Or violence. I've met enough of these people to know that love and acceptance just emboldens their hate.

I'll take a grub cli over a bsod any day

This is a reminder that because of rulings by the supreme court, this ruling now ONLY applies to the jurisdiction of this particular federal judge and NOWHERE else in the country, so until the Supreme Court gets to ruling on this there's effectively no change to the executive order anywhere else.

Top...men...

"Reminds me of this time back in Saint Olaf..."

Do you want a thriving emulation scene?

Because that's how you get a thriving emulation scene.

Any company making games where they're pushing graphics into top graphics card territory for no good gameplay reason can go straight to hell in 2026.

It's 2026. We no longer substantiate anything - we just make whatever claims we want and attack whoever dares to call us out on it. That's how I got my PhD.

Because they all died, and then again on the corpse run.

We got new Mozart before we got Winds of Winter.

That's my feelings after seeing Expedition 33 on UE5.

The game was absolutely phenomenal, but there is ABSOLUTELY no reason that that game should've forced me to upgrade my graphics card just to throw extraneous particle effect bullshit over every location that can't even be turned off. It's beyond ridiculous.

It isn't the details or severity of the break that matters.

It's that the quality control process is SUPPOSED to catch that, and whatever sorry excuse for a process they're using now ALLOWED a break that was obvious, visible, and repeatable, inside a critical, core function of the operating system, to make it to the end users, something that should trigger as an immediate, flashing warning light. That means the entire quality control process at the very least is SEVERELY compromised and unreliable, and there could very easily be MUCH more severe vulnerabilities and bugs hiding underneath that AREN'T immediately visible. To anyone who has done any professional development for non-disposable code bases, this isn't a whisper of a problem - it's an air horn.

Also cures COVID, I'm told.

/s

Tremendously.

For what it's worth, I really think the books are done and sitting there waiting for him to die.

He's already got more money than he knows what to do with, and releasing them risks them not living up to the hype and him living the rest of his life with that hanging over his head. He's just going to enjoy himself and we'll get the ending after he's gone.

I get it.

Linux doesn't charge hundreds of dollars per license to fund the development, rake in billions in profit, and then funnel that money into stock dividends instead of a proper quality assurance team.

Yeah. I've only been a veteran of the process for 20 years - I don't know a thing about what I'm talking about.

"non-breaking" is a meaningless distinction. What you're REFERRING to is a "cosmetic" bug, and "cosmetic", depending on the software and the shop, does NOT mean "acceptable for release", and FURTHERMORE, this is not a new bug that's been filed as low priority or will-not-fix, but a REGRESSION because it DID work in the past, which means it's DOUBLE damning.

I'm not interested in waving around credentials about who knows more about software development - if you work in a shop that doesn't care about quality, that's between you and the shop. But if you want to claim that someone at Microsoft said "Yeah, it doesn't correctly reflect the filename, a critical check to ensure users don't accidentally delete the wrong file, which is something that's worked for 30 years" and then signed off on that, instead of the MUCH more likely explanation that NOBODY is looking at ANY of this crap with the detail they should be, I'm afraid I'm going to have to laugh.

To give you an idea, in the XBox division, a division of Microsoft, this would be considered a compliance failure that prevents a game from going gold for launch on the platform, and if caught would cost the developer thousands and weeks to fix before the game could go live because it would necessitate starting the final step of the certification process over again, because EVERY SINGLE TEST has to be run again to ensure JUST this kind of regression doesn't resurface.

But no - the same company would claim it's totally acceptable for the operating system that runs bank software because it's "non-breaking".