Mostly it's an annoyance at trying to find relevant web pages on the topic. In that regard the more prolific the software the more it can get away with a common word as a name.
"Go" is the worst of the bunch by far. "Dart" is pretty bad, "Java", "Chrome" and "Python" would be just as bad but they have swarmed the search results so much that it doesn't bug me.
I find that using the search terms "go language" (without the quotes) works a lot better--at least for any conflationary n-gram based search engine, like Google. Just think of it as a type annotation :)
The difference being that Diablo 3 has an in-game real-money market, and more people playing the game means more people putting money into that market. The same strategy has been applied (successfully) with Team Fortress 2.
This is not a new idea, either. Free to play but in-game real-money purchases have been going strong with casual games since it became easy to send money over the net.
I'm not saying it will happen, but it's not an impossibility.
"Free to play but in-game real-money purchases have been going strong with casual games since it became easy to send money over the net."
Casual game examples cannot be applied to Diablo's model. They are between the game makers and the users (which is more similar to Blizzard selling their items for WoW).
Diablo 3 is unique because it's facilitating transactions between players, while taking a cut. Hold up, it's not the same as TF2 either. TF2 items are pure cosmetic, novelty. Items in Diablo will effect the avatars and in turn, effect other people as well in terms of game play. One can truely buy their way up, legally.
Another aspect is consider people owning multiple accounts. How many of your WoW friends/guildies own multiple accounts? Because of the nature of the game, there are obvious benefits to have multiple characters online at the same time. How many accounts does a TF2 player has? There's no reason to have more than 1 account because there's no unique player avatars, there's no attachment, no profession limits, no character limits. Giving away free TF2 accounts is different from giving away free D3 or even WoW accounts.
Each D3 account also have a limit on how much real money balance (Bnet dollars) it can carry. So if a person wants to deal in more money or more character slots (and there will be alot of them), they need to get another account – more money in Blizz's pockets.
The point is different game mechanics, different target audience have different approaches. What works in one may not work as well as in another.
Ridiculous. Coming to your partner's defense is not a matter of gender, but one of loyalty. Reverse the genders in this case and the threat still applies.
Only thing is, this would not be coming to partners defense, but pointless chest-thumping. Now, I think I know what he meant by writing that, and I doubt he'd actually do anything other than being nice to her and supporting her in whatever she chooses to do with it, but the expression still matters.
The brainwashing gets us all. It's sad when it gets us while we're trying to be supportive. The proper expression is "I was horrified and angered by it," not "I will respond to this by aggressive behavior not that much unlike what the other dude did". And proper response to someone noticing it is, probably, "oh... um, I didn't think about it like that, thanks, sorry", not "but I had good intentions!!!"
> "I will respond to this by aggressive behavior not that much unlike what the other dude did"
He showed a naked picture of himself to her in a situation where the default balance of power was firmly in his favor. An interviewer blotting himself (if only using a photograph) in front of a potential peer or subordinate is an act of sexual aggression if I ever saw one, and you are claiming some sort of moral equivalence with reacting aggressively to it? You cannot be serious.
Or perhaps simply expressing anger is something he doesn't like to do near his family. It could be a rage issue, but more likely it would have interferred in smaller ways with his ability to be properly supportive. Perhaps he would have suggested a confrontational route (get lawyers involved e.g.) that would have made his wife uncomfortable. Perhaps done something like suggest ways to "fix" the problem, rather than just be there as a supportive spouse. Many people would be uncomfortable with those reactions in themselves, and therefore would not want to expose their family to it.
Amusingly, your statement "the brainwashing gets us all" was most appropriately applied to your own presumption that he would fit some male role when being uncomfortable with proximity and anger.
Comments like these are nauseatingly pompous. He never says anything about getting violent. You are projecting your own views on the matter.
Maybe his response would be to call the interviewer's boss and describe the actions. Maybe his response would be to write a blog post and do all the SEO in the world to make sure it shows up #1 every time someone Googles the company in question. You are assuming that the reaction he wants to contain is punching the interviewer in the face - when he never says anything to that effect at all. There are plenty of possible actions that are not violent and are not morally equivalent to the interviewer but are still plenty regrettable.
