> In portfolio theory, perfect correlation is fatal—when every asset moves together, the slightest shock ruins everything. Resilience comes from diversification: a spread of unaligned bets. Intellectual life works the same way. When all our convictions depend on the same assumptions, a single surprise unravels the whole.
That was my first impression when I picked it up -- the game strongly suggests you start from the start, and re-loading a pre-Space Age save will result in many things breaking. I gave in and started over, worried I'd need to spend dozens of hours just building up to where I was before.
But this wasn't the case — Space Age isn't only new content, but a complete re-balance of the original game. It is far far less grindy and requires much less baby-sitting of production.
Your first space platform, the ships, and the planets, are best thought of as unique Factorio-inspired puzzles. Each planet is like a Factorio game-mode to solve, with its own restrictions to design around.
I think those who have hundreds of hours in the base-game have to un-learn of the base game to pick up the DLC. Many of the complaints are pointed at the tech tree changes — they wanted an expansion on what was there, not a recreation. But for me now, I wouldn't recommend Factorio without Space Age.
Appreciate this comment, thank you. (It's hard to gauge the recency of these concerns, the materials being used, or the prevalence of NSF -- and it can all get a bit overwhelming.)
My guess is that the scraping tools are specialized for web, and creating per-application interfaces isn't cost effective (although you could argue that scraping Wikipedia effectively is definitely worth the effort, but given its all text context with a robust taxonomy/hierarchy, it might be non-issue.)
My other thought is that you don't want a link showing you scraped anything... and faking browser traffic might draw less attention.
Zero Hour was one of the must have's of the Nintendo 64 era and one of the few good games in the latter part of the Duke Nukem series. Despite its challenging platforming and a few soul-crushing levels, the game had consistently rich settings and managed to recreate that Duke 3D charm.
The recent Perfect Dark port was incredible and I hope this decomp gets the same treatment.
I recently played through 'Aliens: Dark Descent' which manages to feel like a X-COM game, but real time. It felt like the natural next step for tactic strategy games and was instantly hoked -- I can't imagine returning to the turn-based roll-of-a-dice luck systems after that.
"random-number stuff was really too brutal for a lot of players to handle" -- I never finished XCOM 2 specifically for that reason. I think, having not come from a background of table top RPG's, it just didn't click.
Turn based and random are orthogonal (of course). Coming from table top gaming first, I rarely enjoy real time games. But also find the x-com RNG too much after awhile.
What is of note is that you cannot typically claim unfair dismissal if you've been employed for less than 2-years in the UK. Seems she was employed more than 2-years and passed the qualifying period. Proves if you plan to run a business and hire employees, you got to understand the protections in place.
"Let's not trivialize firing someone because they (verbally) abused someone"? Are you OK with mobbing in the workplace? They may be "just words" but the can actually have a huge mental negative effect on someone, especially if sustained.
I'm not saying this level of seriousness is what happened here, but you exaggerate in the other direction.
As with all forms of verbal abuse, the presence of a power imbalance is paramount. And since we abolished slavery, it is about as high as it gets here.
What an employee says about their boss generally has zero implications on their career and lives, so long as it does not outright accuse them of a crime. When's the last time someone called you to provide a reference on your boss? I thought so.
In turn, what a boss says about their employees can be entirely career-ending and therefore life-altering, even if said in jest or later retracted. A higher standard exists precisely because the stakes are so much higher.
Yes, adopt the language of therapists to add some gravitas. Sorry, but getting called an asshole/dickhead/whatever (especially if it's true) is not abuse in this context. Even less so given the power imbalance between the employee and the employer.
I'd say that making such determinations based on fragmentary information, such as decontextualised headlines, is a better characterisation. Arguments like these (where some people say "it's abuse!" and others say "it's not abuse!", and nobody focuses on how they're not using the same "it") make the lines seem blurred when actually, it's pretty clear-cut most of the time.
Even if you know the lines aren't blurred, if you perceive others acting as though it's up for debate, you're more likely to consider bad-faith appeals to the subjectivity of abuse as perhaps being in good faith. Few among us are philosophers capable of reasoning everything through from first principles, all the time, so these things matter.
Sure, I agree with all that, well-said. “Dickhead, asshole, douchebag, fuckstain” are terms of endearment in some of my social circles. Context matters.
Tone and body language are like 80%+ of in-person, verbal communication.
We need to be very careful to, as I mentioned, not “abuse” the term abuse to the point where it becomes meaningless. If everything is abuse, nothing is abuse, and we need to invent a new term.
