Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | craftkiller's commentslogin

That is not sane, it is dumb. With such a system, you have signs that say "100" but the actual speed limit is "110" and everyone knows the actual speed limit is "110" but they all have to do mental math to reach that conclusion. Just make the sign say the real speed limit instead of lying to you. It's like Spinal Tap wrote your laws.

It’s not dumb, it’s accounting for real world variance in car speedometer accuracy and possible inaccuracies in the measurement process, just because your car is telling you you went 98 or the speed camera is telling you you went 101 doesn’t mean that was the actual speed of your car at the moment.

Speed limits are limits, not targets. That's why they're called speed *limits*. You account for variance in the speedometer and the reading device by staying under the limit, not treating it as a target.

I hope this does not come across as antagonistic but isn’t this then another form of mental math again? "I’m actually not allowed to drive the number on the sign but I’m also not allowed to drive a speed within the margin of error so I could be falsely accused of speeding."

The other way around seems more clear in a legal sense to me because we want to prove with as little doubt as possible that the person actually went above the speed limit. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. So we accept people speeding a little to not falsely convict someone.


So your speedo reads 100 km/h in a 100km/h hour zone. The intention is that you just treat that as a sign that you're at the limit and don't go faster.

Yes, you _could_ do some mental math and figure out that your speedometer is probably calibrated with some buffer room on the side of overreporting your speed, so you're probably actually doing 96km/h and you know you probably won't get dinged if you're dong 105km/h so you "know" you can probably do 110km/h per your speedometer when the sign is 100km/h.

Or you could just not. And that's the intention. The buffers are in there to give people space for mistakes, not as something to rely on to eke 10% more speed out of. And if you start to rely on that buffer and get caught on it, that's on you.


As a driver, I control my speed for a variety of factors, but I assume no responsibility for the variance in the speed checking device. That’s on the people deploying them to ensure they’ve done their job (and is part of the reason tickets aren’t issued for 1kph/1mph over in most jurisdictions).

> That is not sane, it is dumb.

I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s perfectly sane if your legal system recognizes and accepts that speed detection methodologies have a defined margin of error; every ticket issued for speeding within that MoE would likely be (correctly) rejected by a court if challenged.

The buffer means, among other things, that you don’t have to bog down your traffic courts with thousands of cases that will be immediately thrown out.


So the sign says "100", the police read your speed at "112" but the device has a 5% MoE and in this case your actual speed was 107. Seems like you have exactly the same problem because the laws state the actual speed limit was "110" which you are under, despite being over the posted limit and the police reading you as over both the real and posted limits.

Why does the sign say 100 when the actual limit was 110?

Me too. Audibly laughed out loud and was late to standup because I had to tell my roommate about it.

They are suggesting that most F-150s are not purchased for real truck work like hauling stuff. Instead, they are purchased by people who use them exclusively to drive on paved roads, in towns/cities, mostly carrying passengers instead of large cargo. Therefore the concern about going off-road to remote locations isn't a real concern for this market.

>They are suggesting that most F-150s are not purchased for real truck work like hauling stuff

correct, but it's in the context of the their misimpression that "truck stuff" would be the reason to buy electrics. and I'm pushing back on that saying that the people who buy groceries are the people who are buying electrics. people who "have a commercial job to do" are less likely to experiment with a new technology: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially if your income depends on it"


It’s a real concern in the sense that a lot of them care about the capability.

Objectively a Ford F-150 is the wrong vehicle for what 90% of its buyers need. But it’s an aspirational purchase. It can go off-road. It can haul a boat. It can haul a bed full of gravel. It doesn’t matter for these purchasers that they rarely if ever actually do any of this.


This logic is only ever applied to trucks. The majority of HNers did not make an economically rational decision when they bought their Macbook or iPhone. Consumers buy what they like and feel like they need and can afford. They place an almost absurdly high value on convenience and not having to think about things like "oh I need to move this thing I need to go rent a truck because I only ever need to do this once every two years, making it irrational to buy one."

I have a long history of sneering at people who ceaselessly buy Apple products despite their lack of economic "efficiency" but I "have a finely calibrated sense of value" ie I'm a tightwad.

Being "economically efficient" with laptop purchases saves you a few hundred to a thousand dollars.

Being just reasonable with a car purchase saves you $25k.

These are not at all comparable to the average american.

