RivieraKid

Members
  • Content count

    933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

699 Good

About RivieraKid

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Programming
  1. I said it was not relevant to technology. It is not a single argument though. My argument is that he made decisions to push javascript forward because he created it, a position of complete bias. He has acted from this view point inspite of sound technological reasons to do the opposite. If he is willing to hand over money to enforce his religious beliefs then I think it says something about his character, that is the only relevance it has. 1) JavaScript runs everywhere because A LOT of people worked very hard to make it run everywhere. It was designed to run in netscape, end of story. In fact it currently doesn't run to an acceptable level in the majority of real life cases (e.g. IE8) (all users must constantly upgrade to the latest edition or face poor performance), i actually stopped using firefox because for a long time it had aggressive hard barriers to upgrade every week. There are still differences between implementations. 2) Maybe in the past but these days if something in JavaScript fails you are pretty screwed. 3) Most languages have an asynchronous method for I/O. For a long time you couldn't do any significant processing in the front end because it would freeze the browser. You could ONLY response to events. It is still very painful to deal with a large volume of visual elements. JavaScript was designed to do async data fetches and chuck that into the UI (and yet it didn't come with any concept of data binding), under the hood it stored hashTable<obj> where obj could be another hashTable, a primitive type or a function (maybe some other junk too). Types were evaluated based on the operation on that line at the time of interpretation. A class was just functions and values in a hashTable. Any graduate can write this without any fore knowledge of this field. I have done so. I'm sure someone could pick out 3 paradigms/tools that when used correctly make JavaScript a "Dream" but that is really beside the point - clearly there is something wrong if you need some dev guru with 5 years experience to direct you to some random corner of the internet for some 3rd party tools that patch up all of its short comings. Anything good about JS is too little too late imo, it makes me not want to be a developer anymore.
  2. [rant] I personally blame this guy https://brendaneich.com/ He wrote the 1st version of javascript in a mad dash in 10 days (and donated to anti-same sex marriage campaigns, unrelated but gives an idea of the kind of ideological bs that goes on in his head, he's a zealot). Knowing that the core of javascript (at the time) was a sloppy joke he still went on to champion it through Firefox and Mozilla. To this day he still riding that broken train. Web assembly is next which I think would be a great improvement but tbh I think it will be another 5 years before we see it making a difference. Its HIS baby, he's biased and has led millions of uninformed developers for decades with bugger all progress. Look at the advancements in gaming compared to web. Its laughable. Web developers get excited when CSS supports rounded corners or they can draw lines on a canvas. Even today rendering a 100 column * 100 row table in html/js will grind any browser to a halt. Oh and if you want the best experience you have to target JS, Java, C#, Swift (maybe C too!), a different UI model for each and physically test on hundreds of handsets. Have I mentioned that modern websites do little more than present rectangular images and text? There is no competition between web technology vendors, no incentive to make things better. [/rant] On topic: Who cares if C++, in gaming, is dominant or not, you can still choose to use something else if you desire.
  3. An important difference to note is that JavaScript is forced onto the largest subset of user-facing developers. If google/ms/apple could get their fingers out and agree on a common vm JavaScript would die off practically overnight. Unfortunately MS already have a perfectly capable sln that they are prevented from using because of political. Google / Apple don't want to go down that road - they would end up delivering something very similar to .net and they know it. Server side JavaScript only exists because JavaScript is a must on front end. People want to share their code base and that is the only practical way to do that. No sane developer would have independently developed JavaScript for server side if it didn't already exist.
  4. 15" dell xps from the prior gen 2nd hand.
  5. Trump and Russia (take 2)

    trump supporters have been moving the goal posts since day 1. You can't seriously expect an honest answer.
  6. I played Resident Evil 1-3 + Code Veronic to death, making it through them knife only or no saves etc.
  7. Thoughts on the new XBOX One X?

      I agree with everything else you said. I would like to see a comparison on the business model of 3rd party games vs 1st party games (i mean the figures/profits and incentives to invest). Supply will meet the demand for great games. Would Halo have been made? Probably not but the developers / creative people behind it would have worked for another studio and something else would have been made. We are not short on 3rd party games or investment.  I would prefer it if consoles producers would focus on great features that the customer wants - keyboard/mouse, custom controller support, mulitple monitors, modability (software), tradable games. I would trade up the slight posbility that we see less flashy inch deep launch title cannon fodder for these features in a heartbeat. I say - support great hardware, support great developer tools, support a fantastic os and features don't support corporate sales structures that restricts consumer choice or you'll just see the same crap released year in year out (oh wait...)
  8. Thoughts on the new XBOX One X?

