I don’t think you are naive - it’s counter-intuitive. The political context is important: Ukraine is incentivised to portraying itself as a country that respects international law and norms. The fact of life is that this includes respecting civil contracts made in good faith. This moral high ground has a cost.
Btw, occupying the moral high ground even when it has a cost, sends a strong signal that you will also be trustworthy in the future, and not just when it's convenient.
Ie sometimes the cost is the point.
Just like the peacock's fancy tail needs to be biologically expensive to work.
One option for those so inclined is to cryptographically sign commits with a key that lists both work and personal email address (assuming your enterprise’s policy allows it). The employer retains control but you have a claim to credit for your work.
If we're discussing companies willing to go to lengths to scrub you from their GitHub history, they can still replace all commits you've signed with new commits. You likely have no legal rights to that work, and git does allow you to rewrite history arbitrarily.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In the US, copyright assignment is usually permanent. In the EU and Canada, you can claw back your rights to a degree and even revoke the usage altogether, if you manage to claw it back because they did "evil" things with it (moral rights).
In some cases (even in the US), if the employer does something that would be considered a "breach of contract", you can force them to remove all your code as well.
So, it would not be in the company's best interest to scrub their git history.
I think even in the EU and Canada, you don't have any copyright interest in work your perform as part of your employment. The copyright on the work you produce for your employer is entirely theirs, from the moment it is created.
Now, if you're a contractor performing work for a company, this may be quite different. But as an employee, I don't think you have any claim of authorship to the code you right as part of your job.
Sure, but the same is true for unsigned commits as well, isn't it? Or can you modify the commit metadata without changing the commit hash in those cases?
My question was, is signing the commits really useful? Isn't it just as hard or easy to scrub you from the repo history regardless of whether the commits are signed or not?
> FTA: "While many games are playable, newer AAA titles don’t hit 60fps yet."
You’re lucky to get 60fps playing a fairly undemanding game on MacOS, even on hardware that is otherwise a dream.
For example, Baldur’s Gate 3 is barely playable on my M3 MacBook Pro at well below native resolution with all settings turned down. It’s a brilliant game but hardly cutting edge graphically.
Without universal suffrage I think the comparison between modern democracies and these examples is apples and oranges. The voters in Rome and Sparta were a small elite, so their “democracy” is more like a novel form of power sharing in an otherwise bog standard system.
> Without universal suffrage I think the comparison between modern democracies and these examples is apples and oranges
Universal suffrage is an ideal entirely reliant on how the denominator is defined. Delineating the polity (i.e., polis) is an institution in democratic exercise--we traditionally punt this question to that of citizenship.
Yes, but I think everyone agrees that non-adults shouldn't be allowed to vote (being dependent on their parents), while if a country has too big of a chunk of its adult population without the right to vote (think if Quatar was a democracy, because citizenship is so restricted there), it would not count as "universal suffrage" ?
(On the opposite, you have countries where you can vote in local elections even if you do NOT have citizenship.)
Of course we do. Because it’s convention. But not everyone within a border geometry is a citizen. And why a border geometry is what it is usually relies on other questions.
When GP said “most”, I interpreted it more broadly. Most applications simply do not require the guarantees of a non-GC language. When you expand that horizon, list of contenders becomes considerably larger - even when restricted to statically typed languages.
Yes for example many Python users switched to Go, a native code GC language, and are satisfied with the performance.
There’s also the middle ground of Swift’s memory management which uses compiler-elided refcounting - i.e. the compiler detects when a count goes up then down again and removes those operations.
> There’s also the middle ground of Swift’s memory management which uses compiler-elided refcounting - i.e. the compiler detects when a count goes up then down again and removes those operations.
In the face of threading that's not a safe optimisation; if another thread decrements the refcount inbetween those two removed operations, boom. The compiler will have to track every variable that crosses threads or something.
Competitive games are unlikely to reach the market share necessary for a competitive gaming tournament if their casual scene is inundated with cheaters. Only a tiny handful of games even have a viable competitive scene.
But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games that don't give out real money for tournaments ?
I have never seen cheaters being an issue (even the few times people set up tournaments with prizes), which makes me think that this might be limited to very few games (in very specific genres) ?
> But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games
Yes. Every game has cheats. The cheat packages are pretty easy to adapt to new games and people pay money for them.
Why do people cheat? Because it’s fun! If you’ve never cheated it’s honestly worth trying. It’s hilarious. It also utterly ruins the game for everyone else in the lobby.
If games had reliable anti-cheat you’d be shocked at the percentage of lobbies that have a cheater. It’s wildly rampant.
I'm not talking about developer tools - cheats that come with the game, available in single player (and multiplayer if the host allows it).
But a lot of games do also have accessible to everyone replays that show every order given by every player, so catching a cheater that acted on information not available to them (because for instance they had buddies in other team(s)) isn't particularly hard, especially in tournaments with a lot of eyeballs on those replays.
At scale it’s incredibly hard. Impossibly hard even. So hard no one has successfully solved it! Ever!
But what you’re describing is Valve’s Overwatch system for Counter-Strike. It’s a key component of the anti-cheat ecosystem. But cheating is still rampant in CS and one of the biggest complaints.
"at scale" assumes a popular game - and you end up by giving as an example one of the most popular FPSes ever ! Please give an example of a game with, say, less than a million of copies sold / given away ? (And ideally, not an FPS, we all know these have specific extra challenges involved.)
And "at scale" pretty much means that matches are not competitive, because the sums required for entering a tournament game and given for winning it are going to be too small, won't they ?
P.S.: And for non-competitive games, I would expect that this cheating issue (among others) would be aggravated if you insist on playing with total strangers you will never see again (also part of the scale issue) - maybe just avoid that ?
But popular games are the ones people want to play, and are the ones you’re claiming are immune to this. Look at this comments section - it’s people talking about the top 3-5 games on Pc right now, not the 30th entry in the trending FPS section.
Part of the appeal for cheating is doing it where it has impact - in popular games.
Also, I want to insist on one thing : some of the popular games listed are those that are online-only and/or removed the ability to host your own servers (and/or even worse, have microtransactions).
I have zero sympathy for the kind of asshole that gave money to companies engaging in the despicable behaviour cited above. You were warned. You made your own bed, now lie in it !
All alternatives are a gamble. In many cases letting cops supposedly trained in the matter is the least risky gamble - if they are trained as they are supposed to be there is no risk.
True. OTOH - I suspect that OD specialist officers, summoned to your property by your "I found something in my garden that looks a lot like that WWII mortar shell in your Call-us-immediately-if-you-see Guide" phone call would be far more benevolently inclined than regular police officers coming to your property for most other reasons.
