scott_w

True though I suspect it being, essentially, the first instance of it happening meant developers were playing catchup until it became the norm.

You said “they’re similar” and I’m refuting that by pointing out that they operate very differently. One is a retailer and one is a developer/publisher. Their operating models are different, so you can’t point at two percentages and say “they’re similar” in any way.

You’re mostly correct but there’s truth to the original statement. Back in the PlayStation/N64 through to PS3/Xbox 360, consoles were so different to each other and PCs that porting games was a major task that resulted in very different outcomes.

Since the PS4/Xbox One, they’ve been similar enough in underlying architecture that engines like Unreal have been able to smooth over the differences enough to make multiplatform technically viable. It’s meant companies like Capcom with RE Engine have made a huge success out of selling across all platforms, including PC. That freedom for publishers is a problem for console manufacturers who have fewer 3rd party exclusives as a result.

No, they’re not even remotely the same. The retailer keeps 30% of the retail price and, out of that, they pay for the upkeep of the store. It’s not 30% pure profit, it’s not even gross profit given they need to pay the card processing fees out of that 30%.

You’re confusing 2 different things. Microsoft isn’t demanding a “cut,” it’s demanding its business units achieve a 30% profit margin on its investment. I think industry standard is closer to 10% once you factor in games that don’t make a return on their investment.

And the article says it won’t be automatically installed, so it’s only there for people that want it.

Once you’ve installed uv, adding ruff and ty is trivial. Installing uv is the only hoop you need to jump.

It does need to be paired with investment in train infrastructure, usually led by governments.

Obviously, that would be a very good thing, just pointing it out!

Because that’s also not desirable all the time either. There are lots of one make series out there but they can be pretty mixed in how fun they are to watch. I was at Croft a few weeks ago and the BTCC rounds were incredible, close racing with overtakes and near miss crashes.

The Porsche GT and GT Sprint Cups (911 and Cayman respectively) were a lot more like a procession where the faster drivers quickly ordered themselves and drove away from the rest of the grid. Granted there were fewer cars starting, which didn’t help, but it still didn’t make for exciting viewing.

The customer CEO never watched that presentation.

That’s exactly what they’re doing to reduce fuel usage by up to 6%.

Yep, you’re right. I was mixing it up with Groom of the Stool.

I just checked and you’re right! I’m mixing it up with Groom of the Stool, which was a separate but also honourable position.

Not to mention the Privy Council, so named because they were trusted to speak to the King while he was on the toilet!

I don’t think the modern day Privy Council ever met with Elizabeth II in such a way!

I do think it’s fair to point out that both of these postage Matilda by a few hundred years. I’m actually struggling to think of many Christian European kingdoms that would have at this point.

France only had kings at that point (in fact, Matilda’s son Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Acquitaine comes about because she didn’t give the king of France a son!)

Germany (HRE) selected their emperor so didn’t have succession problems in that sense.

Italy was a collection of city states, Naples was yet to form a kingdom.

Maybe Poland had an earlier queen? But then I don’t know if English nobles paid much attention to Poland, to be honest!

The substance of your objection is “these criticisms are regularly levelled at men today,” and you skip the part that 900 years have passed since they were levelled at Matilda. You then demand the article provide evidence to overcome this comparison you have been 12th century norms and 21st century norms? Really?

Let me repeat: this is not intended as a thesis. It’s a small historical tale to explain the background of a period of time in early mediaeval England. It assumes you know how women were viewed during that time period and the example provides flavour. If you want to contradict its claims, just post the articles that shows differently.

So there were some texts later discussing the problems of Elizabeth I being Queen Regnant when all laws and customs referred to a “King.” We also see a lot of her father’s behaviour (Henry VIII) being driven by his need for a male heir. It’s why he tries to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

Er… no it didn’t? It just said the criticism being based on her womanhood was evident because of <reason>, it never promised to prove it, it was just a rhetorical device and they expect the reader to know the information already.

If you want to learn more about early medieval attitudes to women and power in England, it’s on you to learn, not on the article to triple its length to prove every minor claim.

I’m struggling to follow your point. The article isn’t giving a major thesis on why medieval people thought Matilda couldn’t rule England. From the perspective of the barons at the time, Matilda couldn’t be queen in her own right because women can’t rule. They didn’t think any deeper than that.

More importantly: a king was expected to embody the traits a queen was hammered for.

Let me get this straight, your contentions are:

- Bush invaded Iraq because an oil company funded his campaign?

