PhilipTheBucket

IDK what is the panic about the distinction between a game update and a game DLC. I posted it because I played it and it was awesome and I wanted to let people know. In any case, I edited the title to say "update," hope you're okay with that phrasing.

What in your mind is the difference between a free update, which you can download, that adds some content, and free DLC?

It is excellent. It is brilliant. Everyone's different, surely there are people who won't like it, but for me it was top notch.

One of the most important parts of a propaganda framework is the introduction of code-words, little phrasings that automatically call to mind a particular narrative you're trying to construct. "People are fleeing California to move to red states" may be true, it may not be, it may be because of property values more than anything else. Doesn't matter. By incorporating that same phrasing and framing into as many different contexts as possible, it does two things:

1. It gives people security. It's like a little affirmation that gives them assurance they're on the right side. They can slip it into conversation on their YouTube channel, in their press conference, at their dinner table. It reminds them that everyone on the "enemy" side is stupid, and losing, and they're on the right side. It gives them camaraderie, it strengthens the bond.
2. It creates an artificial external reality. If you just walk up to people a few times a week and say, "Democratic policies are a failure," they'll think you're super weird, and they might even disagree with you. But if you just use the code-word, if you allude to it, even in contexts like this that have nothing to do with anything, it'll smuggle its way into their worldview without them even noticing. Eventually, it's reach a point where if someone tries to tell them it's not that way, they'll scoff and decide the person is stupid, because everyone thinks that, they hear it everywhere.

It's very effective.

Dude you were the one that asked the fucking question lol

You define it in exactly the same way you just did. Completely fine, you have to do it for lots of things. It's nice that Python can do that too.

Now, I'll grab a random snippet of code from some random file from my source dir:

        existing_bookmarks = db.session.execute(
            text('SELECT post_reply_id FROM "post_reply_bookmark" WHERE user_id = :user_id'),
            {"user_id": user_id}).scalars()
        reply = PostReply.query.filter(PostReply.id.in_(existing_bookmarks), PostReply.deleted == False).first()
        if reply:
            data = {"comment_id": reply.id, "save": True}
            with pytest.raises(Exception) as ex:
                put_reply_save(auth, data)
            assert str(ex.value) == 'This comment has already been bookmarked.'

You can see some classes in use, which again is fine. But you also see inline instantiation of some reply JSON, a database returning a list of post_reply_id values without needing a special interface definition for returning multiple values, lots and lots of cognitive and computational load per line of code that's being saved because the language features are saving people the heavy lifting of depending on user-defined classes for everything. It means you don't have as many adventures through the code where you're trying to modify a user-defined interface class, you don't need as much strong typing, that kind of thing.

I would bet heavily that a lot of the things that are happening in that short little space of code, would need specific classes to get them done if the same project were getting implemented in some C++-derived language. Maybe not, I just grabbed a random segment of code instead of trying especially hard to find my perfect example to prove my point.

It is fine, there are significant weaknesses to Python too, I'm not trying to say "yay python it's better for everything," anything like that. I'm just saying that if you don't get familiar with at least some language that does things more that way, and instead get solely accustomed to just user-defined classes or templates for every information exchange or functional definition, then you'll be missing out on a good paradigm for thinking about programming. That's all.

Complex data structures are not "more of a C++ type of program structure".

Oh, they are not at all. Equating complex data structures with user-defined data structures (in the form of classes and fields and whatnot), and using the latter as the primary method of storing and working with data (so that you're constantly having to bring into your mental scope a bunch of different classes and how they need to interact), is 100% a C++ type of program structure. It's pretty unusual in my experience in Python. Or, I mean, it's perfectly common, but it's not primary in the same universal way that it is in C++ and derivatives. It gets to exist as its own useful thing without being the only way. That's what I am trying to say.

Oops

I fixed it now.

it's actually better for stallions to carry a bit more weight

It is clear that this horse knows what he's doing. Just give him oats and lady horses and let him run around and do his thing. Humans are fuckin' weird.

Edit: I'm not up on my horse lingo

IDK, I just have never really had this become a serious issue for me. I get what you mean, some actions are a little bit of a pain in the neck because people are often sloppy about typing, but literally the only time I can remember it being an issue at all has been when numpy is involved and so I have to figure out if something is a native Python thing or a numpy-fied custom structure.

I mean there's just not that many types. Generally something is a list, a number, a map, or a string, and it's pretty obvious which. Maybe there are OOP domain things where a lot of variables are objects of some kind of class (sort of more of a C++ type of program structure), and so it starts to become really critical to have strong type tools, I'm just saying I haven't really encountered too much trouble with it. I'm not saying it's imaginary, you may be right in your experience, I'm just saying I've worked on projects way bigger than a few hundred lines and never really had too much of an issue with it in practice in my experience.

Hm... yeah, maybe so. They linked to taz, they quoted a random member of Masch, and they cited some other cases, but yeah maybe it would have been good to have an actual legal expert weighing in on how realistic it is that this will mean anything significant.

That's not really clear in actuality. Different people have different opinions on what might be the results, and a few of them are quoted in the article stating their takes on it. The fact that the reality isn't clear yet isn't exactly the article's fault.