    I don't understand the problem with 1080p. I've been pc gaming for 20 years with a resolution of at least 1024 * 768. For a period i ran at 1600x1200 (~2000-2005)  and now i run at 2560*1080. I have never been one to go for the cutting edge gpu's, usually settling on a good value mid-high £200-£250 mark. I've never struggled with frame rate. What is it about consoles that has led to this 60HZ/1080P selling point? Why is this so hard to achieve? It should be easier to target a specific framerate for a console because you know the hardware. I think this move to different version of the same platform will result in 1 of these scenarios for any give game. 1) The game will be optimised for the lowest common denominator and then they will just see how far they can crank the resolution on the beefier version.  2) The game will be optimised for the beefier versions then resolution and possibly quality settings will be lowered on the lowest common denominator until 60HZ is achieved. Both are bad for different reasons. I cant see a developer micro optimizing for both - the QA is too much. Maybe someone could back me up: due to the complexity of algorithms some algorithms will scale upto 4k (LOD draw distances will also change) no problem while others will not and thus different techniques may have to be developed for the low and high versions. Also, I hate exclusives - why should i have to shell out £400 to play games when i already own a computer that can do it. There were technical reason in the past to make games exclusve (radically different hardware is 1) but now is it just a way to sucker people in. Please don't tell me exclusives help great games get made - sure it helps somewhat (debatable) - but it's not necessary. All xbox games are available on windows so comparing PS4 sales to XBOX(x) is not fair - there are customers that are not buying xbox's (and to an extend PS4's) because they have windows pcs (a microsoft product obvs) so I really think a fair comparison is (Windows + Xbox) VS PS4. I think exclusives are the only thing consoles have got going for them now. MS want to sell a great piece of kit, Sony want to sell the right to play certain games - I'm with MS even if it is a losing commercial position.
  9. I have been centrist/centre-left, Now I am going Right Wing

    Chiming in: Many, if not all, of the terror attacks are perpetrated by people born in the country they are harming.  I think the problem is that many people today feel isolated in society. This isolation turns to spite and this gives terror groups the opportunity to turn them against their own country. We need more community centres and things for people to do to help them form solid relationships in their community - they need to be cheap to access aswell. Go to the root cause.
  10. Social media, AI, anonmyous posts. Thoughts.

    Signs of internet immaturity. When the internet becomes mature, users will stick to their ideologies and values in life rather than be swayed by the opinions of others simply because they are loud.  [Note this is different from the effect of fake news]     that doesnt really work out so well when people (social media is a multibillion $ industry) are interacting with said content from a very young age. Fake news and fake comments are coming from the same source. Mob mentallity is a real thing IRL and online.   Do you know if I am a real person?  Do I know if you are a real person?  Probably both are 'no'.     due to site history, fairly strict moderation (compared to news comments / facebook / youtube) and the fact that AI isnt that sophisticated (yet) I am 100% certain you are a real person with real views.  But in a few years If I  (or an impressionable child) reads the comments section on one of the mentioned social media sites all bets are off and I really think allowing our society, especially children in it, to be mislead by opinions that do not reflect that of actual society is very dangerous.  Fake news, bots / fake accounts - this is all under the same banner of misinformation and manipulating the opinion of the masses. We need to know the source of the information and people need to understand that the source is important.
  11. Social media, AI, anonmyous posts. Thoughts.

