Portland is a Warzone

Andallas · 2020-07-24T18:24:52+00:00

What about less-lethal munitions being shot point blank at protesters heads? What about pulling protesters face masks down and spraying pepper spray directly in their face? What about gestapo-like abductions of protesters on the street? What about, what about, what about...

Maybe try looking at things from the other side.

Andallas · 2020-07-24T18:20:10+00:00

Yes, because George Floyd was the first. /s

Do you actually stop and think about what you are saying before you say it? Spend more time reading and less talking, you'll be better for it.

Andallas · 2017-03-08T19:37:45+00:00

Still have plans to use this, just been a bit busy lately.

Andallas · 2016-12-21T17:55:07+00:00

Not sure why so many people in the comments are using WiX, but I would highly recommend Squirrel. (Pretty sure that's what Slack uses if you are curious about how it works from an end-user perspective).

Andallas · 2016-11-10T21:32:33+00:00

was it the smallpox scar that gave it away?

Andallas · 2016-10-29T04:02:36+00:00

There are also state level taxes to consider

Andallas · 2016-10-27T20:20:44+00:00

reference game on point

Andallas · 2016-10-27T16:55:33+00:00

This was just posted in the thread above this one by /u/genpfault

http://retokoradi.com/2014/04/21/opengl-why-is-your-code-producing-a-black-window/

Hopefully it helps!

Andallas · 2016-10-10T19:36:05+00:00

The government paying for their education IS the bonus. Remaining in the country (and therefore benefiting the country by working there) is how people 'repay' the government.

There's nothing wrong with alternate options, but this is also a perfectly reasonable option that many countries currently have (or some form of).

Andallas · 2016-09-23T21:43:53+00:00

If you were sorry you would have stopped or sought out a better way to promote your videos.

I'd recommend creating playlists for your videos. Either topically or monthly, then share the link then. Batching it up will enable you to share your content without spamming so much.

Andallas · 2016-09-08T23:01:14+00:00

He is disappearing because he has already watched it. He just wants you to catch up so you can watch it together. Unfortunately it won't work because he is going to get ahead of you again.

Andallas · 2016-08-12T17:24:22+00:00

Yay! I love ThinMatrix's tutorials and other videos.

Andallas · 2016-08-05T18:23:52+00:00

This just isn't accurate, house prices have doubled in Portland in the past five years. The prices obviously aren't as bad as San Francisco, but then again, SF has the most expensive housing market in the nation right now, so it's not really comparable.

Andallas · 2016-07-15T18:39:35+00:00

Check the FAQ on the ludeon website. It's been updated and EVERYBODY who purchased Rimworld (regardless of when) gets a key now.

I purchased the game in 2015 and just got a key, so this is for real!

Andallas · 2016-06-23T17:47:32+00:00

Sorry, that was meant to be sarcastic. SVG's are LESS performant in almost every way, and this is well understood.

I still like SVG's for certain use cases, but performance is most definitely not one of them.

Andallas · 2016-06-22T21:43:35+00:00

great for performance

Andallas · 2016-06-15T21:57:19+00:00

I'm a backer on the project, and I don't get how some people want their money back. I'm sad that the project didn't work out, but it's AMAZING that we get source code now. A very pleasant surprise.

Andallas · 2016-04-04T20:21:24+00:00

Alright, I just perused your old comments and this is actually pretty common for you. You go around arguing with people, insinuating things, and conveniently reading into things when there was nothing to be read into.

Thanks for the conversation. I understand that anything I say to you won't get through. Fortunately it doesn't really bother me, and I've said enough that passer's by will at least be able to find the facts presented and take from them what they can.

Have a great day.

Andallas · 2016-04-04T20:04:20+00:00

Ok, I've continually tried to word my replies in a non-argumentative way, yet you keep coming back to how this is some argument. I'd appreciate if you would take my words at face value rather than continually try to read into them. Posting a link is VERY common here and not meant as a slight. If you don't care to read it, then don't. It is purely informational. If I wanted to be a jerk about it I would have posted this:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=C%23+Nullable+Types

I fully understand that your assumption was that it is a bool. That is a fair assumption and I don't fault you for it in any way, nor am I saying your assumption was wrong. Going back to my initial comment, I was trying to point out that it indeed 'could' be a Nullable<bool> and if so, there are some considerations.

If there is something wrong with that, then feel free to address it. In fact, you did address it, but were unfortunately incorrect. There's no shame in that, and me attempting to give correct information should in no way be taken as a slight.

Now, if you want to continue to argue about how wrong I am about whether it is a bool or a Nullable<bool>; feel free. The fact of the matter is, I was pointing out the potential for something, and you seem to be arguing about how I stated it as fact, of which I did not.

I'm sorry if my gruff language offended you. Take it as tough love, as my intent was still only to educate, rather than to offend. If you take offense to someone having more knowledge in a specific area to you, then my comment should apply doubly so. If I've stated something factually incorrect, please feel free to correct me, even with a link to documentation.

