DacoTaco

Fuck me haha. And here i am shaking with my 30 pounder haha
I dont use a compound bow though

Oh thats a good idea! Friend of mine and i got a big foam target that is basically one big foam block, but this might be easier to fix after a long time of usage!

How much pounds are those bows?

You can. There are physical , drm free, releases and drm free releases on gog :p No online required either. So yes, you can :)

As a software developer i know what iterative development means, its in our blood and brains ( or at least it should be ). Simulations can indeed only get you so far, and i agree sometimes you have to make things and take a plunge. However, and i would like to be really wrong here so correct me if im wrong, but other companies like nasa, do not just shoot shit up in space and hope for the best. They arent allowed to do so for a reason. They test and calculate everything very rigoursly to make sure itll hold up as expected. From thruster power, resistance to continues extreme heat from reentry, …
All of that they do here, on earth, before shooting anything up into space. Otherwise things like the rover on mars would have needed like 20 tries instead of 2.

These are things that looks like spacex is just throwing out the window.
To take it back to software development, they are doing an iterative development ( which is very good for what they are doing! ) but their testing before production/release of software is so basic theyll just see how it responds out there. Thats a huge nono to me if youre going to end up crashing all those rockets in the sea killing a shit ton of nature in the process. Sometimes the means dont justify the costs to me, and this is one of them. Yes, the booster catching was nice to see ( eventhough it nearly ended badly ) and its idea is very good and needed, but the way to get there is…messy.

Specially this. How space x handles failures is a very hard nono in my book. “But we test in the field” is what space x says, and as a software developer its like saying “we test in production”.
Yes youll get something use able faster, but its way way more costly in the long run and is nasty in between.
My arse they cant test this stuff on earth. We have simulations, models, calculations, test, everything. Yes, things can and will sometimes still fail when going in production ( in flight ) but you want to lower the risk of it failing cause its costly as fuck.

They dont seem to care though.

Also, im not saying what they are building towards is bad, it really really isnt, but their methods is… Bad

I think you have things wrong. Any other languages can have libraries be distributed as some format that would allow applications to use it, be it linux/gcc and .a files ( which are actually archives with elf/object files of the code ), or a full on library like .so/.dll.
Rust can only do .o/.dll and only have it expose like a c library afaik. Even .net has improved on the .dll and includes all its language features in it. Rust has none of that. Its not true that libraries not rebuilding are only for closed source. Its also ease of use/access and less problem prone. What if i build my library using a different version of the compiler than you and your application? I could have no problems building my library, while you cant build your application because the library i made gets rebuild and errors.
These errors happen and are all because there is no stable interface/abi and all other languages have overcome this.

Also, by default, nothing in c is rebuild unless it needs to. Thats why the intermediate .o ( elf object ) files exist, so it only has to do the relinking and not recompile and thats why .a archive/libraries in c work, because it doesnt recompile. Unless you meant the fact rust can rebuild part of a file, without recompiling it completely?

I think you dont fully understand how c compilers ( gcc specifically ) work when using multi file projects ( and not just doing gcc input.c -o output.exe ) just how i dont fully know how the rust compiler works. Also, anything using IL will always have an abi, because how else will it jump from code to IL code, so its obvious that rust to wasm will have to abide by that haha. Be it c wasm, c# wasm or rust wasm calling one another. Wasm is wasm, and you only need an exposed interface to call or include the other wasm ( c#/blazor having NativeFileReference in the csproj )

Again, i like the idea of rust, but it has a long way to go to be viable atm. And it has many pitfalls to avoid so it doesnt become the hot mess that is any framework based on node.js

I know that exists, but whats the point of that? You loose all advantages of rust when you use the library then because it cant predict application state with the library code. There is a reason all those rust libraries are compiled locally when you compile a rust application. Its a major lacking point for rust, and as long as it lacks that its dead in the water for big projects.
Again, i like strong type stuff and i like the ideas of rust but it is not grown up enough for me

What is this abi and standard calling methods you speak off? Are you a rust-non-believer or some shit! Rewrite it all in rust, no questions asked!

( i too like the ideas of rust, but without a decent abi or not constantly changing interface, its useless to me. I dont want to rebuild all code, including libraries every time i update 1 library in my application )

Saaaaame. But sometimes even strongly typed stuff wont break on compilation time

Its funny cause its true. I often design tests to be “if a case/enum value is added this test will explode and tell them to add code here”

Their source code repo contains a copy of libogc for wii/gc builds because they were annoyed at us. And i do mean a copy. Not a reference, or a sub-module, a full on copy that they build before building the wii/gc executable.

Their own issue, as long as we dont get reports of their broken shit…

Then there are the multiple times they cloned emu repos and butchered them into cores. Or the fact they force the core interface on emulators making them bad.

Retroarch is a nice project from a far, but the closer you look, the more you see huge ass cracks in the project, held down with duct-tape

Im a pc user, and the pc world is still a lot more complex than just “regular, slim and pro” versions. Different hardware and combinations males it a lot more complex.
You could say “low, medium and high end pc” but that means nothing as even a medium pc could have different cpu’s, gpu’s or even ram timings…

But yes, the different console versions is stupid

If i was in control, rather quickly haha

Oh nice, didnt know that. Thanks for the info!

Now, if proton could be used outside if steam…

No way to extract what the launcher does and use it as launch options in whatever youre using to launch the game?

Lol, halsin has seem some shit and hes just letting them be haha

Flappy paddles <3
Source : audi a3

I actually found stop and go traffic jams with a manual easier. All i needed was the clutch and id use it to drive the average speed of the stop and go traffuc jam, even if it was 0.5km/h. Cant do that on my automatic, it will speed up to a set amount of km if i release the break and press the gas even a little.

Edit: i will admit i have big feet and driving is more foot work for me than it is leg work. My legs barely move while driving, not even to go from gas to break, so it might be easier for me, idk

Ah, thats fair. I think thats fixable using wildcards in the packagereference in the csproj, but id need to check. I too would expect it to choose 4.0.1 unless a patch release needs a big update or something