You’re moving in the wrong direction. Brave already has shown signs of enshittification.

Also Mozilla is right to make a stink here. Perhaps you are not familiar with what happened to Netscape?

Yeah, to be clear, I take no issue with it myself. I just see how someone could make the comparison.

They’re talking about the character portrait in the top left of the image of the post. I see what he means. Your character has that same blank look and even seems in the same approximate pose. I haven’t played your game, so I dunno if what he’s talking about applies to the whole game or just that image.

Yeah, I seriously doubt that. Again, I worked in the studio. It was well staffed and the devs were incredibly competent. Games are just more complex now and since this is a AAA game, they aim for high fidelity. The main thing they need to do is not release a game every year, but that’s essentially throwing money away.

So I actually used to work on NBA2K. NBA Live used to be considered the superior game. One year, they missed their deadline and had to delay the game. This caused all the basketball fans to buy NBA2K. They all decided it was better and NBA Live never regained their lead, which lead us to today. Visual Concepts is now very adamant about never delaying the game, which is why there is a yearly crunch, devs get paid overtime, and they avoid feature creep aggressively.

*matcha lattes

Girlies would never drink traditional matcha

No, because there are plenty of other places to get coffee. The only competing franchise, NBA Live, stopped being made years ago. The irony is that NBA licensing isn’t exclusive, so feasibly another studio could come in to create competition, but it won’t happen.

I think the entire field of AI (not just the generative AI subset) should’ve been called “simulated intelligence” or something like that. It points to the goal of the field (i.e. to achieve something similar to intelligence) without the implicit claim that any of the contributions achieve true intelligence.

I didn’t shove it that deep. I just tried to clean just inside my ear, which was enough to shove some ear wax further up my ear and clog it. I now know (and frequently lecture my wife) that qtips should only be used on the outside of the ear.

I inadvertently clogged one of my ears with a Qtip, effectively making me deaf in that ear. I tried to wait it out, but I eventually started to get a headache. Went to the clinic, and they flushed my ear out. I don’t use Qtips anymore.

Yeah, I will not pretend that I did not have fun with it. However, by the end of it I had not desire for more of it. As a result, I haven’t played any of the sequels.

I find it kind of funny that Spider-Man is held up as some sort of golden standard to adhere to in all of this. Spider-Man is also very average game imo. The gameplay is not very compelling, and it’s no surprise that Insomniac’s approach would overstay its welcome after a couple of games. Doubly so when you move from Spider-Man, a character with a more diverse moveset and inherent better traversal abilities, to Wolverine.

Bright white gravy is probably garbage from a packet. A gravy made with quality, flavorful sausage will always add a bit of color.

I always thought it was because they essentially pioneered the “rock music for commercials” genre

I didn’t say I think it’s art. I don’t know if it is, and I don’t really care if it is or not. I also don’t care if it’s called art. I’m just saying the mental gymnastics of trying to convince someone that something like programming as art is cringe.

I certainly don’t disagree with the points made in the video. It in fact points out something related to what I’m saying. He states he notices that people that claim something is not art are often gatekeeping something from becoming “elevated.” I’m extending the converse argument: many people trying to claim something is art are trying to elevate it to a new status.

My problem with calling programming art is not that I don’t think programming is art, but rather that I think that label is not useful in this context. Programming is something that is very much valued without that label. Thus adding the label is just an attempt to tack on unneeded elevation to the craft. In some ways the video supports my viewpoint. The debate over what is art is a bit tired. It’s worth having, but personally I don’t think it is needed in this case.

I honestly think trying to define programming as art is just an attempt to unnecessarily elevate it. Programming is utilitarian. It is meant for a specific practical purpose. It does not reveal a shared human experience the way a movie, book, or game does. I have no need to convince myself, a professional software engineer of this because I am perfectly happy accepting that what I do is useful and do not need to try to put myself in a category with artists.

All the author is saying is that people enjoy programming. I also enjoy eating. Is that an art? I even have my own “eating style” in that I like to eat food in specific order, combine two items into one bite, the way I build a bite, etc. But I’d never try to elevate it because I’m a normal person who doesn’t waste brainpower trying to make myself feel special.

I have put on that much muscle. I just refuse to buy any kool-aid that’s being sold to me. Maybe they should bring proof instead of spreading trends blindly?

Gym bros misquote this as a gram per pound, which is just a ridiculous amount of protein.

deleted by creator