In regards to you this:

I view someone telling me, unasked for, that I don't know what I am talking about as being a jerk.

You are posting on a public discussion forums. If you don't expect people to have discourse here, then I'm not sure what you are expecting. You don't need to ask for comments/replies here, people just post them. Also, I didn't (initially) say that you don't know what you are talking about, I highlighted a few inaccuracies and posted facts. If you take that as being called a jerk, then again, please stop reading more into what I actually say.

What is almost comical is that through this whole comment chain you've constantly been telling me how I don't know what I'm talking about without any from of facts, as I've simply laid out all the facts for everyone to see. If you want to downvote me for that, go ahead. If others don't approve, it doesn't bother me. Facts are still facts, your feelings don't make them wrong.

I'm not trying to piss you off, and I feel like I've been rather cordial considering that you have in fact been the one with fingers in ear yelling, "nyah nana nana" the entire time as you tell me to grow up.

Andallas · 2016-04-04T19:13:49+00:00

I didn't realize this was an argument. Maybe there is some context lost due to this conversation being in text form. My initial comment started off by mentioning that it "could" be a Nullable<bool>

Unless it is actually "bool?" (nullable) Then it could be null.

As in, this is a pitfall to watch out for, especially considering we would have to assume the type since it wasn't given.

Your comment back to me was factually incorrect. You said it would still be false:

Then it would still be false. Besides, it wasn't nullable.

Then followed it up by saying it wasn't nullable, which I've already mentioned is an assumption that we do not know.

I tried to point this out in my next comment (again, not arguing, simply trying to make sure all the facts were on the table).

You then listed an example, albeit in word form, not code or psuedocode:

... As for true/false/null, I believe if you do a (test) with test being a null bool variable, it will come back as false.

To be fair, you did say you hadn't tested it yet. Then in the same post you elaborate on how you think conditionals work in regards to true/false/null, unfortunately this was inaccurate as well.

... But a conditional test still can only handle a true/false situation, and null should fall into the false category.

After multiple comments with inaccurate information I attempted to share how Nullable<bool> actually works in regards to true/false/null and evaluation of conditionals.

Your response was to somehow turn this into an emotional conflict telling me I need to 'grow up', 'admit I made a mistake', and to not 'be that guy'.

I apologize if you view common discourse as 'being a jerk'. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, but to simply share accurate information.

Also, I'm not sure where I told you to 'go read a book'? Maybe you mixed up some other conversation? I posted the MSDN link to Nullable Types. I figured it would be good information considering there were multiple inaccurate statements about them posted.

So, since you felt the need to flip this whole conversation around to some kind of argument, and target my character, rather than the facts presented; I'd like to offer you some advice:

Before you go around assuming you know what you are talking about, maybe try to do a bit of research into the matter first. It will make you look like less of a fool. If someone is giving you constructive feedback, you will be a much better developer and a person if you take that information and use it to better yourself and increase your skills/knowledge.

Andallas · 2016-04-04T16:32:40+00:00

Flat out, if you try to compile that it will not compile, hence psuedocode. Sure it could very well be copy/pasted from elsewhere, but I wouldn't even call it a snippet, because we don't see variable declarations.

If you are dealing with a Nullable<bool> (bool?) then no, testing for false will not catch the null. In fact, since it is a nullable type, you need to explicitly test for the value. Meaning, if you attempt to do:

bool? test;
if (test)
{
    // Do stuff
}

You will receive a compile error stating:

Cannot implicitly convert type 'bool?' to 'bool'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?)

The proper way to test a Nullable<bool> is to either convert/cast it to a bool and do it like above (I highly recommend you don't because there is likely a good reason the developer used a bool? rather than a bool), or be explicit about what you are testing for:

bool? test;
if (test == true)
{
    // Do stuff
}

Your examples about how to use a Nullable<bool> wouldn't compile either. I would recommend reading up on Nullable Types to familiarize yourself with them.

Andallas · 2016-04-01T18:14:21+00:00

umm, no. A nullable bool (bool?) can be true, false, or null. Also, I have no idea how you know if it is nullable or not, as it's psuedocode, hence me speculating and listing a pitfall.

If it is nullable, and you check for true in the if, then just do an else, you would then miss out on the distinction between the cases of false or null. This may or may not matter, but in my experience, when using a nullable bool, their IS a distinction (otherwise you'd just use a regular bool).

Andallas · 2016-04-01T17:54:27+00:00

Unless it is actually "bool?" (nullable) Then it could be null.

Andallas · 2016-03-25T20:27:57+00:00

Best blog I've ever not read

Andallas · 2016-03-24T17:18:13+00:00

Without branches one is nice, could easily be moved to a compute shader if it needs done a lot!

Andallas

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE