Posts by BrownishMonstr 542 publicly visible posts • joined 22 May 2011
The Ribbon gets a lot of hate.
Perhaps it's because I was only 15/16 at the time it came out, so rather youthful at the time, but I thought it was a much better design. A lot of hidden features were now more visible to the average user, like super/subscript text.
Now that I'm old, I might not enjoy UIs constantly changing, though.
The team should be shutting those conversations down and request they are taken out of the standup--Not everyone in the standup needs to be a part of those. The point of standing up is to make it "uncomfortable" for people to talk for a long time. Some teams even go into planks during standups to make it even more uncomfortable.
Standups are to touch base with everyone, tell them what you're going to do so they're in the loop, raise any blockers, tell everyone you feel like shit you your output be fucked for the day.
Apologies for the delayed response, I forgot about this.
My point is if NOBODY uses the documentation (never gets read) then there really is no value, because no one is using it. It's a bit like creating software no one uses.
But if someone uses it then there is value so do it. We have documentation where it makes sense and we even have some that needs deleting because there's no value in it anymore.
I'm also thinking we need other documentation to clear requirements up, instead of everything being in user stories, which I find confusing.
Crap devs aside, if there's value in it then you should do it.
Also you should most of them times ignore whatever the fuck agile evangelists say—do what works best, but sometimes asking them why they suggest things could be beneficial.
To be fair, the manifesto states:
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Which, to me, means it is better to spend time on making more value, that is, time spent making software work than on documentation no one is going to look at.
If documentation helps you succeed that, then there is value to it so do it. If in your retros** you find the documentation is a hinderance, then you should look into what you can do to improve it.
** retros are important to me as it gives the team the ability and freedom to raise issues and allows everyone to fix them. We rarely have management in ours: just the developers, tester, and product owner. We joke, we laugh, we swear, we even banter on our retro boards. It's light-hearted fun but we achieve what we need to: improvements in our processes, which might not always be better, but at least we can learn why.
BUT: Agile cannot be the same for every team---each team will need to continuously go through a learning phase to learn what helps and what doesn't, and doing X now might be good, but then it might not be good next year.
In all honesty, the Ribbon exposed features to users, which were previously hidden behind menus.
"Wait, you can superscript a font? I was creating textboxes and placing them where I needed them" --- A teaching assistant 18yrs ago
On the ribbon, it was on the home tab with the rest of the "text/font" group.
That said, I did not like it on Autodesk. I think whether we like it or not depends on when we started to use it. For me, I was about 15/16 when the Ribbon came out, so it was something I got used to pretty quickly. But if I had to relearn it now in my 30's, I can see the learning curve be more difficult to climb.
Exactly.
I'm not saying they're not doing it for money---all companies want more.
However, MS's focus is on cloud gaming, which makes CMA right in not wanting to stifle competition, but it's still early and a few players have entered and left the cloud-gaming arena. I don't think MS buying ABK would stifle competition in cloud gaming, but it would open the opportunity for another developer to take ABK's place. Why?? Because typical MS buys companies and kills them off.
I think there are a few things the EC needed to address:
1) Is this going to allow XBOX to gain greater dominance against Nintendo and Sony?
XBOX is third in sales behind Sony and Nintendo and is very unlikely to close the gap by much.
2) Is XBOX going to gain greater dominance on Windows over competitors?
This is a possibility.
3) Is Microsoft going to gain an uncompetitive advantage on cloud gaming?
Cloud gaming is too soon to tell, but very few competitors have invested much in it. Google have abandoned Stadia, too, so GeForce Now seems to be the only other competitor. Microsoft has promised a ten-year deal to other cloud gaming providers, so the competitors see this has helping them. Microsoft could abuse its position as a cloud provider, but then the EC are going to start looking into Azure, funnily enough.
LOL!
That isn't what it says:
https://quran.com/27?startingVerse=63
Is this where you got it from? The author himself said he took verses from the bible and added "Allah" to it. A few people seem to have believed this to be the truth, too.
https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/top-5-worst-verses-quran/
I am happy for you to share verses that you think are problematic. Some things can be interpreted in different ways, too, but I am still happy for you to share problematic verses.
But you are really just sharing misinformation, which can be dangerous to people like yourself who are happy to believe stuff they read but don't question it. I am also like that, but usually just when it comes to companies, stuff that doesn't make any difference to anyone. But when it is vilifying a group of people, then I try to find the truth.
"MAKING THE BEST PLATFORM":
w.r.t the platform, I understand your reasoning, but I don't think that always works, otherwise Windows Phone would have done better. I recall MS offering incentives to devs to create the apps, but without the users few devs could bother. Without the apps few users could bother switching. Likewise, I think without the content the users won't come, and without the users few devs would be arsed to port games over. I think Good Old Games offers something amazing (games, particularly old, without DMA) and it's quite niche.
Not sure about Epic or Steam, tbh. Please can you explain more about these? Steam was something I saw as windows-specific, but they also have their own steam deck stuff.
"10 YEAR PROMISES":
I understand what you are saying and I agree Microsoft can't be trusted, but the 10-year promises are something they thought would satisfy the market authorities because of Sony's concerns. I also think Balmer-era MS is different to Nadella's, as we can see from the way MS has reacted to Open-Source. I don't believe this is any charity from their side, but a business decision for increasing profit/reach/influence, but I can't imagine .NET core would be a thing under Balmer's influence.
