LMAO the dude got debunked off his own link
LMAO the dude got debunked off his own link
Lmao Ubisoft of all folks should shut the fuck up about UI, they are literally the source of the meme about cluttered and overly complicated UI. If Ubisoft is complaining about a UI I have to automatically assume it is a good UI.
Also, if AAA developers have been paying attention for the last decade, they would know that consumers have valued quality and shown disdain for MTX since MTX started becoming pervasive. MTX overall can generate a lot of revenue, but it isnt sustainable, hence why there is always some sort of FOMO characteristic included with the MTX system, making things limited time and constantly shovelling low effort "new content" to fill out the MTX system.
At least it's not "the narwhal bacons at midnight" shit
If you mean that he can appeal a contempt charge, that is technically true, but the appeal for that would take place after the main trial and would not prevent him from being held in detention until then.
He can appeal from jail.
Cool so I can come in to your house and steal all your shit, beat up your children, and shoot your dog, and you aren't allowed to fight back because if it was justified, you wouldn't need to?
EDIT: I seem to have misinterpreted the comment, as you appear to be referring to conscription being unnecessary rather than the fighting. Taking the whole context of the comment supports that, but taking only the context of the final sentence makes it appear that you are saying "if fighting is justified you dont need to fight" rather than "if fighting is justified, conscription is unnecessary"
2K is supposed to refer to a 2048x2048 square 1:1 aspect image, same with 4K being a 4096x4096 image. This term is correctly used a lot when referring to texture sizes. A 4K texture is 4096x4096 texels.
I think the term started getting mixed up with people discussing what resolutions benefit from texture size increases. Generally, if you are running, say, 4K textures, you would really only always benefit from that if you have a 2160p screen, just because lower resolutions dont have the definition to actually display those texels. So, people start inter changing "4K screen" and "4K-benefitting screen" and we end up where we are now.
I think the main shortcoming here is that there isnt a way to specify the type to sort as, instead you have to write the function to compare them as numbers yourself. If it's such a simple implementation, why isn't it officially implemented? Why isn't there a sortAs() that takes two args, the input list, and a Type value? Check every element matches the type and then sort, otherwise return a Type Error.
Right, but you have to make that comparator yourself, it's not a built-in part of the language. The only built-in comparator converts values to strings and compares them in code units orders.
Also, that technically isnt type-safe, is it? If you threw a string or a NaN at that it would fail. As far as I knew, type safe means that a function can handle type errors itself, rather than throwing an exception. So in this case the function would automatically convert types if it was type-safe to prevent an unhandled exception.
It doesn't have to be the default to be built in, tho. It could be an overloaded function, having the "default" be the typical convert-to-string sorting, and an overloaded function that allows to specify a type.
It's just such a common thing, wanting to sort a list by different types, that I'm surprised there hasn't been an official implementation added like this. I get that it a simple "fix" to make, but I just think that if it's that simple yet kind of obscure (enough that people are still constantly asking about it) there should be an official implementation, rather than something you have build yourself.
Yeah, JS always seemed like the red-headed stepchild of modern languages. I'd be curious to know if other ECMAScript languages like JScript are as, eh, "quirky", suggesting that the ECMA spec is the source of the quirkiness, or if JavaScript itself is the one making silly decisions. Technically, I mostly work with Google's AppScript when I use ECMAScript stuff, but I'm fairly certain AppsScript is based off of JavaScript instead of directly based on the ECMA spec, so I don't think it's separate enough for me to draw a conclusion there.
Hm, I see how their comment can be interpreted that way, and it definitely makes more sense like that. They worded it extremely poorly tho, and thus is left pretty ambiguous. I think it would have been much more clear if they just spelled out "conscription" again instead of resorting to the pronoun.
That said, since I do agree with your interpretation I will edit my comment to reflect that
Well, clocks are just mechanical sundials. Before clockwise, there was sunwise (or deosil), and clocks' movements are based off of the movement of a shadow across a sundial.