Sisko was never glorifying being dark. In the pale moonlight is a fantastic episode, but I don’t remember it glorifying the darkness.

I like Star Trek because it’s optimistic. I want to see competent, emotionally mature, people solving problems by working together.

If I want to see bad apples I can look outside.

I didn’t really struggle with the controls when I replayed part of it this year. I lost interest because the difficulty starts out a little rough (wolves will kill you) and then a few hours later you’re so strong that even narratively scary things just melt.

I expect that’s some people, yeah. Accepting that climate change is real means accepting uncomfortable ideas. Like that they’re responsible, at least a little.

Some people can’t accept that they’re everything less than a saint. You tell them that walking to the store is better for them and the environment than driving and they go berserk. Can’t handle the implication that they’re not perfectly faultless.

Many people would rather everyone suffer pollution and climate catastrophe than those people have a nice life.

I used to care more about work. But this job pays garbage and is frothing over AI, so fuck them.

Seems like another example where the people making decisions are not qualified to make those decisions.

As with all things involving humans, you can’t really change minds with facts. It’s just emotions and peer pressure.

Not a bad post, but I expect it won’t sway people who aren’t already on board.

No shit.

One of the problems is all the people who were fucking wrong don’t suffer any lasting consequences. They will be listened to again.

Neat. I’d love to work on that instead of at a horrible megacorp.

Maybe they’ll build something to easily report jobs with no salary listed.

A large part of code review has been preventing people from doing stupid shit. AI is making stupid shit worse. It’s not defects, it’s “adding a whole micro service to get the user name from the ID, when the name is already in the metadata” or whatever that recent meme was.

Or that time a guy wrote a whole DSL instead of using the existing framework. Technically impressive, but adds a huge burden.

“hey, I want to run a game about {theme, conflict} in {setting} using {rules system}. You want in?”

When you have enough interested players, do a “session 0”. Talk about what kind of game you’re aiming for (serious? Comedy? Deadly? Power fantasy?). Set lines and veils. You’re going to have a bad time if you’re aiming for tactical combat in a grim world, but two of your players want Loony Toons.

I highly recommend players make character concepts together. You should probably play “you all meet in a tavern” once or twice because that’s kind of a whole Thing, but that brings in a bunch of problems.

Read how Fate does it: https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/phase-trio . Maybe just read the whole section on starting a game there. A common property of good DMs is reading other sources and stealing from them.

Absolutely do not get super committed to any particular story beat. Do not expect the players to get captured, or for them to agree to a sea voyage. If you want the game to be about something like that, start there. Tell the players. You can absolutely pitch a game based on “you were all overcome by an orc raising party. You’ll start as prisoners planning an escape”. Do not play out them losing the fight.

Your players are probably not going to pay a lot of attention to your setting. This is doubly true if you unilaterally made it up. If you give players input into the setting details (see again how fate does it), they’ll be more invested and remember more. (Though some players hate having narrative agency, so watch out for that)

When I tried Percy it was really bad. I think it wasn’t even doing real screenshots, but some horrible serialization of the dom nonsense. Some of what came out of their tests just wasn’t accurate at all.

Every time I’ve tried to implement visual tests it’s a bad time.

A good unit test encodes intent. This kind of test, and snapshot tests, tends to be too broad. Something changed but was it on purpose? I dunno maybe just accept it. People don’t look at it closely. It’s numbing.

As others have said, you probably want to stop having shit randomly shared in multiple places. If you change something used in more than one place, probably manually check.

Interesting. I find that where I work, often the biggest problems are non-technical. It’s the upper manager that says “we don’t have time for automated testing” and then our releases take two days of manual testing and bug fixing.

Interesting. I dislike writing bash scripts so this might appeal to me, but probably not before a stable 1.x release.

Tried to submit one and it didn’t seem to go through.

My hypothetical is a lot of recruiters are kind of bad at their job, but there’s so many desperate candidates that they don’t need to do much to get passable results.

I would recommend the invite tracking. Keep track of who invites bad actors, even higher order. If your friend’s friends suck, that should reflect a little on you. If no one has vouched for you, then you’re less trusted.

Cool. Fuck Microsoft

I wouldn’t do it based on join time. Age doesn’t always map to quality, and it might encourage people to make sleeper accounts to age up.

I would do it based on a graph of trust.

Let’s say you’re user 0. You trust yourself. You can then invite or vouch for a user. If they misbehave, it should reflect badly on you. If they post good content, you should share some of the glory. If one of those users invites someone, the good and bad flow upstream.

People no one has vouched for have very little power. You can filter them out with a toggle.

You’d be able to see the web of behavior. If someone keeps inviting or endorsing assholes, then they’re a problem.

Endorsing is different than upvote. You can upvote whatever, but endorsing is saying you trust this person and you’re willing to put your own reputation and access on the line.

Something like that.

Right. Inertia is the metaphor I used to express that idea.