The average new car price is $50k. Almost zero people need that. The Toyota Corolla, which is overpriced, still starts at under $25k. Considering inflation it's about 30% more expensive than the base model from the 90s, but the modern Corolla is more comparable IMO to the old Camry, who's price point it exactly matches.

For that money you get a safer car than the 90s, dramatically so. You get modern infotainment, like CarPlay and AndroidAuto. You get a backup camera and bluetooth connectivity. Aircon, power windows, central locking. You get 170HP from a 2.0L 4cyl that is rather silly for a commuter car. Only 32 mpg City. This is a small family car.

But Americans do not want that. Americans want to put down $50k for 80 months for a MANLY man truck for MANLY MAN things. Or the same money for a stupid box on the same frame as an """SUV"""

This is not "avocado toast" or "Just get a roommate". Americans are spending absurd money on absurd vehicles for absurd reasons.

Advances in the reliability of modern cars made the car market weird. If you have any financial sense at all, new cars almost never make sense, because the 5 year old model is still excellent. That means the only people left in that market are not making decisions on financial merits. But that also means the entire market is controlled by the whims of the easily persuadeable and financially illiterate.


> Americans want to put down $50k for 80 months for a MANLY man truck for MANLY MAN things

Most people buying F-150s are spending way more than $50k.

But the hate big trucks get isn’t because they are expensive. I don’t care if someone spends 25, 50, or 100 thousand on their vehicle and I doubt most others do either. Trucks get hate because they are more dangerous to everyone else. A collision with a truck is 2.5x more likely to kill the driver of a car than a collision with another car. [1]

But the attacks on the “manliness” and ridiculous cost of modern trucks are more emotionally satisfying than discussions about their safety profile.

[1] https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history


I drive a Corolla (great highway mileage!) and will probably get something larger the next time I buy because it's smaller than most everything else on the road, both in terms of visibility and collisions. My person tightwad math changed after a drunk driver crossed the median and took off a mirror. If I did have children this would doubly be a concern, even if I could manage to fit the car seat and stroller in the Corolla.

As an aside the base Corolla engine for the current gen was formerly the 139HP 1.8L 2ZR-FAE and the 2L was limited to the "sporty" models but this was dropped at some point. The power figures are somewhat deceptive, it does a very good impression of a v6 under 3000RPM or so, but if you need to wind it out to merge on the highway there's not much there unlike a early 00s VTEC Honda or something.


> But Americans do not want that. Americans want to put down $50k for 80 months for a MANLY man truck for MANLY MAN things. Or the same money for a stupid box on the same frame as an """SUV"""

I’ve driven a Corolla in the last year. Despite not being particularly tall, my head is jammed against the roof. I have to put the driver’s seat all the way back, into the knees of any rear passengers.

The owner’s manual states the car should not be used to tow anything, eliminating the claim throughout this thread of “just buy a trailer when you need to move something big.

Why is it so hard to just admit that trucks and SUVs do in fact offer greater utility and convenience in most situations than small sedans? And that this utility and convenience, even if not needed all the time, is the main reason people are buying them?

I mean, your contention is that the average American, no doubt hard up for money, is so dumb they are willing to pay a 25k+ premium to feel “manly”. Does this really make sense? Economics are not people’s primary motive but they do have an impact.

Despite driving and loving the Honda Fit for 15 years, I bought a large SUV. Can you imagine no other reason for this than I am a madman?


> Why is it so hard to just admit that trucks and SUVs do in fact offer greater utility and convenience in most situations than small sedans? And that this utility and convenience, even if not needed all the time, is the main reason people are buying them?

In general I agree that they do offer a lot of comfort. This is actually a common criticism of these trucks, that they are “pavement princesses” that never haul anything more than groceries. Ironically, a lot of trucks have gotten so tall that they need a step for short people to get into, though, putting the claims of comfort into question.

Personally I think a lot of the justifications about big trucks are true but also not why people buy them. They see more convenient (sometimes; they are a bitch to park in cities). They are more comfortable. They can haul. They can go off-road. But these being true doesn’t mean that’s why most people actually buy them.

Marketing folks understand that. That’s why truck ads show manly shit like rocks being dumped into the back of the truck and off-roading around a mountain even though that’s not how they get used. Consumers are buying the feeling. Just like BMW sells sports cars but showing them whip around mountain roads rather than sitting in traffic.

