Success has a part of skill, and a part of luck. It hurts to be reminded about skill issues.
Board games aren't as simple as time invested. I could spend my whole life studying chess, and some 13yo prodigy will handily beat me blindfolded, while juggling three other boards.
Board games cannot be conquered with wealth or a successful business. Or, rather, they can, but only by pressuring your underlings into letting you win; giving you the feeling you crave.
Naw, the rare super talented 13yo child that excells at such games will have also spend an incredible amount of time learning everything there is about it - leaving very little time to pursuit outside of that discipline to improve themselves.
There is a grain of truth to what you're saying, obviously - as Magnus has proven when he started to enter chess tournaments... Outplaying people with decades more experience. But you're also ignoring that he spend pretty much every waking moment of his thinking life playing chess.
This is the more interesting answer to me because it's a reminder that everyone is playing a different game.
I used to play games to win, but now I play games to maximize the collective enjoyment of playing the game. This shift began with my spouse (who is a very sore loser) but continued with my children. I still let them lose sometimes because I want them to know how to enjoy a losing game, but I (selfishly) want them to enjoy games as much as I do, so that's my focus, and I will play to lose (as non-obviously as possible) frequently.
When I play games against good players now, I notice that I've lost a lot of skill in the kind of strategic ruthlessness required to win. I found this surprising, because playing in a way where you're trying to "fix" the outcomes for other players and modulate the mood of the game based on outcomes still requires a great deal of strategic insight and clever play. I guess the additional attention to the social and emotional dynamics must naturally reduce focus. It's kind of a shame, because you can't maximize enjoyment with a skilled player without being skilled, but I suppose the trade off is that there will always be more unskilled players who can benefit from enjoyment maximizing play than skilled players who will suffer from subpar opponents. Naturally, skilled players are already getting a lot out of the game, or else they wouldn't be playing enough to become skilled.
Board Games in the same vein as grand strategy/4x with a dizzying number of rules like Catan or HOI4 are very much initially a function of time invested, otherwise you literally have no idea what you're doing.
That's an interesting thought, but I think that'd break the usual trick of building up objects from the empty set, a set containing the empty set, then the set containing both of those and so forth.
That universe would be deprived from the bottomless wellspring of dryness that is the set theoretic foundations of mathematics. Unthinkable!
> That universe would be deprived from the bottomless wellspring of dryness that is the set theoretic foundations of mathematics. Unthinkable!
"Wellspring of dryness" is quite a metaphor, and I take it from that metaphor that this outcome wouldn't much bother you. I'll put in a personal defense for set theory, but only an appeal to my personal taste, since I have no expert, and barely even an amateurish, knowledge of set theory beyond the elementary; but I'll also acknowledge that set-theoretic foundations are not to everyone's taste, and that someone who has an alternate foundational system that appeals to them is doing no harm to themselves or to me.
> That's an interesting thought, but I think that'd break the usual trick of building up objects from the empty set, a set containing the empty set, then the set containing both of those and so forth.
In this alternate universe, the ZF or ZFC axioms (where C becomes, of course, "the product of sets is a set") would certainly involve, not the axiom of the empty set, but rather some sort of "axioms of sets", declaring that there exists a set. Because it's not empty, this set has at least one element, which we may extract and use to make a one-element set. Now observe that all one-element sets are set-theoretically the same, and so may indifferently be denoted by *; and then charge ahead with the construction, using not Ø, Ø ∪ {Ø}, Ø ∪ {Ø} ∪ {Ø ∪ {Ø}}, etc. but *, * ∪ {*}, * ∪ {*} ∪ {* ∪ {*}}, etc. Then all that would be left would be to decide whether our natural numbers started at the cardinality 1 of *, or if we wanted natural numbers to count quantities 1 less than the cardinality of a set.
If you have an M3/M4 and are stuck on XNU like me, and you want a something between the notes app and a whole Electron IDE, it turns out that Kate also supporte macOS
(Actually, a lot of KDE programs do, I was elated to find out I could use Dolphin as file manager when I was limited by Finder)
I think Kate strikes this really nice middleground. It starts up immediately as just a text editor, but you can push it as far as you want to
I had to install several dependencies through homebrew, ignore some default dependencies that don't make sense on mac (wayland, pipewire, etc), and then it worked.
The build command I used, for reference: kde-builder dolphin --ignore-projects wayland plasma-wayland-protocols wayland-protocols kglobalaccel kpipewire kwayland selenium-webdriver-at-spi baloo packagekit-qt baloo-widgets
Note also there's some mac weirdness with the Dock where some kioworker process might show up as a separate icon. I packaged it in dolphin.app MacOS bundle, gave kioworker a Info.plist with LSUIElement=true, and that got rid of the Dock glitch.
So, I wouldn't say it's entirely painless to install. But if you're sufficiently annoyed by Finder, building Dolphin can be worth the effort.
That is a lot of work just to use Dolphin. I daily drive KDE on my workstation and while it is not a terrible file explorer, I probably wouldn't go to those lengths to use it over Finder. Props for getting it done though, I didn't even realize it was possible. Makes sense though considering a lot of KDE apps are cross platform, like kdenlive.
In fairness, I wouldn't say it's dolphin I'm attached to in particular, I think I'm just not in the target audience for Finder.
