Cookies required for the website to work (like that one) are totally fine and, in fact, they don’t even have to ask you about them - if they’re not used for tracking. So no, asking each time is definitely avoidable.
Not only is that headline’s grammar exceptional(ly bad), for a moment I thought the developer of Control was named Alan Wake. Like, how did they manage to butcher that so badly?
There are pros to this:
If the person you blocked can’t see your posts, they can intuit that you’ve blocked them. Then, they might try and find you on other social media to harass you even further, or shift targets to someone else.
If they can see your posts, they have no idea they’ve been blocked, similar to Reddit’s shadow bans. This might make them think you’re just annoyed or rarely look at your DMs, making them invest even more time to uselessly try to contact you.
Of course, I can see the other side too, that you don’t want them to know about any (new) posts you’ve made; but it isn’t as one-sided as you seem to think it is.
Because you don’t need to have significant experience or rent a VPS in order to do that, and I can respect that. We don’t need to force FOSS developers to become proficient in everything.
What needs to happen is some kind of tool (ideally FOSS) that lets you spin up an actual forum with the same difficulty to set it up as Discord.
Huh, TIL.
Regarding your edit, that amount wasn’t the cumulated cost of whatever Limewire were distributing, that would be idiotic indeed; rather the RIAA tried to call for a ruling that somehow those guys were causing $150,000 in damages - per instance. Now the article unfortunately doesn’t state how they possibly tried to justify that number, and I can’t be bothered to research that myself. Another thing that would interest me is how the plaintiff expected them to pay with almost every dollar on Earth.
So while I don’t think this had anything to do with “lost sales”, I do agree with the possible fines and damage calculations not being fit for any sort of realistic purpose at all.
Because I didn’t know absurdism, I read the second one differently at first:
[The] nothing matters.
And I immediately had to think of this gem:
“But it doesn’t do anything!” - “No, it does nothing.”
Depending on the stuffing, I might actually rather take the seat, just because it’s got armrests.
Huh, interesting… You know, I’ve never really wondered about Humble Bundle specifically, but you’re right, they seem to be selling your run-of-the-mill Steam keys, or at least you can activate them effortlessly in Steam. Maybe it’s a case of Steam themselves handing out keys (instead of the publishers) to increase user retention? I honestly don’t know, this is all just speculation.
I actually didn’t click on your link at first, because I assumed it would just show other stores where you could purchase the whole game instead of a key, so I’m sorry that you had to clarify that.
As far as I know, they do - for Steam keys. If you’re selling your game through other stores, not just a Steam key, there aren’t any demands placed upon you. The OC might’ve been talking about that.
That may be true for smaller cities, but in bigger cities it becomes impossible, because there just isn’t enough space to house all the people near areas of interest. Cars don’t factor in there at all. Give me a subway for the major areas, and perhaps a tram or bus system so you don’t need that many subway stations in the residential areas, and you can have car-free city centers.
I don’t really like including pedestrians in there. Like sure, you can fit a bunch of people in a small area, but another point you shouldn’t ignore is the throughput over time, and pedestrians are by their nature rather slow. Obviously if you’re looking at shopping in a street lined by shops left and right, then that street becomes tailor-made for pedestrian traffic (and nothing else except perhaps bicycles). But public transport is much better suited for travelling any further distances, and that should be the main focus when deciding to ditch cars.
Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were talking about disk storage - sure, if you’re designing your own solution, definitely use tags! Although the ones Gmail uses aren’t really portable in my experience, so you’re forced to use their mail client. That, however, is pretty much unavoidable if you’re putting a new spin on established protocols like they’re doing - maybe those changes will get picked up by other clients, maybe they won’t, who knows?
That’s true, but since we’re stuck with the file/folder system for all intents and purposes, you should be able to replicate that behaviour by making those tags part of the filenames (like rent_lease_landlordX.pdf) and searching for (parts of) filenames instead. But yes, a dedicated system would of course be preferable.
Why not just use soft links instead?
Well, what problems are you trying to solve by having the classes all access each other’s data members? Why is that necessary?