Degradation on other platforms
Yes, this is a concern, and I don't know what the solution is. But as we are talking about Cloud platforms the only concerns are bugs, lack of DLC, and difference in cost on other platforms, assuming they are still forced to offer their games on other platforms. However, I still cannot see Microsoft these days employing the same practices they did before---especially since they're not as loved as before and won't be able to get away with mich.
Activision Blizzard
I dunno. Perhaps I'm not really into gaming as much as when I was in my teens, but this company has come under so much bad press that I don't think they're all that important as they once were. I don't think it would be good for gamers but only because I think, like in the past, Microsoft gobbling up a company kills it off. AVB would essentially just end up producing terrible knock-offs of its own IP, giving the opportunity for another company to take the place it once had. Microsoft taking AVB under its own wings and smothering it can only be good.
I am in two minds, here.
On the one hand, I understand CMA's decision as Microsoft are far ahead on Cloud gaming, and this merger could prevent or hinder other cloud services from ever taking hold.
On the other hand, cloud gaming could be an expensive investment so the only players would be the big ones, really. Microsoft should not be punished for investing early into cloud gaming, I see them as trying to ensure content will be available on their platform. Otherwise, like Netflix and Windows Phone, a lack of content could really hinder their own platform.
I think the right decision would be to allow the merger, but force Microsoft to develop these games on other big cloud gaming platforms, when they arrive. Microsoft should also be forced to allow anyone they have done deals with to use alternative service providers other than Microsoft (Linux servers, Azure cloud, etc).
As a gamepass subscriber, I would like the merger to go ahead, however I rarely play games these days so I don't have that much skin in the game.
MS are moving to the cloud business, so that's where they want to orientate their future products.
XBOX now has cloud gaming, although I personally found it to be a bit subpar. They also have dev boxes in the cloud for software development.
This probably works for allowing remote workers to use better hardware without it being physically present.
This won't work in all use-cases, and I don't blame MS for trying. Sometimes you have to risk failure to try new things.
The benefits of cloud, for me, is the ability to scale up/down, have better availability than on-prem, being to create new test environments, and have less dependence on other teams in our IT. There are also other cloudy features, such as feature flags and SignalR (with scaling up/down & being load-balanced) that could suit me very well.
Yes, these can be done on-prem, but it took our IT team a good few months to get another test environment up and running. They are busy AF, we are busy AF. Company does not want to hire more people, so cloud might be the way to get around it.
I think it will hurt Sony, and in a way it is doing so right now---they are very upset, so it's hurting them.
On a more serious note, COD has had early releases to PlayStation, which is why Sony is not incredibly happy, as Microsoft would stop that from happening in the future.
Twenty dollars?
It'll cost peanuts for Apple to add a charger The cost in manufacturing, packaging, and transporting it will be less than that if it was included with the phone. It will cost the consumer more to buy it separate, plus more packaging going into the bin.
Plus, I don't buy a phone every year, so a new cable I can keep on to, in case one of my other ones break, would be nice.
To be honest, were Apple to supply decent cables I probably wouldn't have as much of an issue.
> Rounded corners: check
**Checks date** Yep, it isn't 2008 anymore.
> Recharge twice a day: check
My iPhone 8 plus only needed charging twice a day after 3 years, at which point I replaced the battery, so a nightly charge was all that was required.
>Osolete within 2 years: check
I had my 8 plus for four years, and it was still receiving updates every few months. Could have kept it longer, but wanted to upgrade to a fancier, new phone. My Samsung tabbie stopped receiving updates after 2 years.
>Very expensive: check
Yep, they are. But I also don't have the time, nor can I be arsed, to fiddle with my phone or tech anymore. No more going into the settings like an excited teenager. I just want the stuff to work.
Aye, but don't forget Google are also more interested in selling data, so it might have some other benefit to them.
One of the arguments I read in the Verge's article is that Apple "also don't allow the fees to be passed onto the customers". So, if Apple was okay with companies passing the fees onto the customer, this lawsuit wouldn't have even been brought up in the US.
I have an honest question. In a previous job, a colleague, who after the event I learnt was on the Autism spectrum, asked me what my favourite thing was. After thinking for a few seconds, I said watching TV.
When I asked him what his was, his response was "Sex". I told him "I was going to say that, but I thought it's a bit inappropriate in the workplace" and his response was "I don't find many things to be inappropriate".
Is his behaviour normal for someone with ASD? I know it is a spectrum and not all on it will suffer the same, I
I don't think anyone would give a toss, really, if Apple allowed users to install other App Stores. But they don't, so it's either pay that 30%, or don't have access to iOS users.
In my opinion, it is wrong and Apple should be forced to allow users to add other App Stores. I am happy using the App Store, but the option should be there.
I, sir, am a proud iPhone user and awaiting delivery of my new shiny-shiny iPhone 13 Pro Max , since I felt like upgrading after four years of using my 8 Plus.
But, fuck me, does he chat shit.
If you find yourself on a cesspool called "Reddit", which I am now a frequent user, you'll find a lot of people defending Apple and their recent win of "Not allowing other App stores" on iOS. The small number who argue this is bad, get downvoted to oblivion.
Which makes me think, I wonder how much Apple Inc have donated recently, they're getting a lot of wins.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
