Perfide

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

It gives them a fighting chance to build an emergency fund before the next emergency versus ending up drowning in interest on the current debt.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

Anakin is, yes. Padme isn't.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But when was the last time they landed on the Moon?

1972, which was the last time NASA even bothered attempting to land on the moon at all(well, soft land. They've sent up an impactor since then). It's not like they kept trying and suddenly started failing, they just never planned another landing mission until Artemis 2 and 3.

Tell me though, what did Apollo 17 have that every moon mission since has not had? Oh yeah, people, and not even for the first time ever, no. That was the 6th time in a roughly 3 year timeframe that NASA put people on the moon. Oh yeah, and on all 6 of those occasions, and even the disastrous Apollo 13, all the astronauts made it home safe.

So the last time NASA even tried to land on the moon, they 100% successfully did so, while doing something for the 6th time that no other space agency to this day has done before or since.

Let me know when JAXA puts people on the moon, and then we can talk about them being more capable than NASA.

NASA tells us they'll have Artemis ready by, what, next year?

Yawn, I'm so tired of this argument. Literally all you guys ever say nowadays when trying to denigrate NASA is "You really think Artemis will launch on time? lol". I've been hearing the same low effort argument since well before Artemis 1 launched. How about expounding on it for once and actually explain why you think Artemis will fail, as you clearly think it will? Not be delayed, fail. Everyone paying attention(clearly you weren't, or you would have already known and not needed to edit your post) knew for over a year prior to the official delay announcement that A2 and A3 would be delayed, that does not mean anything as far as the success of the actual mission goes.

Sure, congress could slash their budget, as they're often prone to doing, which could possibly kill the program, but that still says nothing about NASA's technical capabilities.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

The first one is very similar to The Boys.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Personally I miss the added flavor of the microplastics

/s

[–] [email protected] 38 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Most of the fun for the people breaking anti-cheat is the actual breaking of anti-cheat, not the cheating itself. It's the script kiddies who use the already completed work with little to no effort involved who are doing most of the actual cheating.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

DC's direct to video animation department consistently puts out absolute bangers, so that's not surprising. It's the live action stuff where they continuously drop the ball.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

It was for a family friend who is disabled and unable to work a normal job, so me and my brother(also a dev on this) agreed to be paid on project completion. Long story short, she wasn't able to pay so the final bug fixes were never done, and the code has been left to rot. Under different circumstances I'd be putting pressure to get at least some payment, but it's pointless imo.

Lesson learned though, not doing that again.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

I can't help you with this in the general sense... but trust me, if they block you, you won. That's a full retreat on their part.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What a stupid metric to base competency off of. NASA has successfully landed on Mars 6 times in the last 20 years; the most recent of which included a drone, achieving the first ever controlled powered flight on another planet(and it's still going, over 60+ flights more than the "optimistic" 5 that were planned).

Landing on Mars is exponentially harder than landing on the Moon, and only NASA and CNSA(China) have fully succeeded at it(The USSR's Mars 3 only gets partial credit imo), and only NASA has done it more than once(9 times total, to be specific)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

It's not that simple. A lot of browser "standards" are standards in that they achieve the same end result, but for whatever reason they take a different approach to getting to that result, so you often end up needing browser specific code. This is especially the case with CSS, which is why so many "standard" CSS properties still need a "-moz" or a "-webkit" version as well, decades in. The only way the website can know if they're running the correct code for that browser is if they know what browser is being used, hence user agents. This is the reason that pop ups like this exist at all; sure they were lazy as fuck to not properly support Firefox, absolutely, but they wouldn't have needed to support Firefox specifically at all if browsers could just get their shit together and fix the "standards".

I would fucking cry tears of joy if browsers could standardize enough that writing browser specific code and needing the user agent was a thing of the past, but I really don't see it happening any time soon.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely this, nothing but pure laziness. I had a really weird specific issue on iOS Safari with one of my projects, and I own literally nothing Apple. Instead of just accepting shits fucked on iOS, I got my hands on a borrowed Mac so I could use xCode and actually find the issue.

...then again, that project ended up dead in the water at like 95% completion and I never got paid for the work I'd already finished, so maybe the joke IS on me and I should've been a lazy fuck.

view more: ‹ prev next ›