Someone calling names is pretty trivial though, literally the behavior of schoolyard children, and it certainly should take more than that to rattle an adult.
Calling others names shows a total lack of self-control and disrespect towards others. It's toxic in personal relationships too. If my boss called me names I would rm -rf my hard drive and walk out immediately. I have too much self respect to deal with that.
You'll see plenty of it here on HN - some commenters are great at just staying within the guidelines while pushing others over the edge in frustration.
Not from what I've seen - that small incentive is usually outweighed by the immense burden of retraining and finding a good candidate.
It's similar to probationary periods - you'll see a few people fired right at the three month mark but it's usually more of a case of giving that employee grace for the probationary period rather than accelerating a firing that'd happen later.
I believe the accrual is in practice gradual. E.g. 103 weeks in, the tribunal would basically give you the same rights as full 2 years in. 1.5 year in, they will give you some of them, etc.
No, several of these are hard cut-offs. So, 103 weeks isn't two years, you can't be unfairly dismissed under the terms of this law. In this case I believe the relevant paragraph of legislation is:
"Section 94 does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination"
Section 94 is the name of a section of the current law regarding the general idea of like, employing people, and that section says you can't unfairly dismiss them, so this sub-sub clause says that only applies after two years.
Edited to add: This stuff is easier to find in the UK because although it's legalese, the Westminster Parliament is obliged by its own rules to name laws after what they do, this is an employment law so I searched for "Employment". In the US it might be called the NICEHAT Act or Jim Smith's Law or some other useless nonsense because they have no such rule.
This is the letter of the law. But I have been advised in the past that in practice, if reviewing a case, the tribunal is likely to see the accrual as gradual. So if you fire someone a week before their two years are up, they may well decide it was unfair.
At the very bottom yeah. There's some level of abuse of employment rules and such for low paid work, particularly at larger outfits. Sometimes it's outright criminal and these people are least able to advocate for their own rights.
Persuading the tax man that the cleaners who in effect are your direct employees are "freelance" somehow and so you shouldn't have to pay the tax. Or claiming that the labourers you hired don't get paid from 0830 because they aren't "really" working until 0900 even though they're in a company minibus being driven to the worksite and this is the only way they could get there.
Neither of those things is legal here but both of them might happen and will only sometimes get reported and those responsible will get at worst a fine. If you tried anything like this shit with Sam who has a penthouse office in the City he'll summon a swarm of employment lawyers and ruin your life, but because Mateusz who cleans the toilets has dubious immigration status and he's behind on his rent he's probably not going to make a fuss when you steal from him this way. This sucks.
The problems are always at the very bottom. People who are closest to the poverty line, most easily replaceable, least easily able to organize and demand better and also most separated from those who have more freedom to demand change. One important angle unions think about is schemes to separate these low wages workers from colleagues who would be able to advocate for improvements. If the guy cleaning the toilets doesn't legally work for the same company as the guy who uses them, suddenly the question of whether "cleaning toilets" pays a living wage isn't a matter of employee solidarity...
Edited: Swapped Manhattan for the City (of London) because the topic is specifically UK employment
You still can if you can show you were unfairly discriminated against, for example in racial, ethnic, religious or gender basis. In case of pregnant women, this is so strong that in fact the employer may need to prove they are not discriminating.
It's a real shame too, I had purchased a DS723+ before the announcement and its a great little machine. The I can see why the Synology experience was such a draw for so long in the consumer space.
The recent HDD drama is death for Synology's consumer appeal, but I imagine they'll shape-out a mid-market/small-business segment for themselves.
They're probably "pulling a Rolex" i.e. Go big or go home move.
The thing is, the place they're moving a little dangerous. SOHO and SMB using 4-12 HDDs to serve a couple dozen people is a very small niche. Plus you can add professional photographers and videographers on top.
Then what? The upmarket is very, very crowded. Will they OEM their wares to big players as entry level devices?
Orico has a 4/5 slot USB3-10gbps DAS box, which can daisy chain up to three boxes.
Get 6 boxes, daisy chain them as 2x3, connect to a powerful-ish NUC box. Install TrueNAS on it. Use the SATA port for the OS, leave the NVMe slot alone, add a 2-4 TB good SSD.
Set the SSD as a cache to that 30 disk zRAID2 or zRAID3 pool. You can have a kick-ass enthusiast level NAS box which will beat many Synology boxes with a big clue bat...
An interesting perspective on resilience.
reply