Progressive on social issues, regressive/conservative on a lot of economic issues. Neoliberalism is back 19th century style.

They will just repeat what Trump said with a shit-eating grin. There is no original thought going on there.

my fucking eyes

There is no intellectual fight going on, they just say whatever needs to be true to justify their shitty action at any given moment. They know they’re full of shit, they don’t care.

Thanksfully he has also been reported to be grossly incompetent and inept so this might have saved us.

Context menu key is kinda essential for navigating without a mouse. I don’t use it all that often but I am very glad it is there.

Yes absolutely. It will be up to the Court to decide.

Yep! It is kind of funny too because petty insults is all they have, but they seem extremely sensible to them themselves. Trump has a nickname for virtually everyone, and they think it’s the best thing ever, but point out that he’s an insecure man wearing ungodly amount of makeup and they immediately get weirdly offended by it. “OrAnGe MaN bAd”. The funny thing is, as Trump would say, there is a lot of subject matter with his overall presentation, ironically.

Yep, it is mostly apparent in big companies I would say. I could go on and on, but basically your work is so disconnected from the final output that what end up actually “mattering” is a bunch of made-up bullshit. Putting in quality work and improving your product/service does not benefit most of the people you interact with directly, unless of course you’re working on the popular thing that will get people promoted.

Anyways, I also left the corporate world to start my own business. Life is so much easier when all you need to care about is the quality of your work and not political points. I like my hard work to rewards me, and not just some guy spending his days in meetings claiming credit for “his” “initiatives”. Some of those folks would never survive a job that isn’t a mega corp paying them to improv all day in meetings.

Ultimately they have to decide if he can hold an office, I’d argue this supercede any technicality about the election itself. At worst I guess this could be decided after he won, but this would break the country.

I knew someone like this, his entire universe was a collection of random lies, and he’d always adapt the story for maximum impact with different audiences. He got a high from it. He lived for that feeling of manipulating people. So unfortunately in my experience, even though he was miserable without the lies, sewing the web of lies was a high point in his life. Normal people would feel sick to their stomachs lying so much, but psychos lack this reaction.

You’re right. To add onto that it was Ivana who said he kept this book near his bed, it always been pretty credible.

It is funny because it is the opposite actually. Former senates and presidents actually clashed over foreign policies, it is only in recent times that presidents were more or less left to decide. So, I guess there is a bit of projection going on here.

Congress has the power to declare war. The president being commander-in-chief does not mean he can do whatever he please with the U.S army as its own personal force. The president is meant to follow the constitution, even as commander. If the president ignores treaties and war declarations, I would argue the president is the one violating the separation of powers, and not congress by hypothetically enforcing the powers given to them by the constitution. By this logic, whoever controller the army should have absolute power, being commander-in-chief and all. I like how you slipped past my initial post by completely ignoring that the constitution grants congress influence over foreign policies by citing the president control over the armed forces as this unalienable right. Why have treaties then? Why have declaration of war? I think you might be slightly biased in your argument. The president was never the sole responsible for foreign policies, even though the executive branch had a lot of influence over those in recent times.

Article II section 2 of the constitution requires approval from the senate to ratify treaties, which is then up to the president to ratify and implement. Both branches of the government are supposed to work together to establish foreign policies, this is part of the check and balances. If you have sources interpreting article II section 2 differently I’d be curious to see.

Or sick.

Why bother with NP++ if you already own sublime, which is arguably equivalent or better, is my question. I use Sublime and I am wondering what feature could be missing to justify still having NP++ installed.

Genuine question, why use both Sublime and NP++?

Who on earth would rely on a game engine in bankruptcy?

They aren't nearing bankruptcy first of all, and I as I mentioned even in this doom-and-gloom scenario they would likely just get acquired and operations would continue as normal. Is that what you think? That Unity is about to go bankrupt? I am not sure what we're arguing here.

Engines need a constant conveyor belt of new games to sustain their revenues and I don’t see this happening.

What are you basing this observation on? Unity never made money from the volume of games released using their engine. Also, the part where everyone is suddenly dropping Unity is mostly just a narrative here on social media, and the bulk of the reason why it might not be happening is that there is no true alternative.

And yes there is pain and a learning curve to moving to other engines though I think most programmers would be able to cope with change and if they’re that incurious and inflexible that they can’t then maybe it’s time to find new programmers

It is not about coping and being incurious. Changing engine means trashing a part of your team, trashing your content pipeline, trashing your internal tools. It costs a lot of money, money which most studios don't have. It would make sense if there was a true alternative to Unity for those mid-sized studios, which there isn't.

As for Godot, I am sure it is not a 100% feature for feature replacement for Unity. But it sure as hell is capable of powering 95% of indie games out there no trouble whatsoever and I daresay some more challenging titles

Again, not sure what you're basing those numbers on. Godot can't even do consoles natively so there is definitely some troubles and headache in using Godot in 2023. I would agree that Godot is perfectly fine for solo devs and very, very small teams, but it is not a serious alternative for even mid-sized productions. It is still pretty much a toy compared to the bigger engines, and it lacks commercial support to really attract those studios.

I get it. The popular sentiment here is that Unity is doomed to fail, and the internet as a whole kind of wish it did. I am not gonna gather sympathy and votes by saying otherwise, but I just don't see it. Godot is not ready, switching to Unreal does not make much sense since it is the same proprietary "garbage". It is easy to make big statements here on Lemmy and claim how easy it would be for game studios to get rid of Unity, and how this would improve their business, but to be honest I don't think you guys have a clue. If you are actually a developer or own a game studio then I am sorry for assuming.

Unity is not going anywhere, even in a bankruptcy it would get acquired by the likes of Microsoft or Meta. The "good guys startup" Unity is long gone, and it's been replaced by the same corporate structure you would expect anywhere.

Tying yourself to Unreal would be just as naive, and Godot is nowhere ready to fill the niche Unity is filling. I would place the opposite bet as yours, the vast majority of actual game devs are not rich enough nor care enough about corporate drama to ever switch engine for possibly worst. Also, experienced C# Unity devs and experienced C++ Unreal devs are not that interchangeable. Unity made this move to survive and they know there is no true alternative.

This is my pov, I worked in the industry for over a decade and I am an Unity ex-employee.