The tradeoff is that it makes simple things simple, and everything else complicated.
I'm uploading a config file on a website. It's in ~/.config, and any reasonable file explorer won't show hidden files by default. In Finder there's also no button or setting to show hidden files. They really can't, it would make the UI complicated.
You can't navigate to a hidden folder by typing its name (let's not get too creative!). The file dialog box lets you type file names, as Jobs intended, anything else is an error.
This won't be news to anyone, as most people will have run into it before. Most people probably remember that the hidden shortcut is Command + Shift + Period. But everything in Finder is like this, and I'm just reminded at every turn that I am the person Finder was specifically not built for.
> You can't navigate to a hidden folder by typing its name (let's not get too creative!).
You can, actually. ⌘-SHIFT-G in Finder lets you navigate to any folder by typing in the path - even hidden paths. No mortal user would ever be expected to know or discover that, but it's there.
Finder is annoying for power users. Command shift g is a lifesaver.
I think my favorite file navigator was konqueror.
Another Mac annoyance is that the launch tool (command period) seems to forget apps. Or worse, shows the app as you type the name and hides it if you continue typing the next letter in the name. Not sure what focus group approved this...
That's Spotlight, and it's become decreasingly useful over the years, including for the flaws you mention. People seem to be relying on 3rd party replacements.
‹digression›
Even those aren't helping me much at the moment because in my current macOS, system-global shortcuts — whether builtin, provide by an application, or configured by me — stop working after random uptime until I reboot.
Finder's a ruddy liar, though, happy to tell me 2+ GiB free, then apps unable to save a 16 KiB file because not enough disc space. Allegedly, macOS counts tosh like video screensavers and HEIC desktop images that aren't in-use and came from Apple as "free space", and should auto delete them if space is needed, but I've yet to see it do so. Instead, I'm left manually telling Steam to delete hundreds of MiB just to store that 16 KiB file…
. o O ( Yes, I'll be getting an external SSD. )
‹/digression›
Just curious: how does drag & drop works with Dolphin in Mac? I quit KDE because I got mad with the files drop menu. Do you also get it when installing Dolphin?
To play devil's advocate, I wonder how well they handle more annoying things.
When a CMOS switches, it essentially creates a very brief short circuit between VCC and GND. That's part of normal dynamic power consumption, it's expected and entirely accounted for.
But I don't know how these cloud FPGAs could enforce that you don't violate setup and hold times all over the place. When you screw up your crossings and accidentally have a little bit of metastability, that CMOS will switch back and forth a little bit, burn some power, and settle one way or the other.
Now if you intentionally go out of your way to keep one cell metastable as long as possible while the neighbors are cold, that's going to be one hell of a localized hotspot. I wouldn't be surprised if thermal protection can't kick in fast enough.
It's just kibitzing though, I'm not particularly inclined to try with my own hardware
Timing analysis is usually part of the synthesis and seems very comprehensive to me (I realise this statement may traumatise some firmware people). How hard it is to actively bypass this would be an interesting question.
FPGA dev is just much more painful and more expensive than software dev at every step.
That's in no small part because the industry & tools seem to be stuck decades in the past. They never had their "GCC moment". But there's also inherent complexity in working at a very low level, having to pay attention to all sorts of details all the time that can't easily be abstracted away.
There's the added constraint that FPGA code is also not portable without a lot of extra effort. You have to pick some specific FPGA you want to target, and it can be highly non-trivial to port it to a different one.
And if you do go through all that trouble, you find out that running your code on a cloud FPGAs turns out to be pretty damn expensive.
So in terms of perf per dollar invested, adding SIMD to your hot loop, or using a GPU as an accelerator may have a lower ceiling, but it's much much more bang for the buck and involves a whole lot less pain along the way.
> Thanks to the extensive work of the MiSoC and LiteX crowd, there’s already IP cores for DRAM, PCI express, ethernet, video, a softcore CPU (your choice of or1k or lm32) and more.. LiteX produces a design that uses about 20% of an XC7A50 FPGA with a runtime of about 10 minutes, whereas Vivado produces a design that consumes 85% of the same FPGA with a runtime of about 30-45 minutes.. LiteX, in its current state, is probably best suited for people trained to write software who want to design hardware, rather than for people classically trained in circuit design who want a tool upgrade.
Thanks for the pointer! DARPA ERI investment was initially directed to US academic teams, while Yosys & related decentralized OSS efforts were barely running on conviction fumes in the OSS wilderness. Glad to see this umbrella ecosystem structure from LF Chips Alliance. Next we need a cultural step change in commercial EDA tools.
If you want to be pedantic, the preposition à serves about twenty different roles (per the dictionary), so even a literal translation will have to pick the right word, not just one of its homonyms.
At is not the right word, even if you're translating word by word.
I just wanted to reply how wrong you are and that the OP's version would be literal if "de" was used instead of "à" but just writing that made me realize that I'm completely wrong and you are totally right. That's a rare moment and I decided to celebrate it by making this comment. Thank you!
Board games aren't as simple as time invested. I could spend my whole life studying chess, and some 13yo prodigy will handily beat me blindfolded, while juggling three other boards.
Board games cannot be conquered with wealth or a successful business. Or, rather, they can, but only by pressuring your underlings into letting you win; giving you the feeling you crave.
reply