- Obama bailed out banks (a thing every government worldwide was doing) because banks funded his campaign?

There’s no evidence of these claims, compared to the evidence of a fucking private jet being bought for Trump in comparison. Also Trump has enriched himself, personally, more than any president in history by quite some margin, using the office of President. I just wanted to show what you’re equivocating about, here.

That’s not an answer to the question. How did any of these presidents profit, financially or not, from their actions regarding Iraq or the 2008 financial crisis? What was the quid pro quo they received?

No, they’re not examples of corruption. Did Bush or Biden seek to profit from their actions financially? Not that I know of, unless you have proof showing what and how.

I explained: they’re all doing different things, they have different behaviours, they have different performance and uptime characteristics. The reason that the values change are completely different, so how that information is set and read will be completely different. Who sets it, who reads it.

An example: at my current job, we’re using LaunchDarkly for config management, not just rollout. This means an incident on LaunchDarkly didn’t just stop a rollout, it caused the system behaviour to change for a large number of customers as it reverted to the default.

One way I’ve thought of it is to ask what happens if the function is blocked, how is it enabled mechanically and why would that be changed? Once you answer these, you start to see the groupings more clearly, I’ve found.

I 100% agree with everything you said and more. I spent a significant amount of time at my job arguing constantly with the entire engineering department that “Feature Flags” are not all the same thing and had to push back on efforts to mix them all up.

Examples:

Experiment flags for A/B testing

Permission checks at a user level

Product flags for feature gating by plan

Rollout flags to launch a new feature gradually

Configuration for an account/system/feature

The number of times I had to push against the “just put it behind hasFeatureFlag(user, flag)” is more than I can count at this point! I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the DRY principle, to be honest.

I’m not here to defend credit agencies but I will point out that the GDPR does put the onus on them to make sure the information is accurate. This is a net positive.

The power to delete your data with them would actually result in exactly the situation you described, likely without the requester knowing that’s what’ll happen!

> If that's right than handling a GDPR data request 100% according to the rules would require having some way to search nearly every computer we've got looking for anything concerning any particular customer.

You’re only half right. If you habitually store data and never delete it from those stores, yes, you have to find and provide it. If they’re temporary (voicemail, fixing a specific issue) and you remove it as soon as it’s no longer needed, you’ll be fine.

> It included a vast amount of things that the company had inferred from the data.

If you’ve tied it to that person, it’s in scope. It’s literally part of GDPR.

> Customer service rep sends an email to their supervisor saying the customer won't take reasonable advice and then gets abusive and asking the supervisor how to deal with future calls from them?

Possibly but you could argue not because that could be business risk.

> I make a list on my computer of customers that I think are exploiting a bug in our billing system to get a lower price, print out that list and assign it to someone to investigate and fix the bug if it exists.

No, you have a valid reason to not share that, as long as you remove the PII once you’re done.

> leaves a voice mail where they include "my new credit card number is <xxx> with security code <yyy> and expiration date <zzz>", that's supposed to show up in their GDPR data.

If you’re deleting voicemails as you address them you’re fine, you won’t need to include this just because you didn’t get round to deleting it yet.

> So first you tell me to blindly trust officals, now i should leave country! Great advice!

Again, context. I’m bored of explaining it to you like a toddler so I’ll just tell you to reread my comments very slowly and figure it out.

> GDPR is drafted by EU. They went way too far, and made it imcompatible with local laws!

This is just a nonsensical statement. GDPR has been in force for 7 years. You haven’t given an example of where it changes, because it fundamentally hasn’t.

> You said "shady shit"!

Look, I don’t think English is your first language, so I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it’s getting really tiring having to explain basic things like “context” to you. I’m obviously meaning in the context of data governance. I’m accusing you of selling customer data to unscrupulous characters, to be precise.

> You obviously have no idea how business here works! Some gov offical will tell you to delete data for GDPR. Some other gov offical will ask for the same data latter, to prove tax records or people complied with vacine mandates! You get fined from both sides!

Either you’re bullshitting me or you live in Eastern Europe and need to give kickbacks to stay in business. If the latter, that’s not the GDPR’s fault. It’s the fault of your government for not being able to draft law.

> Every two years there is a big law reform of some area, while other areas with conflicting laws are still in effects.

That’s not the GDPR, that’s your country having a poor grasp of how to make law. It’s a different problem and I’d recommend either lobbying your local representative or just leave to a sane country which will let you do business.