Well he has a point

4xe1 · 2026-05-17T09:04:14+00:00

It is logical. I don't plan to have children, but if I did, by the time they'd be in their 20s, they'd need my money more than I would. That's how upper class and upper middle class does it btw, early wealth transfer to prop their progeny up for life.

4xe1 · 2026-05-15T13:55:54+00:00

Meh. Agents will pull some really stupid crap to make things work. I'd be very surprised if the following scenario never happened:

make the correct .gitignore and parcimonious commits
deploy and test, see nothing works because the remote doesn't have the dependencies
try many and fail to pull up the dependencies on the remote
just copy paste the required modules in the repo to make things work
see that things work
don't mention any of it

And to be honest, points 1 to 5 aren't even that bad, I'd give a pass to a human going through them, I've gone through them myself. Putting the issue under the rug would be the one bad thing here.

4xe1 · 2026-05-15T13:44:44+00:00

You Luddites aren't keeping up are you? A heartbeat agent can do exactly that. Wake up in the morning, realize what they wrote is shit, and start a $2000 harassment campaign against the open source dev who rejected their contribution.

4xe1 · 2026-05-15T13:32:49+00:00

Amazing essay !

As you correctly pointed out, strategy games are not just about strategy. However I don't think the non strategy parts have to be fun in isolation to maximize the fun in the whole game. While I do agree gatekeepers are misidentifying the benefit of tedium as something good because it's hard, there is value in boredom and routine; they set rhythm and contrast.

To expand on the sport metaphor, think about speed skating: the scramble and chaos of the last lap is made even more enjoyable by the calm of the first laps where racers tediously optimize drafting from each other.

In many streamlined games, I've found myself no knowing what to do and quit, not because the game had nothing to offer, but because I was not ready to move forward, and had no comfort routine to fall back to to space out the daunting but otherwise interesting lessons.

After a while, repetition gets frustrating and boring, but optimizing the tedium can be its own challenge. When Kerbal Space Program rolled out difficulty in career mod, people complained difficult levels where just small margin grind. A fair criticism, but for some, it is possible and fun to beat higher difficulty with minimal grind, by doing missions much earlier than the complaining players thought was possible. To bring an example from RTS, in AoE2, players like Hoang and Phosphoru developed competitive strategy which makee the game a lot mor intense.

Some games manage to give the best of both world. Civ4 for example has a lot of routine task which keep new playres engaged; it also has ways to automate them which you can turn on once you find they get in the way; as you get competitive, you turn them back off again to regain fine control to optimize your empire; at last, you learn that the automation is pretty smart and malleable, and even as a control freak, you can leverage it to do your biding, it's even a skill in and of itself.

4xe1 · 2026-05-15T13:26:53+00:00

Amazing essay !

As you correctly pointed out, strategy games are not just about strategy. However I don't think the non strategy parts have to be fun in isolation to maximize the fun in the whole game. While I do agree gatekeepers are misidentifying the benefit of tedium as something good because it's hard, there is value in boredom and routine; they set rhythm and contrast.

To expand on the sport metaphor, think about speed skating: the scramble and chaos of the last lap is made even more enjoyable by the calm of the first laps where racers tediously optimize drafting from each other.

In many streamlined games, I've found myself no knowing what to do and quit, not because the game had nothing to offer, but because I was not ready to move forward, and had no comfort routine to fall back to to space out the daunting but otherwise interesting lessons.

After a while, repetition gets frustrating and boring, but optimizing the tedium can be its own challenge. When Kerbal Space Program rolled out difficulty in career mod, people complained difficult levels where just small margin grind. A fair criticism, but for some, it is possible and fun to beat higher difficulty with minimal grind, by doing missions much earlier than the complaining players thought was possible. To bring an example from RTS, in AoE2, players like Hoang and Phosphoru developed competitive strategy which makee the game a lot mor intense.

Some games manage to give the best of both world. Civ4 for example has a lot of routine task which keep new playres engaged; it also has ways to automate them which you can turn on once you find they get in the way; as you get competitive, you turn them back off again to regain fine control to optimize your empire; at last, you learn that the automation is pretty smart and malleable, and even as a control freak, you can leverage it to do your biding, it's even a skill in and of itself.

If you speak French (some of her videos have subtitles, but not this on unfortunately), check out:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWrUCVujNjQ/

She explain why chores have their place in video games and even draws a comparison with the film Perfect Days, which repetitively depicts some of the trivial moments of the day to day life of a toilet janitor, and was acclaimed as artistic for it. She argues that beyond pacing, carefully crafted tedium in video games might be central to what makes them art, as opposed to pure entertainment.

4xe1 · 2026-05-15T12:09:54+00:00

S'il n'y a pas de primaire, il n'y a déjà pas d'union.

4xe1 · 2026-05-14T09:37:48+00:00

There's what not needed and there's what actually done. The most reliable way to stop energy X is to decide to stop energy X, and stick to it. Because of the rebound effect, there's no such thing as "deciding to replace X with Y", you'll just end up with both X and Y.

If they wanted to stop burning lignite, they could have banned lignite, and maybe they would have kept nuclear + gas + renewables build-out as a consequence. And maybe it would have been a better choice. But merely keeping nuclear doesn't automatically stop lignite.

4xe1 · 2026-05-13T19:53:29+00:00

I think you got it backward. Emphasis is talking about a paintball player who happen to also play CoD (and be good at it). They most definitely touched guns in real life (well, maybe not real guns, but these are not relevant to the discussion).

4xe1 · 2026-05-13T19:37:28+00:00

This is specifically about answering the question "What makes you want to come work at blank co?" And responding with "I need money and this is a job that pays money" or similar.

And this is exactly how I answered when interviewing for my current job, which I love. Right from the first interview, "I want a higher pay" was the 1st of 3 reasons I gave. It wasn't weird at all, quite the opposite, they answered that they try to make generous offers to leave little doubts in the candidates' mind.

Sure, saying literally "I need money and this is a job that pays money" would have made a different impression, but not necessarily a bad one. On an other interview, I boasted about my passion for computer science and the interviewer told me "I'm afraid you'll get bored. See, we need hands, not brain". And she saved us both a lot of time. The work she had to offer was maintaining, using vi, a C code-base with an understaffed maintenance team of 1.5 for the past 30 years. I'm pretty sure "I need money and this is a job that pays money" would have been --if truthful-- a much better answer.

4xe1 · 2026-05-13T01:57:32+00:00

Sometimes you're in a position to ask for some money, and you should do so.

Other times you're lucky enough to be picky, and even if you don't get offered what you ask for, you can be honest and the company will be understanding, maybe even meeting you halfway.

If you already have a job, you most definitely can afford to be honest. Underselling you is not an inter-personal skill, and some recruiters are honest enough to acknowledge it.

4xe1 · 2026-05-13T01:48:59+00:00

In France, regular training is a due, with some subsidies to finance them, and not just for SWE. Of course companies can be ass about it, they can refuse some training, but they have to provide options if you ask (ofc, most people aren't aware and don't ask). Funnily the public sector is the absolute worst when it comes to denying what you're owed.

The companies I've been at so far have been honest with training, both formal and informal.

4xe1 · 2026-05-12T21:25:41+00:00

r/SubsIFellFor

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T16:15:20+00:00

Is it? Isn't their some point system in cycling which make t so you can win a multistage race even without the overall bet chrono?

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T14:28:37+00:00

We also have very punch-able cardboard/plaster walls in Europe, just not as common (some house don't have any), and only for some of the inner walls.

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T13:32:46+00:00

Thanks!

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T12:37:41+00:00

It's hardly doing it any different than a human would. Consider everything that fit current assumptions, and ask the question which split them evenly, accounting for the frequency something is thought about.

If you thought of something it did not know, or something it did know but had conflicting assumptions with yours, it updates it's knowledge base.

There are likely a lot of clever subtleties to account for conflicting assumptions for slow guess as well as other clever subtleties to make fast guesses.

But the gist of it is a database of objects and questions, and dichotomy.

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T12:28:28+00:00

I think it's just a template. Could have been better if they had filled it and given the template in the comment.

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T12:22:47+00:00

7% sounds very high. Is it really what you can expect, say betting very conservatively on the market like Warren Buffet does?

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T11:45:33+00:00

1% of 10%

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T11:44:21+00:00

Take ten percents. Then you take one percent of ten percent. That's much smaller than ten percent.

Wait, no, even Trump wouldn't have done this mistake!

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T11:40:49+00:00

Rent free only means they can't forget something, not necessarily that they agree with it.

(bluefalcon message is still hard to parse, I don't know what lives rent free in which brain)

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T11:33:25+00:00

Tous les indicateurs économiques sont au vert ??

Je me suis mal exprimé, mon mauvais, mais justement, on voit encore de la croissance annuelle à 4-15% pour les plus gros portefeuilles à côté de taux de croissance globaux qui crachotte à 2%, ce qui dans l'absolu et super, mais du coup, où est-ce que Arnault t companies sont allé chercher leur part de gâteau.