    That generates at least another two new serious problems: First, how do you know a social security number is correct? Is there an international standard for these? No. Check digits? Easy to forge, much easier than writing a believeable chatbot. Does the majority of living people on the planet even have a social security number? I highly doubt that. Think of all of Africa and 90% of Asia. Do you want some definitively non-trustworthy random site on the internet to know your social security number? I certainly don't. Heck, I don't even trust Gamedev.net enough to have them execute Javascript in my browser. Apparently, I can't count to two. Assuming the random social media site is trustworthy (which it isn't) what happens in case of a security breach? Stealing your worthless Facebook password is one thing. Stealing your unique human identifier is another. Do I even want to make Police work easier? It has been proven again and again that Police / Secret Service only works against the innocent, good citizen, not against criminals. They rarely, if ever, catch a criminal (and if they do, the judge sets them free the next day). They rarely, if ever, prevent a known hard criminal offender from further harming innocent people even when they have evidence of criminal behavior and concrete knowledge of immediate danger (look at Manchester last week, or Berlin some moths ago). Why would I want to help these people further invade my privacy as an innocent person than they already do? The better solution, in my opinion, would be to simply say "fuck social media". It's not good for anything anyway. This week, it's been on the news that according to some study blah blah 20% (or was it 30%, I forgot) of young people feel isolated, lonely, alienated. Go figure, if they'd just put away their fucking cellphone and scratch posting stuff on Facebook for a few hours per day, they might risk interacting with real humans. Problem solved.   I completely agree with all of your points. The practicalities suck ass. Though the authentication system would not be under the control of the website you are visiting which ticks off some of your points. You would be redirected to a trusted site (probably an internationally recognized non government body) and the site you are visiting would get a token.  My main concern is with exploiting anonymity to falsly represent a loud minority of people to sway public opinion. This was done IRL during WW2, I dont think I have to explain the horrific behaviour of people when it appears acceptable to behave in a certain way. I dont actually care about social media in any other case. Simply have a little green triangle next to the user name to identify posts which are guaranteed free human users. 
  12. [Edit, typo in topic i know :(] Hi all, I have come to the conclusion that with the current rules/systems governing the internet at some point it will become impossibe to determine if an anonymous user is a human user or an automated (AI) user. I think it is already impossible to determine for simple comments on social media. I don't know when but eventually AI will be good enough to hold a basic conversation compared to the average social media user - lets face it, its not uncommon to encounter total idiocy and to discount that as a dumbass user. There are reports of governments using social media to sway public opinion. My wife just texted me that she noticed that NASA get lots of trolls but ESA get very little. Just another piece of circumstancial evidence to throw onto the already massive pile. The only solution I see to this problem is to prevent (and make illegal in some cases) public comments without associating with a social security number  (or some other form of real world identification). This would also cut down on police work which is currently using up valuable time that could be spent investigating real world crimes. As it stands we have a comparable situation to standing in trafalgar square with a loud speaker but nobody can see you - you have some cloaking technology. If you want to use the internet then social media noise is completely unavoidable, in the same way it is unavoidable for school children who are being bullied on social media. "Dont like it - Dont use it" is not acceptable and it is obviously not acceptable to say "well, dont go to trafalgar square if you dont like the invisible people with loud speakers". Yet there are people who claim anonymous public posting is some sort of right - it is not - it is just how it has been until now.  To my knowledge there has never been a public agreement/constitution that declares the right to spout your opinions publicly while the listener is prevented from obtaining your identity. There have been some court cases and ruling but as is clear the government is benefiting from anonymity. In any case it should be clear to the listener if the user has chosen to remain anonymous or not. I think if a private forum like GameDev wishes to allow anomymous posting that is fine but I think most places would adopt the rule "anomymous posting is forbidden" pretty quickly as the most popular sites would be the ones where you know you are talking to humans. The places it would be illegal are news outlets, government press releases, official feeds. It would be clear to the users which parts of the internet are open to anonymous users and which are not. I realise it would take a lot of technical changes to the internet and global agreement but tbh, its going to happen as soon as people start complaining when they realise they have been chatting with bots on youtube comments. There will always be outlets for anonymous posting (in the case of safety) but in general, just like I dont listen to the views of people if I dont know who they are IRL I will stop visiting sites if I can't confirm that I am actually interacting with a real person.
  13. Online FPS cheating. Is it a lost cause?

    Those are all features of counter-strike, not exploits. Seriously, seeing through smoke and shooting at players who can't see you is a feature of the gameplay. If you don't pre-aim at targets through walls with your powers of prediction or snap aim from one target to the next in as few frames as mechanically possible, then you get vote-kicked out of competitive mode matches by your team after being called a noob...      whatever, sure people play well as ive explained and I have done so (since CS beta 2, yes they had grenades and movement then too) but you cant know where some one's head is before you've seen them. 1/20 active players are getting banned regularly, mostly through overwatch. Savvy cheaters play good enough to come top of the game but not good enough to get noticed.   I dont even know what kind of motive someone would have to argue this way against statistics and the industry response to the problem. Maybe you feel it tarnishes your little niche hobbie somehow - similar to when football fans get annoyed by suggesting the industry is corrupt and its all money. Its been 20 years since quake2. Some people don't have time to play to such lengths but have done so in the past. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, couldn't be arsed anymore. If you dont want to be part of the solution don't join in the conversation. Additional: If i wanted to get good at a challenging game CS:GO would be pretty low on the list. In my past i've never struggled to come consistently top of the game. Other games have proved to be significantly harder.
  14. Online FPS cheating. Is it a lost cause?

    most of your points i already know and are easily countered. However, on your last point, I find its more like going to play poker underground and if you cheat you will get your fingers broken but if you cheat in vegas you'll just get thrown out. Private servers usually have admins floating around and also have repeat visitors. There is no sense for cheaters to frequent the same servers. Sticking to a clan server is your best bet to avoid cheaters.
  15. Online FPS cheating. Is it a lost cause?

    Sure, I've been there done that. Like i said, I used to play a lot, I was frequently at the top of matches. I know all the tricks. The statistics on cheaters are accurate, the price of cheats has dropped due to volume increase. The churn of CS:GO sales is ongoing because of cheaters and valve have acted to address this in the past. I know it is possible to score just as highly as many cheaters (most of which are probably very young and use poor tactics), this is not a rant about sucking, I expect to lose because I'm out of practice and not using M/K. I was encouraged to do some reading around the frequency. Most cheaters are trying to hide their cheats, go read the cheater forums, this is what it is all about. Anti-cheat software isn't effective, a cheat isn't worth anything, lots of them go undetected. BF1 doesn't have any form of anti cheat, just statistical analysis yet cheaters were recorded in the beta and on day 1 of release. Why do you think they didn't bother? Why do we have overwatch if the cheats are detected? Im not going to post links to cheat forum threads on undetectable cheats here but you can google for them yourself. Your attitude is part of the problem, you can take offense to that if you want but maybe if gamers had called out the problem sooner companies developing cheats might have had a tougher market to break into.