> The proper expression is "I was horrified and angered by it,"
I was horrified and angered by it, and I know very well that assholes who show their bare butt pictures in interviews are incorrigible bastards, and if I happen to meet one, I am afraid I won't be able to contain myself(not too sure I would want to), so it was for the best I wasn't around.
That's what I mean: he apparently had issues with containing own instincts. And by saying "I am afraid I won't be able to contain myself" you actually state more-or-less the same — that you're aggressive and prone to act aggressively against your own better judgement.
Yeah, sure, people like him that should be shunned, and preferably prosecuted. But, actually, one of the reasons they feel free to do things like that is the culture of domination that's not really hurt in any way by people making violent remarks about them.
CamelCase vs using-dashes is strictly a developer preference. I happen to agree with the author of the doc about using dashes, but I'm not going to call my preference a "best practice". A "best practice" might be more akin to "if you're working on an already in progress project, don't start doing CamelCase if they're using-dashes, or vice-versa", IMO.
Another controversial one is whether or not to have each style on it's own line, or in the same line. The author prefers a new line for each style because it makes for easier diff-ing in version control. The argument could be made, however, that this style introduces too much whitespace and vastly reduces the number of styles you can view at one time, not to mention increasing the linecount of your stylesheet by at least a factor of 3. Neither is, IMO, a "best practice", it's just a developer preference (IME most devs do agree with this doc, however).
There's some other stuff that really just boils down to how the author prefers to read his CSS, and not really about how to structure it in a proven optimal way. I believe it's hard to argue that those are "best practices", something Wikipedia describes as "consistently shown results superior to those achieved with other means". I would like to see the argument that lining up your -webkit prefixed styles achieves this, for example.
Anyway, IMO, a lot of the recommendations in the doc are good advice, just mixed in with some personal preferences. Like the author wrote though, it is his personal best practices, so in that context I suppose these are Best Practices, only the scope is limited to just the author.
Magic numbers (you have to because CSS doesn't allow you to make variables), specify a height and width in pixels (works well if it doesn't contain text that may be changed and is the only way to do certain things) no index.
I suspect it is because I write HTML5 apps, rather than websites (distinguishing feature: HTML5 apps have no 'you don't have javascript' fallbacks and they can't reasonably have any.).
Working on a project with no set style standard, this article does a good job of voicing my frustrations. When tasked with inventing a new piece of the software, each designer, programmer, and manager tends to disregard all previous design decisions and create their own idea of what the project should look like. It's resulted in a totally inconsistent look, each page only bearing a passing semblance of the one before.
But a living style guide is worth nothing if the team members willfully choose to ignore it and pursue their own style agendas (and they are personal agendas, make no mistake). I've implemented some seriously ugly interfaces in the name of consistency, and the project is better for it.
The biggest hurdle is convincing management that this new flashy module simply does not mesh with the rest of the software. Design wants to impress, management is impressed, off to the nerds to implement it.
Totally agree here. This is really more of an experiment in self/organizational discipline more than anything else. We all talk so much about how some new technology is going to increase productivity; sometimes it just comes down to hacking the social dynamics of coding.
To your comment about new flashy modules that don't mesh, banks seem to be the biggest transgressors in this area.
Even using the grid normally, it ends up using more horizontal space than on the viewport, forcing a horizontal scrollbar (Chrome 18).
Another problem: setting max-widths on units. Any proceeding units are handicapped by this and often just leave empty space to the right.
I also don't like the presence of three sets of classes when two would be appropriate. "ingrid" as the container, and "span-x" for each column division. And this is unavoidable, as you need to define "in-[parts]" in the container to even use the span-x classes. I understand that it's less work if you stick to equal parts, but this is not the majority use case in my experience.
I find the naming scheme awkward. "in-twos" and "in-thirds" instead of "in-halves" or "in-threes". Keep it consistent.
---
All in all, I wouldn't recommend this to my mother.
Depending on the severity of your "ums", this is a facet "normal people" may need not perfect (or even need to work on).
This article is the minimum strategy, the 80% of a good presentation. Ums are a detractor but not as much a one as poor product knowledge or mechanical storytelling.
