Ubuntu because it requires the least amount of hack fixes to get working.

And snap has vastly simplified software installation.

That’s rather optimistic. I’m pretty sure it’s daily. Although, perhaps it’s only once a month that it gets upvoted

This is the catch 22 of PC gaming. On the one hand you’ve got people complaining that the latest games require high end hardware to run on release day - and simultaneously at the other end of the spectrum people are complaining that supporting low end hardware is dragging a game down?!

Full price? I’ve had over a week of gameplay for just a £1 Game Pass trial. Usually I tire of games after just 3 days or 30 hours or so for me and I’m sure many other casual gamers it’s great value.

Enscape provide real-time photorealistic VR rendering for architectural software ( https://enscape3d.com/features/architectural-virtual-reality/) so with some conversion of the geometry from unity the only missing link is interactivity.

I’ve never understood 4k. Surely it’s better to play high settings on a QHD screen than medium on 4k?

This was why I favoured console gaming over PC. Having a standardised hardware always meant you don’t have the heart ache of a game not performing well. With the introduction of the Steam Deck hopefully that will become the new baseline for future games.

I’d actual prefer they avoided going for photo realism, it always tends to fall short. The art style they’ve developed works really well - realistic detail and form but with a plastic sheen and strongly saturated colours.

I think the question is flawed and so are the responses. You all wrote far too much so I cba to read

The revolutionary aspect is the quantity of the satellites and the affordability of access due to reduction in deployment costs.

There are certainly more secure options but better is unlikely given how revolutionary starlink is.

Chrome’s UI was light years ahead of the competition. I’d be tempted to say they had an impact on the design of all desktop applications.

They only require permission to write to the password field, they don’t necessarily need to read passwords. Although it does change the work flow for some users.

As someone who read a lot as a child I still find myself saying hyperbowl. I’d certainly heard the correct pronunciation but it wasn’t until very late that I made the connection to the word I’d learned by reading.

How many people are actually returning this product though? Nobody is going to any effort to return a product that costs so little.

And everything I’ve read about this recall makes the reason clear so I can’t see anyone opting not to just consume it - which more than likely they already did immediately on purchase.

My mantra has always been to bring solutions not problems. Applying that to code reviews makes for a far more productive experience.

Rather than just pointing out errors in code help the developer with prompts towards the solution.

Or, if you’re too lazy to explain why something shouldn’t be done then why should another developer have to act on your criticism?

I wish this had been my experience. I pushed for so long in my last company for standards to be written, code formatters implemented and objectivity to be brought to reviews but it was always ignored.

Instead I had to endure every employee who claimed seniority (in a non hierarchical company) subjecting their opinion on style in reviews. It came up the point that I dreaded having to work with specific people because they kept triggering my PTSD with their moving target of micro management.

Only afterwards did I truly appreciate how poor a lot of their opinions were. Now one of my first questions when approaching a new project is what standards we’re following. If they look at me blank faced that’s a pretty solid red flag.

This was my experience too. At first I found code reviews to be an invaluable resource for improving my code. But I then reached a point where I’d learned everything I could from a particular reviewer.

I’d submit code that met every criteria, but the reviewer would still nit pick on tiny details that were entirely subjectective. It was no longer about the quality of code it became about the reviewer trying to put their mark on my work.

The only solution was to either ignore their nits or adopt the hairy arm technique whereby you include intentional errors for the reviewer to comment on so they feel their time had been valuable and you get away without yours being wasted.

jQuery was an essential stepping stone back when JS was lacking a ton of features that people take for granted these days.

Sure everything could have been done with Vanilla JS but it was verbose and difficult to follow. jQuery made it possible for any developer to quickly make a page dynamic

Yep. And three functions is better than one for legibility even if one would be fewer lines of code