It’s very much like guns. People who buy guns justify the purchases by saying they need them for self defense or home defense. But the reality is that most guns are never used for any of that and most people who buy guns would move somewhere else if there actually thought they needed them. They are bought because people like guns and find them fun to own. These are of course not mutually exclusive reasons. A gun can be fun and also quell feelings of fear about hypothetical home invasion.

> I mean, your contention is that the average American, no doubt hard up for money, is so dumb they are willing to pay a 25k+ premium to feel “manly”.

Is that actually hard to believe? Americans are notoriously terrible with money and many buy dumb stuff as status symbols when they are missing rent payments.

Again, marketers don’t seem to have any trouble grasping that most money is spent on feelings.


So you agree, then?

For many it’s also a visible badge showing membership in a culture.

Yeah but you buy a truck and all of a sudden you have a lot of friends.

I might not move furniture regularly, but it’s reeeeal nice to be able to do so when I need to. My dishwasher broke on Christmas Eve when I was hosting so I went to the store and got another and installed it within an hour. Not doing that with my Subaru.


I’ve literally transported dishwashers in a Renault Twingo. And the „small car + trailer“ combo will always carry more than a pickup. Pickups are pure lifestyle.

To be fair, the Twingo mk3 even has the front passenger seat fold down. In van mode the interior is huge for a small car.

You live somewhere where things are tiny and close together. That’s lovely but not America. My dishwasher does not fit in your car.

A small car cannot safely transport much of a trailer, and a pickup can tow a much larger trailer.


Something tells me that dishwashers are smaller in areas where the Twingo is sold.

There's no way my piece of shit Samsung dishwasher would fit in your car. It's huge.


In a lot of smaller cars, you can fold down back row.

And if you are ok, with having trunk open, and tied down, you can transport fridges (I used reno clio, that is slightly bigger). Done that myself (not two door wide ones, one door fridge).

That's said I just found out you can hire van for 35EUR 20min away from where I live, so nowdays I just do that.


I looked it up. It does not appear to me it would be possible to fit an American dishwasher in that car in the box, seats folded down or not, based on the internal dimension and hatch width/height or door width/height. It might be possible if you take it out of the box.

It's important to note that American appliances are generally larger than European ones.

I drive a small very useful car almost every day I have moved a ton of stuff in (including a DRESSER) but it's inarguable that trucks simply have greater utility for this sort of thing. And any time I do need to move something...I just use the cheap pickup I bought so I don't even have to worry about it or spend ages trying to squeeze it in.

Most recent purchase: Christmas tree. Yeah, that wouldn't have fit in my car.


Christmas tree? Real ones are usually tied to the top of the car for transport. Artificial ones absolutely fit inside a car with the back seats folded, and possibly just across the back seat. I bought and transported my current artificial tree in my WRX years ago.

An artificial tree that can’t fit in a car would be a big tree.


Which is more convenient?

1. Let the Christmas tree farmer toss a 8’ tree in the back of my truck, tying the base to the anchors behind the cab. Very little overhang with the tailgate down. Drive away. This is what most people do.

2. Spend 15 minutes balancing the the 8’ Christmas tree on the roof of my Honda Fit with substantial overhang, precariously tying it, I guess leaving the windows down in the cold weather and praying the Highway Patrol doesn’t pull me over. This is not what most people do but I’m sure it can be done.

Lots of things “can” be done but people value convenience.


I don’t know where you live but around me I see people carry trees on top of their cars all the time at Christmas. It’s not complex. You put the tree on the car. You open the doors and tie the tree. You get in and close the doors. You don’t drive with the windows down because why would you? And why would highway patrol pull you over? I’ve never even heard of anyone getting pulled over for carrying a tree or anything else.

Is it more convenient in the back of the truck, though? Sure. I didn’t say otherwise.

I will say that buying a giant truck with poor visibility and 2.5x the kill rate of a sedan so that you can haul a tree once a year is nonsense. It’s a shitty tradeoff and a much smaller truck would do exactly the same job. But little trucks don’t sell like giant trucks because people are not actually buying them for their utility.


Do you think suggesting people who do things you don’t like are just not as enlightened and rational as you a productive way to change hearts and minds?

Of course not. Probably more than 99% of online conversations are a complete and utter waste of time. I would assume there is literally nothing anyone could say to you that would make you get rid of your truck.