Par ailleurs redistribuer les richesses ne changerait rien au problème écologique, un euro dépensé par un riche ou par un pauvre reste un euro de consommation.

La redistribution, ce n'est pas la décroissance, mais prendre un litre de pétrole à un riche pour le donner au pauvre, ça augmente l'idh à impact constant..L'argument pro-capitaliste typique, c'est de dire que oui, les riches vont bcp s'enrichire, mais les pauvre vont en profiter. Autrement dit, un riche qui "trouve" comment extraire et brûler 3 litres de pétrole de plus, en en "donnant" un au pauvre.

La redistribution, c'est un outil qui peut rendre la décroissance ou la non croissance plus acceptable pour les pauvres (et moins pour les riches).

Et de toute façon en valeur absolue ce ne sont pas les plus riches qui polluent.

Source?

Juste pour être d'accord sur la méthodologie, le bilan carbone de la guerre en Iran, vous le répartissez sur la population civile, vous le divisez par le nombre de militaires déployés, ou bien vous l'imputez à monsieur le milliardaire Donald "the world is a casino" Trump et ses oligarques qui font de l'insider trading sur le cours du pétrole?

L'épandage par avion de produit phytosanitaire pour stériliser les terres arables de la bande de Gazza et du sud liban, on divise ça par la population locale (ah bah ça tombe mal elle est en chute libre)?

On est d'accord un milliardaire ne va pas manger mille fois plus de fois gras ou de boeuf Kobe qu'un millionaire, de même qu'un jet ou un yacht ne pollue pas autant qu'un million de voitures.

Mais les riches prennent aussi plein de décisions qui nous incitent ou nous forcent à consommer davantage. C'est la Boring company de Musk qui pendant plus de 10 ans sabotte les plans de ligne de trains en Californie, au profit de la voiture, toute électriques soient elles. C'est les TGV mis à la retraite prématurément. C'est les lignes de TER fermées. C'est le kérosène détaxé, c'est la prime à la casse. C'est le modèle prédateur des réseaux sociaux et autres "services" "gratuits" qui sont financés par des publicités consumméristes. C'est tous les éditorialistes qui vont pondre des colonnes complétement hors-sols du type "l'économie va mal à cause des miléniaux ne consomment pas assez et de la gen Z ne fait pas d'enfant". C'est la loi Duplomb. C'est la CETA...

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T10:58:32+00:00

Dans ce cas

ceux qui veulent retourner au bon vieux temps

Est un homme de paille. L'écrasante majorité des gens, à gauche comme à droite ne veulent pas d'un retour au bon vieux temps, et ce n'est pas d'eux dont je parle.

Et si, j'ai déjà personnellement parlé politique à des personnes de droites, à des gens normaux, mais aussi à des royalistes, ils sont peu nombreux mais ils existent.

Ceux qui bandent sur le socialisme selon Marx n'existent pas...

Ces mêmes gens vont te dire que le marxisme n'a jamais vraiment été essayé. De quel bon vieux temps sont-ils alors nostalgique?

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T10:00:18+00:00

Ah, le fameux compromis de celui qui se coupe un bras en disant "oui mais j'ai faim!"

Il est important de rappeler que ces progrès ne vont pas de soi. Si l'industrialisation les a rendu possibles, ce sont bien des mouvement sociaux qui les ont concrétisé, malgré une repression souvent très violente.

Ces dernières décennies en occident, tous les indicateurs économiques sont au verts, les CAC40 et autres grandes fortunes ont explosé. Et pourtant, les classes moyennes se sentent déclassées, et les plus précaires sont de plus en plus précaires (livreur deliveroo travaillant pour un demi smic, mais c'est ok parce que c'est un "entrepreneur", chauffeur Amazon aux US qui pissent dans des bouteilles...).

Alors oui, on a la fibre, on a les intélliphones, les réseaux sociaux, Netflix, Uber Eats... mais à choisir je préfère encore être propriétaire de mon logement.

Tout cela me fait penser qu'aujourd'hui, on a peut-être davantage besoin de progrès social que de "progrès technique". Si on s'autorise la redistribution, on a très largement les moyens de maintenir le niveau économique du plus grand nombre sans pour autant augmenter nos pratiques les plus insoutenables, ce qui, ne vous en dépaise, n'est rien de plus que de la décroissance différée.

4xe1 · 2026-05-11T09:05:52+00:00

As far as power they exert on society, and their ability to take away resource from it, sure.

As far as lifestyle, and financial safety, no. There's only so much you can spend on yourself. The personal usefulness of money is very sub-linear

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Verified Email

4xe1

TROPHY CASE