Ephera

The thing with DIAAS is that it's hardly relevant and I feel like it's played up by misinformation from the meat industry.

Let's say you only eat red lentils for your proteins, which according to that DIAAS calculator has only 59% of the SAA compared to the amino acid distribution that your body needs. Then the solution is simply to eat twice as many red lentils to get to 118% SAA. Your body needs a certain amount of each amino acid, but if you give it more, it can work with that perfectly fine.

DIAAS is only relevant, if you eat close to the minimum amount of protein that your body needs in general, which is hard to do. For example, in the US, the Recommended Dietary Allowance is at 0.8 grams protein per kilogram of body weight. Which is a one-size-fits-all number they chose to cover the necessary intake even for athletic and pregnant folks. The majority of people need less protein than that. And yet, according to this site the average American eats 1.6 times as much.

I always find this question bewildering. There are so many vegan protein sources, some of which are really close to meat in taste/texture or which taste great on their own.
With insects, we'd need to invest lots of work to come up with recipes, to build farms and we'd ultimately need to grow plants to feed them, too, meaning they would generally be more expensive.

Is it just the assumption that because it's a dead animal, that this makes it 'better' somehow? Otherwise, I don't understand why we're even considering insects.

I don't have much experience with IPv6 yet either, but as I understand, the primary benefit is that you can get rid of a lot of the crappiness of IPv4, which you might just deem 'normal' at this point, like NAT and DHCP. It does happen quite a bit, for example, that we'd like a unique identifier for a host, but with IPv4, you need to store a separate UUID to accomplish that.

You could say, they are

...sheepish. *Insert CSI: Miami intro*

A few years ago, I would have fully agreed with you, but having tried my hand at (hobbyist) gamedev broke those rose-tinted glasses for me. It's just extremely hard to curate gameplay mechanics.

The only real way to know whether a mechanic works in your game, whether it's fun, is to implement it. That means you'll be programming for weeks and at the end of it, you might end up deciding that it actually isn't fun, so you get to rip it back out.
This is also a somewhat linear process. If you think of another mechanic at a later point, you're not going to re-evaluate all previous mechanics to see whether a different combination would've been more fun. Instead, you just decide whether this new mechanic adds fun to your mechanic-soup or distracts from it.

Point is, even as a hobbyist and idealist, with theoretically infinite time, I quickly learned to swallow my pride and appreciate when something just adds fun, whether it perfectly fits in or not. You're just not going to create the perfect game. And a game that's a sum of inconsistent, fun parts is still more fun than a coherent game that doesn't exist.

Of course, this does not mean, you should include mechanics even though they're overused. That seems to rather be a result from long development cycles, where games decide to include the mechanic when it's not yet overused, e.g. when a popular game featured that mechanic, but once the game comes out, then a whole bunch of other games have come out before, which had also decided to include that same mechanic.

I think, part of it is also that it's a rather isolated feature which is fun on its own. You don't need multiple systems working together to make parrying fun. Instead, you just react in the right moment and there's your endorphins. Pretty much the hardest part about implementing it, is to make enemy attacks readable, which you likely need for dodge rolls, too. And then especially for AAA titles, which can't afford to experiment much, such an isolated feature is just a no-brainer to include.

OCaml has a camel with two bumps. So, that's gotta be the Perl dromedary camel...

Any normal UI framework will unload UI elements when they're not shown. Yes, that means a CPU/memory spike is normal. But on a modern PC, that spike should be much lower than even 1%, which is why you can't typically see it.

I mean, for me that does come from a place of appreciating real work. If this post would've been AI-generated, I would not have cared about it at all. But that they built the whole scene in Blender, that makes it cool.

Yeah, I considered explaining that differently, but figured it doesn't really matter for the story. 😅
It's "edge" basically in the sense that it's on-the-edge towards the physical world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_computing

In our case, there's some dumb devices, which wouldn't be able to talk across the internet on their own, so we put Raspberry Pis next to them to hook them up to the internet. In other words, the Raspberry Pis just push network packages through, they're not going to be crunching numbers or whatever.

At $DAYJOB, we've been working on a service which uses Raspberry Pis as edge devices. And our product manager – bless him – has made sure we'd have enough hardware budget and wanted to buy only Raspberry Pi 5, so we'd have really good performance.

And I think, we really befuddled him with our reaction, because you know, normally devs won't say no to good hardware, but because our software happens to be efficient and Linux is efficient, we've just been like, eh, a Pi 3B+ is already a lot beefier than we need it.
We had to explain that to him like five times before he actually started to believe it. 🙃

Yeah, perhaps the most fitting example here is non-vegetarian diets: Feed plants to livestock. Livestock uses up some energy for its own existence. Then feed livestock to humans.

There is a slight difference in that livestock can ingest leaves, which we cannot, but in industrialized farms, they typically get fed produce anyways, to make them grow more quickly.