Partially agree. The series as a whole fully agree, game by game is iffy

XC1 can absolutely stand alone and really needs you to go in blind

XCFC doesn’t make sense without having played XC1

XC2 again can stand alone but you’ll catch some story stuff sooner if you’d played XC1

XCTTGC makes no sense without XC2

XC3 is this bizzaro mess I’m still not sure what the fuck happened but I think it does need XC1 and 2 background knowledge

XCFR retains XC3 heavy reliance on the previous games, but cranked up to levels that makes the Star Wars sequels seem almost reasonable

How dare you, you forgot the Ardanian soldier. He was very specific and clear

As someone who learned Ada for a defense job years ago, I’ve been wondering how long it was going to take until I saw others comparing Rust to it, both in the sense of the language “safety” goals and the USG pushing for it.

While the rust compiler is leagues better than any Ada compiler I ever had the misfortune of dealing with, the day to day pain that Rust incurs will probably always be a thorn in it’s side

For me, I view Apollo as the highschool quarterback winning the homecoming game.

In the context, its a great achievement. A lot of time, effort, and luck all came together at just the right moment to create an entertaining spectacle. The school is all happy and celebrating, students will remember that moment for years to come. But in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that big of an achievement since everyone there will move on to bigger and greater things, except they won’t have a student body cheering them on.

I think saying the Apollo program is one of the greatest achievements of mankind falsely puts it on a pedestal and forever sets up all other achievements as being lesser. Makes us all feel like anything that isn’t chasing that glory isn’t worth it. It’s an achievement for sure, but not the biggest. If I had to give the greatest achievement in space technology to anything, I’d give it to either GPS or GOES.

Short answer: it’s not that we don’t have the technology, its that we don’t have a reason to. With very few exceptions, if you can do it on the moon you can do it on earth or in Earth orbit

Long answer: in the space industry/field the moon is incredibly boring, relatively expensive to get to, and adds an extra step of logistics to an already complicated mission profile. Most space related technology advancement efforts have gone into doing things in orbit and there is more to do there than on the moon, it’s logistically simpler, and cost is orders of magnitude less. Stuff is still advancing there, think Hubble vs James Web, GPS 1 vs GPS 3, the entire GOES system. In terms of technical challenges, they’re far more interesting than anything on the moon, but it’s not as flashy/headline grabbing so it’s not talked about much.

The US going to the moon in the 60/70s was a rare combination of a win for scientists, politicians, and the people. The political incentive went away since as the USSR space program collapsed so too did political pressure to continue to put men on the moon and “prove 'Murica is better than those damn commies”.

In modern times the political incentive is returning with the continued efforts by China to do more stuff in space so we get the Artemis program, but the incentives aren’t that strong which is why the program has moved so slowly.

Combination of anti large company sentiment + people feeling entitled to get things for free if I had to guess. It also usually feels wrong when a corporation threatens a lawsuit over a single person since the US court system heavily favors the person with more money and it’s probably a true statement to say that Nintendo has more resources than the lead dev.

Modern Vintage Gamer on YouTube had an interesting take in that by stifling emulator development now it will hurt the industry in the long run because Switch exclusives will become increasingly difficult to play once support ends (an argument I myself don’t find all that compelling)

Nerrel on YouTube has a well put together and researched video on emulation where at least in the US it’s been tested in court several times that emulators are legal, but obtaining the code for the emulators to run is almost always not since you usually have to make a copy and that violates the publisher’s right to copy

They were doing the breast they can 😒

As someone who is in the aerospace industry and has dealt with safety critical code with NASA oversight, it’s a little disingenuous to pin NASA’s coding standards entirely on attempting to make things memory safe. It’s part of it, yeah, but it’s a very small part. There are a ton of other things that NASA is trying to protect for.

Plus, Rust doesn’t solve the underlying problem that NASA is looking to prevent in banning the C++ standard library. Part of it is DO-178 compliance (or lack thereof) the other part is that dynamic memory has the potential to cause all sorts of problems on resource constrained embedded systems. Statically analyzing dynamic memory usage is virtually impossible, testing for it gets cost prohibitive real quick, it’s just easier to blanket statement ban the STL.

Also, writing memory safe code honestly isn’t that hard. It just requires a different approach to problem solving, that just like any other design pattern, once you learn and get used to it, is easy.

Whenever I replay OOT I never have a problem with Navi. She rarely hard interrupts, usually just a short tone and flashing C button that goes away after a few seconds. The voice lines only trigger if you press the button to call her, in most cases the hints she gives are genuinely helpful, and stays out of your way for the vast majority of the game.

Fi from skyward sword though… Far worse because she does interrupt gameplay, often repeats what the last dialogue box just fucking told you, and takes several dialogue boxes to tell you what Navi would have taken one to do. I’m glad they significantly overhauled her interactions in the HD release but I’m still going to be hesitant to play that game again

It’s IEEE misinterpreting the guys original paper.

https://liuyang12.github.io/proj/privacy_dual_imaging/ (can’t find the full paper, but here’s the abstract at least)

The paper author straight up says the light sensor is impractical to use as an attack vector, but when you use it in conjunction with other sensors you might be able to gleam more information than most might think. It leaves me with question of what other sensors can you combine to start getting behavioral information that is a security threat?

I’ll say it worked for me. I read the IEEE headline, called bullshit, dug into it and yeah you can only get a tiny bit of information that you have to stretch pretty far to get useful conclusions from… But it’s more than the zero I initially thought. So props to the paper author, he met his goal. IEEE wanted sensationalized clicks, which they too unfortunately got.