didn’t even bother to fix lots of awful bugs.

But I think, we can both agree that Morrowind would need a significantly larger overhaul, if you wanted to make it feel ‘modern’. You’d need voice acting. Perhaps optional quest markers. Well, and the combat system would basically need reimplementing from scratch.

For PC, there’s already OpenMW to do that: https://openmw.org/

Basically, it’s a fan reimplementation of the Morrowind engine, which you feed the original game files into. It also has a number of improvements over the original, like higher resolution, higher view distance and virtually no loading times.

Screenshot the document, then paste it into a new document.

…I am just joking, I have no idea what they mean either. 🙃

Welp, I posted my hot take that impl Deref is similar to inheritance as a meme in !rust@lemmy.ml: https://lemmy.ml/post/42514248

Now, let’s see how many feathers get ruffled. 🙃

Oh wow, what the hell. I’m not actually familiar with C++ (just with Rust which gets similar reactions with the ampersands), but that’s insane that it just copies shit by default. I guess, it comes from a time when people mostly passed primitive data types around the place. But yeah, you won’t even notice that you’re copying everything, if it just does it automatically.

And by the way, Rust did come up with a third meaning for passing non-references: It transfers the ownership of the object, meaning no copy is made and instead, the object is not anymore allowed to be used in the scope that passed it on.
That’s true, except for data types which implement the Copy trait/interface, which is implemented mostly for primitive data types, which do then get treated like C++ apparently treats everything.

I guess, if you come from garbage-collected languages, you might be used to not needing the ampersands, because everything is automatically a reference in those…

I’ve only heard of them being trash so far. I was hoping they’d still have some resemblance of fun. But if the small fraction of folks who’ve upgraded to a Switch 2 actually were to play more than those on Switch 1, then that would be a pretty clear sign that it just isn’t fun on Switch 1.

But yeah, I’m not yet taking that for granted from this piece of news. I would assume, they wanted to drop the Switch 1 so quickly, because then they can start extending the game in ways that use more resources, which might be fine on their other supported platforms.

Ah yeah, via deref coercion, which is also called “auto-dereferencing” at times. Not to be confused with “auto-referencing”, which is also a thing^[1].

You can do some wild shit with deref coercion. And when I say “wild”, I guess, I’m talking about the most normal thing for Java devs, because well, it’s a lot like inheritance. 😅

Basically, this concept of being able to pass &String into a parameter that takes &str also applies to the self parameter. Or in other words, methods implemented on str can also be called on String, as if String extends str.
And well, obviously you can also make use of that yourself, by writing your own wrapper type. You can even “override” existing methods in a sense by re-defining them in the wrapper type.

I had to play around a bit with it myself, so here’s a playground: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=af65ed396dec88c8406163acaa1f8f8d

Huh, so that’s how you guys came up with fish & chips…

Damn, really makes it feel like they were waiting to drop that platform ASAP. I doubt, they have more players on Switch 2 at this point, well, unless the Switch 1 version is really terrible to play, I guess.

The rule of thumb I always tell people is that they should generally put owned data into struct fields and references into function parameters.

Well, to me, it sounded like they themselves can’t rely on prefers-color-scheme, which is why the manual toggle is necessary, but it doesn’t hurt to support it for other folks.

I guess, that does mean that a solution without persistence is going to be annoying, but yeah, I don’t think that’s solvable without JS. One could ensure that the JS is entirely optional, so that when the user blocks it, you simply get no persistence, but that’s probably about it…

In my experience, this happens in two ways. Yeah, sometimes a senior just overdoes it due to a lack of experience or shitty requirements or whatever.

But it also happens a lot that juniors just don’t understand why the layer makes sense to introduce. For example, juniors will readily intermix IO and logic, because they don’t yet understand that this makes code untestable and adds a load of additional complexity into already complex logic code. From that viewpoint, pulling all the IO code out will look like unnecessary complexity, when it’s not.

Ragebait headline. The guy does say that a proper remake or a new game set in the Morrowind region could be good. Just a remaster like the Oblivion remaster, with modern graphics slapped onto the original gameplay wouldn’t work too well.

Ah yeah, I guess, users would expect some action to happen when they click that toggle, not just for it to change from automatic-dark to manual-dark.

Perhaps the simplest non-JS and non-persistent solution would then be to have it pick the color-scheme automatically by default, but if the checkbox is checked, then set the colors to the opposite.

So, probably something like this:

body {
  color-scheme: light dark;

  color: light-dark(black, white);
  background-color: light-dark(white, black);
}
@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
  body:has(#theme-toggle:checked) {
    color-scheme: light; /*opposite*/
  }
}
@media (prefers-color-scheme: light) {
  body:has(#theme-toggle:checked) {
    color-scheme: dark; /*opposite*/
  }
}

You could probably even theme the checkbox to show a sun or a moon, depending on the current color scheme. 🙃

Well, it’s largely legible, so yes.