Readit NewsI'm not saying they don't have their place, but without us they would still be making the world go round. Only backwards.
It was only then did she introduce us to the glory that was Adobe Dreamweaver, which (obviously) increased our productivity tenfold.
Dreamweaver was to web development what ...
I just sat here for 5 minutes and I wasn't able to finish that sentence. So I think that's a statement in itself.
Oh absolutely. But I like to optimize for the others. :)
Also, the audience for consideration here is pretty ... rarified. 0.0% of people in the world, to a first approximation, have heard of Zig. Those that have, are probably pretty aware of powers-of-two math, and maybe curious enough to wonder about a value that seems odd but is obviously deliberately chosen.
> Is it a woe of modern times? Or has it always been this way?
I suspect it's always been this way. People are busy, math is hard, and little games with numbers are way less engaging than games with physical athleticism or bright lights.
In a different place, at a different time, I would have used the same exact wording.
I think we would be very good friends IRL :D
I concur with the suggestion of 2^19, because even though fewer people would recognize it immediately, many of them would question the significance, and their eventual realization would be more satisfying.
I think you might be overestimating the curiosity of the average person.
I'm regularly baffled / saddened by how many people care so little about learning anything new, no matter how small.
Is it a woe of modern times? Or has it always been this way?
We currently have a handful of AI companies who make no profit, have revenue far below operating costs, their entire business runs on investment and they're posturing themselves for IPOs. Meaning that the reason they can keep the lights on solely comes from attracting investors (and will likely be that way for the foreseeable future).
If they keep doing it, it must be because sometimes it works.
> Only a few seconds difference?
> Further good news: the change in the file size will result in minimal changes to load times - seconds at most. “Wait a minute,” I hear you ask - “didn’t you just tell us all that you duplicate data because the loading times on HDDs could be 10 times worse?”. I am pleased to say that our worst case projections did not come to pass. These loading time projections were based on industry data - comparing the loading times between SSD and HDD users where data duplication was and was not used. In the worst cases, a 5x difference was reported between instances that used duplication and those that did not. We were being very conservative and doubled that projection again to account for unknown unknowns.
> Now things are different. We have real measurements specific to our game instead of industry data. We now know that the true number of players actively playing HD2 on a mechanical HDD was around 11% during the last week (seems our estimates were not so bad after all). We now know that, contrary to most games, the majority of the loading time in HELLDIVERS 2 is due to level-generation rather than asset loading. This level generation happens in parallel with loading assets from the disk and so is the main determining factor of the loading time. We now know that this is true even for users with mechanical HDDs.
They measured first, accepted the minimal impact, and then changed their game.
No, they measured it now, not first. The very text you pasted is very clear about that, so I'm not sure why you're contradicting it.
If they had measured it first, this post would not exist.
> These loading time projections were based on industry data - comparing the loading times between SSD and HDD users where data duplication was and was not used. In the worst cases, a 5x difference was reported between instances that used duplication and those that did not.
Never trust a report that highlights the outliers before even discussing the mean. Never trust someone who thinks that is a sane way to use of statistics. At best they are not very sharp, and at worst they are manipulating you.
> We were being very conservative and doubled that projection again to account for unknown unknowns.
Ok, now that's absolutely ridiculous and treating the reader like a complete idiot. "We took the absolute best case scenario reported by something we read somewhere, and doubled it without giving a second thought, because WTF not?. Since this took us 5 seconds to do, we went with that until you started complaining".
Making up completely random numbers on the fly would have made exactly the same amount of sense.
Trying to spin this whole thing into "look at how smart we are that we reverted our own completely brain-dead decision" is the cherry on top.
No, the better law is the one that exists.
Yours doesn't.