With that said, you admitted with your first comment that buying these trucks is based on feelings and not rational.

“Consumers buy what they like and feel like they need and can afford. They place an almost absurdly high value on convenience and not having to think about things like "oh I need to move this thing I need to go rent a truck because I only ever need to do this once every two years, making it irrational to buy one."


It’s economically irrational for most people to live in anything but a one bedroom sublet. Why is it trucks that gets your goat?

Because a 7 bedroom McMansion is unlikely to drive over my child in a parking lot or kill my wife in a collision. The dangers of these giant trucks are not hypothetical. It’s documented that they kill drivers of cars at 2.5x the rate of cars.

In terms of pure annoyance, the McMansion is also not using 3 parking spots at the grocery store.


An minivan will transport almost anything a normal person would want to move, while being more practical the other 99% of the time, but of course they have the wrong image.

A number of my whitewater paddling friends really like their minivans. There are still at least a couple of models available but they have largely gone out of fashion.

Personally I have a mid-size SUV but if you regularly need to transport around a lot of people, minivans seem more practical in general than a lot of the big SUVs.


At that point that’s just a truck with a slightly different shape. I don’t see any anti-truck argument that doesn’t apply to mid sized and larger SUVs

The anti truck sentiment is directed largely at the ever-growing full size trucks. SUVs get less hate because the market for the absurdly huge SUVs is much smaller than the market for reasonably sized (by American standards) SUVs.

I don’t think smaller trucks get the same level of hate.


I absolutely use the capacity of my mid-size SUV quite often for a variety of purposes. Don't need anything bigger or the towing capacity of a full-size truck. And, given where I live, renting for a weekend would be very inconvenient. Sure, I could use a smaller hatchback/SUV day to day but I'm not going to own two vehicles at this point (though I used to own a two-seater as well) which some folks would probably also object to.

You pick a reasonable compromise and arguably a full-size truck is overkill for many but a Mazda Miata is probably too small for a lot of people even if it largely works for a lot of day to day stuff.


I own a small/mid-size SUV (and a van) so I’m not judging your car choice, but why would you not be able to rent a truck in Boston? Home Depot, Lowe’s, U-Haul, and more all rent trucks.

I don't live in Boston--about 60 to 90 minutes outside.

So, sure, I could pay for a delivery or rent something from Lowe's if I needed to for a specific purpose but I routinely use my mid-size SUV for weekend trips, transporting a canoe, picking up construction supplies, and the like. I need a vehicle in any case and it makes sense to own a somewhat larger one than I really need day to day to run to the grocery store, especially given that parking isn't an issue and my gas mileage really isn't bad.

If one actually lives in a city (which I don't), renting a vehicle can actually be something of a hassle on a weekend based on what I saw people go through when I was in a ski house after school.


If it’s a regular thing, yeah, renting becomes massively inconvenient because of the frequency. I misunderstood your comment to mean that even a 1-time rental would be extremely inconvenient somehow.

I don't need to transport 8 people around and I can always get mulch or gravel delivered. But, yeah, it's not uncommon for me to want to easily stuff a mid-size SUV's worth of stuff into my vehicle for a weekend or longer trip. I could probably do it with a somewhat smaller vehicle but why? The longer drives are probably when I need to do so anyway.

I did also have a smaller car as well when I did more shorter regular local drives but I really don't do those much any longer other than very local drives to the grocery store or nearby hiking trails.


With sliding doors and different seat configuration. But, sure, just the same thing. But it's fine that you just don't like larger vehicles.

The roof?

Not sure how. The people I know with minivans have roof racks.

A minivan has a roof, which solves a lot of the issues with trucks

Where I live (Vancouver Island) there's been somewhat of a Renaissance of the minivan-as-adventure-vehicle.

Lots of imported Delicas but also a fair few of those Mercedes Sprinter 4x4s.


I wish my minivan was 2 inches higher and all wheel drive. I’m not sure how much I’d want to adventure in my front wheel drive low clearance van.

It’s a great vehicle for most practical cases, though it is not very fuel efficient.


A lot of standard SUVs don't have particularly great ground clearance relative to Jeep Wranglers and the like. Though that doesn't really matter unless you're going off-road in Death Valley and the like. The current Toyota Sienna (which has improved a lot) is better than my Honda Passport in terms on gas mileage.

Yeah. I don’t really need or want high ground clearance. But I would like enough that parking at a curb doesn’t risk dragging the front bumper. My van (Odyssey) is low enough that I’ve scraped on a few unexpectedly tall curbs and I would be pretty uncomfortable with anything resembling off-road. I wouldn’t drive my van anywhere I wouldn’t drive a Civic.

> The current Toyota Sienna … gas mileage.

Better mileage and optional all wheel drive were the only things I preferred about the Sienna. But while I don’t like the mileage the Odyssey gets, I also don’t actually drive far very often so it doesn’t matter much. I put less than 10k miles on my car every year.


I was actually surprised when I looked at what the current Siennas get. I have a friend with a, now, quite old Sienna who was really surprised at how high the mileage of my relatively new Honda Passport was. And the current hybrid Sienna is a fair bit better.

> The security aspect seems also a bit funny to me. After all the average Desktop has most data in the home directory, so every application can read everything. That's not the fault of D-Bus.

Those secret stores (gnome-keyring/kwallet) store the secrets encrypted on disk, so every application can read the encrypted secrets but only the secret store has the encryption key to decrypt them. This is held in memory, not on disk.


You don't NEED to fill the 12 ram slots. My personal 1U has an Epyc 9124 and only 4 of the 12 ram slots filled. I figured, ram will only get cheaper with time so I can fill the remaining 8 slots in the future. Turns out I was wrong, but regardless, the server runs fine on 4 sticks.

Haha the 'need' is a joke need. Like I need to upgrade my 9654s to the 9755 I have sitting in a box.

If you go to the home depot page for torque wrenches and click the filter for drive size, you get this list:

  1/2 in
  1/4 in
  1 in
  3/8 in
  3/4 in
  Specialty
Here is the same list in decimal to make the insanity plainly obvious:

  0.5
  0.25
  1
  0.375
  0.75
What sadistic lunatic made that sort order?! It's not based on size and it's not alphabetic.

I had to check what the gold standard McMaster-Carr does: their torque wrench drive size widget is sorted 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 3/4", 1", 1 1/2". Glorious. https://www.mcmaster.com/products/torque-wrenches/

I'd expect nothing less from them. The right thing to do here is to implement a sorting key for different categories here. Since McMaster-Carr seems to be going to a category when you search, they seem to have better control over the available filters.

I've found that on a site like Amazon or Walmart that'll let you do a more freeform sort, the filter options becomes absolutely god awful.

Well done by McMaster-Carr. I assume they control their inventory a bit more than a marketplace like Home Depot, Walmart, or Amazon, so that's also an advantage.


The schemas for Amazon and Walmart's product information are absolutely bonkers and constantly missing features that they demand be provided.

Here's the XML Schema Definition for "Product" on Amazon [1]

This is joined on each of the linked category schemas included at the type, of which each has unique properties that ultimately drive the metadata on a particular listing for the SKU. Its wrought with inconsistency, duplicated fields, and oftentimes not up-to-date with required information.

Ultimately, this product catalog information gets provided to Amazon, Walmart, Target, and any other large 3rd party marketplace site as a feed file from a vendor to drive what product they can then list pricing and inventory against (through similar feeds).

You are right that the control McMaster-Carr has on their catalog is the strategic and technological advantage.

[1]: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/rainier/...


Very interesting how nearly half the list is (assumedly) every single chemical listed under California Prop 65. Do they really need to specify exactly which chemical it is? I've seen thousands of prop 65 warnings in my life but I've literally never seen it tell me what chemical its warning me about. I just commented to a friends a couple weeks ago i wished they'd tell me what so i could look it up myself!

McMaster-Carr's website is actually pretty impressive given how unassuming it is. It does a ton of pre-loading on hover and caching to make it feel like you're just navigating a static site. I didn't even realize that the page had a loading state until I enabled throttling from my network tab and immediately clicked on a link as soon as I hovered over it.

Even more impressive is that it's something like 20 years old, and was basically the way it is now 20 years ago.


Mouser et al also do it right for mixed unit lists, eg. component dimensions are shown in their specified units but sorted as: 11mm, 12mm, 0.5in, 13mm, ...

Is it weird that I kinda want to work there?

No. You are likely and automatically extrapolating the attention to detail seen in the outcome into believing that it is a reflection of the attention , thought and method of their internal workings.

Which is a good indicator, but you can’t be sure of. Additionally you may imagine liking it but not enjoy it in life, even if true.


Now look up impact wrenches.

  1/2 in
  1 in
  1/4 in
  3/8 in
  3/4 in
  7/16 in

> 7/16 in

I had a major WTF moment there, until I realized that's probably for a hex driver (and thus something totally different than what I think of when someone says "impact wrench").


It's probably a default ordering or an ordering by an unshown database ID value. It's a small enough set that it doesn't really matter for practical purposes, but I guess it does betray a lack of attention to detail.

It’s simple alphabetic.

Is "slash" (/) before or after "space" ( ) ... or both... before and after it?

Is 8 before or after 4 in the alphabet?


No, there's no reasonable ordering going on.

If it were ordered by ordinal values, "/" is 47 and " " is 32, so "1 in" would come before "1/2 in".

It's not alphabetized by letter word. Because while "Eight" comes before "Four", "Specialty" would come before "Three".

No matter which way you attempt to order it, something is out of order.

Softtalker probably got it right. This is some default or id sort.


Before. _E_ight vs _F_our.

But _T_wo is also before _F_our

The sorting briefly switches to reverse order there, so no contradiction.

3/8 doesn’t come before 3/4 alphabetically.

SELECT ... ORDER BY RAND()

This is sorted mostly alphabetically with an allowance for people being bad with fractions. That's my guess.

On my forge, I mirror some large repos that I use for CI jobs so I'm not putting unfair load on the upstream project's repos. Those are the only repos large enough to cause problems with the asshole AI scrapers. My solution was to put the web interface for those repos behind oauth2-proxy (while leaving the direct git access open to not impact my CI jobs). It made my CPU usage drop 80% instantly, while still leaving my (significantly smaller) personal projects fully open for anyone to browse unimpeded.

If you're using postgres, couldn't you just create an index on the field inside the JSONB column directly? What advantage are you getting from extracting it to a separate column?

  CREATE INDEX idx_status_gin
  ON my_table
  USING gin ((data->'status'));
ref: https://www.crunchydata.com/blog/indexing-jsonb-in-postgres

That works for lookups but not for foreign key constraints.

Ah, makes sense. Thanks!

..and it does not make "certain queries easier" (quote from the article).

You only need gin if you want to index the entire jsonb. For a specific attribute, you can use the default (btree) which I'm guessing is faster.

Yes, as far as indices go, GIN indices are very expensive especially on modification. They're worthwhile in cases where you want to do arbitrary querying on JSON data, but you definitely don't want to overuse them.

If you can get away with a regular index on either a generated column or an expression, then you absolutely should.


> it’s always easier to make an engine than a game.

It could just be different interests. The kind of person who makes a game engine is a technical optimization-focused tech-focused person, sort of like a mechanic. In order to make a game, you have to deal with softer concepts like "is this fun" which is more like a designer/artist. Game studios need to bring these people together, but in the FOSS world the mechanics are happy to spend their time building an engine that runs beautifully without concerning themselves with the art side of things.


Yes and no. It’s true that some people really only care about a slice of the process, but if you’ve been around the gamedev scene long enough you’ll also see people working on very technically ambitious projects while they’re fooling themselves thinking they’re making a game.

I just need a few more years working on my 4D non-euclidian voxel MMO engine before I can make my game!


In so far as comparing levels of complexity, you're correct. But that's not the salient part of the the parent comment.

A tool with a vaguely defined goals and no stakeholders is easier to make than a tool that must meet certain goals as defined by stakeholders.


I'd disagree. Just like how no one needs to find an engine usable, no one needs to find a game fun. My personal itch.io account is full of games no one finds fun :)

GitHub is full of engines, itch.io is full of games. :)

Why assume that a game has to be made? Making a handful of tech demos doesn't come with that baggage and deflects criticism of making an empty shell of an engine with nothing to speak of.

>Why assume that a game has to be made?

Well... the project calls itself a game engine. It's really not out of the world to make the assumption.


In the real industry the very technical people are focused on very concrete problems like level 3 is causing too much overdraw on Xbox. What can we do without breaking X,Y, and Z.

This is precisely the reason that I do not log in to HN on my phone. My phone is read-only and if I want to upvote or comment then I have to switch to my laptop. Pretty easy with firefox because I can send tabs to other devices.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: