lol, I have no idea why someone down voted you.
But yea, the plural of code in the context of programming scripts is just code, but if you were to talk about codes like a code to get into a door pin-pad, it has an “s” at the end for plural. To be honest, I’m sure there’s plenty of native English speakers not in the tech world that would likely also call it “codes” when talking about programming.
When you said “I highly doubt it” in response to the first comment, what were you doubting? You comment does not seem to make sense in response to the comment. They said that the open source project has likely cost more money in lost subscription fee’s than in AWS API calls, and you said you doubt it?
Then the person replying to you said “The general population is very much influenced by the Home Assistant community” not that everyone knows about it. But your comment talks strictly about how commonly known things in the tech world are not commonly known in the general population (which I think is pretty commonly known in the tech world as well).
This comment chain does not seem to be talking about the same things.
I think it could definitely be possible to do locally, and I wouldn’t want a car where I have to connect to servers to connect to it. But I am also not sure I want a car that can be opened with a command on the car itself. The code to access your CAR being stored locally on the car itself, with no server side validation, does seem kinda scary. It’s one thing for someone to manage to get into your online login where you can change the password, it’s another for someone to literally be able to steal your car because they found a vulnerability. It being stored locally would mean people would reverse engineer it, they could potentially install a virus on your car to be able to gain access. Honestly, as a tech guy, I don’t trust computers enough to have it control my car.
Generally, an engineer wants their product to work well and work efficiently. They put effort into a product, and it feels good to see people benefit from that work. The ones making the decisions have money on their mind. If a FOSS version of their paid platform costs them too much money, they will shut it down. Not because it was the engineers decision, but because the one’s making the decision likely don’t even know what github is and just know it’s taking away that sweet subscription money.
I, too, thought it was interesting they considered programming as the IT industry. I mean, sure, you may use scripts once and a while, but that’s very different from a software developer, or someone else who works with/writes code for a living.
As in, the pandemic reduced revenue causing layoffs?
I can’t work anymore because of covid
Why can’t you work anymore because of covid? Do you have a weakened immune system so you can’t risk being exposed to covid, or did you get covid and now have long covid symptoms? If it’s the second one, what long covid symptoms are preventing you from working? I believe you, but it’s just so vague that I’m not sure what you’re referencing
Idk if it’s failing that’s the key to success. I think failing is inevitable, but it’s actually using those failures to learn and improve.
What would the manual transmission do? Unless you literally mean it doesn’t impact the cars driving and is just there for you to move around. Electric vehicles are not changing gears, so there are no gears to hook up a manual transmission to
if it’s useful to you, then why not use it?
I think arguments can be made to avoid using something even if it’s useful to you. For example, burning fossil fuels is useful for humans, but it will destroy our ability to live on this planet. Of course the pros and cons have to be weighed in every situation. But in regards to the (granted, rhetorical) question about why not to use it, I’m sure valid answers could be given.
I worked in a hospital, and patient names should never be paged. Room numbers and alert codes are not PHI, and generally they would say “Adult Male blah blah blah…”. Unfortunately, in concrete mazes, paging is still the most reliable (as seen by how easy it is for others to see). And when you’re as important as a doctor, you need reliability.
To be fair, they did say you can buy it discounted if you wait. To me, as far as the original question goes, pre-ordering the game or buying a marked up “deluxe” version isn’t worth it when you can get it a year later for 50% or more off. If you’re willing to wait a few years, you can easily get them often 80% off or more, and they’re often less buggy because they’ve been patched already. Dark Souls 3 has already gone on sale for 50% off a few times, as has Return of the Obra Dinn(never heard of this, btw), and Baldur’s Gate 3 has already gone on sale for 10% off despite having been released August 3rd.
I enjoy driving stick, but stick will likely not last forever. We will not be able to burn fossil fuels for that much longer in the grand scheme of things. Electric vehicles usually have a single speed transmission, so there are literally no gears to change. Perhaps there may be an alternative fuel vehicle that still has multiple speed transmission, in which case stick could still exist, though how many car manufacturers would make them?
Well, in a roundabout how else are the other drives gonna know you turn right?
lol, I didn’t know you could share chatGPT responses
The secret: at the end of the game leave a key combo (like a cheat code) that skips the tutorial. Anyone familiar with the game could just find it online any time they want to replay it, but new players wouldn’t know it exists.
I did use sources as a big point, but it’s because it’s the easiest to see. Even if we are having a conversation that’s opinion based, a lot of the conversation can be misinterpreted just because of different world views.
I think just about everyone wants what’s best for everyone, but different people see the solution to that differently. What is the “best” for someone? In what areas of their life? Burning fossil fuels offers a lot of jobs, but doing so destroys the planet. Except some argue that it isn’t destroying the planet, and that we’re being lied to. But let’s assume it climate change is real, if one side is saying we need to do away with fossil fuels because it’s destroying our planet, the other side may hear that they want to take away their source of income (how they put a roof over their head, feed their family, enjoy life). And within that conversation, there can be innumerable amount of different understandings based on the people you grew up around, that I can’t even really list examples because it’s too nuanced.
If you want to talk about abortion, the debate is really about when the fetus is a human. It is generally agreed that killing a 1 year old baby, for any reason (financial struggles, the child was the conception of rape, unplanned) that killing a 1 year old child is not okay, regardless of your pro or anti abortion stance. So then you’d be arguing when does the life cross that threshold to definitely not okay? Is it at birth? In which case was the day before it born okay to kill it? Most aren’t okay with late term abortion, but everyone has the line they think it’s okay (with some the line is before the egg is fertilized). Not many people are upset if someone takes a plan B (some people are, but they’re the minority), so stopping the process that early is fine. So then the line would be somewhere between the two, and that’s an extraordinarily complex subject for people without medical degrees to try and discuss (and complex for even those with medical degrees). But of course there’s the aspect of it being the choice of the mother, since it’s the mothers body. In which case you could instead talk about the (obviously) flawed scenario: while you’re sleeping, someone is hooked up to you as a dialysis machine. You wake up to find this was done to you. They need to be connected to you for 9 months to live, and if you disconnect them at any point you will kill them. Is it okay for you to pull the plug? Honestly, I think there’s a lot of valid arguments for either side for that scenario, and both people could be totally right. Both parties have to accept the fact that the other person’s viewpoint has validity to have a peaceful political discussion, but it’s difficult when your own viewpoint makes you feel that they are killing people, or stripping others of basic human rights. Then you get emotional, you become irrational, and you get angry at the other person. It’s just all to likely to happen, we are emotional creatures after all, not machines. And once you start getting irrational, you become more set on your current viewpoint, less likely to hear what they are actually saying, and more likely to misinterpret what they are trying to convey.
This is just two examples of highly controversial topics, but they’re controversial because there’s nuance to it. To be on the same page about all the different parts of the topic is nearly impossible. Not to mention we already have opinions on a lot of it. I’m guessing several people reading this feel inclined to share their opinion on some of the things I said. I don’t think there is anything any online platform can do to have an entirely open discussion. To leave it entirely open for anyone means there will be tension, insults, anger, and whatever else. If you get a few people that can restrain their emotions to have a logical discussion and actually hear what others are saying, you could do it, but then it’s not an open discussion.
300 million AWS api calls costs $1.00. If they lost even 2 sales because people could just use HA instead, they 100% lost more money in subscriptions than the cost of AWS api calls