nebeker

I mean, if you want your prints to be asynchronous you’re looking for trouble to begin with.

The previous statement is a joke.

Ah, yes: weaponizing cybersecurity requirements to trick - I mean “motivate” - higher management to do things “right.”

My thought as well, but those stones were shaped to match each other, reducing the amount of grout needed. It just goes to show the old ways still work, but you have to commit.

This is a dangerous metaphor. Remove the old wall and it turns out the new beautiful wall was leaning against and supported by it.

I get what you mean, it’s just that the metaphor could support both perspectives.

Surely through an intermediate - real - language?

I’ve said this before only to hear “we don’t have time to set that up and agree on a common style” and “that’s team B’s responsibility since we’re contributing to their code base.” Guess what kind of issue we kept wasting time on?

There are a couple of takeaways here. I think the main one is acknowledging that many technical problems are deeply human problems and the existence of a technical solution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply the human solution as well.

It’s really interesting that Proton feels like a step forward in cross-platform gaming, but it also made it more economical to focus on Windows builds and dependencies.

Steam has a lot of power in the market and a vested interest in making things easier for developers and publishers. I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked up (more of) the slack in keeping systems backwards compatible.

Same as Microsoft, sort of. They can’t afford to have Apple’s “courage” in dropping x86 and then amd64.

Steam, as mentioned, and an old iMac that I’ve been meaning to dual-boot for a while.

This kind of thing is mostly inevitable, but has an impact on software and game preservation.

The i686-pc-windows-gnu target has been demoted to Tier 2, as mentioned in an earlier post.

Fedora is discussing dropping support entirely, right? Interesting times we live in…

Like if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.

And bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not!

This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.

I came here to laugh, not to cry!