Not necessarily. Also depends on competency of whoever is looking at using your software/investigating and the legacy of the things you described. A whole different scenario if it’s because you forgot to write something in a ticket and someone coming to call for help with docker when you have a docker setup guide they never look at.

“can still be better but priority changed”

It’s the same as Color balancing. The best solution often depends on the light balance of the room. Nothing stopping you from editing the theme to keep optimize out

Additionally, don’t copy and paste anything until you understand it. If you don’t understand what code golf is being spewed, don’t take the top answer. If you don’t understand any answer, you probably don’t understand the underlying systems well enough and need to re-evaluate what your asking for.

Moving jobs I went from 1 meeting a week to multiple a day and all It has done is made me think my new job has no idea what is important priorities shift almost daily due to other meetings that I’m not a part of and nothing gets done properly because we dont have time to refine.

The goal should be to have as few meetings as possible because it means they are unnecessary. If you have a plan for your backlog set, you don’t need to meet up for an hour every week to sort it out

Depends on how addicted. People tend to conflate 1 cup in the morning with 6 throughout the day because they both use them as a pick me up.

Still bizarre to hear this. It’s like they think the CEOs are gonna write a prompt. “Link customer data to visualization” and it’s gonna preemptively collect the info and then create useful insight for their future products which will then be made by the AI

• Make Structured Commits by context
• Make a MR
• Forgot to Rebase
• Close MR
• Rebase
• Make a MR
• Forgot to push the Rebase so now all Rebase items are on my MR
• Close MR
• Reset Changes
• Push Rebased Items
• Make Structured Commits,
• Forget a file
• Reset Changes
• Make a mega Commit
• Make a MR
• Pipeline fails

It never produces heat. Until it does and my word does it. I’ve been getting the slack issues and display issues as well. Also found out today the provided calendar hasn’t actually been sending off my invite responses to anyone and got called in for not letting people know which meetings I was attending.

Worked with a Japanese company has this and they refused to acknowledge anything as a bug if it didn’t get discussed in the spec. Oh, this new feature does not interact with the old feature well, just a limitation. Write that up as a new feature. It was killer trying to assign anything as a bug for this reason since you could only get them to fix stuff that explicitly contradicted their Japanese spec.

The managers who make the decisions is also unclear as power differs on the company. They could care all the way up to the CEO but if the CEO puts an unrealistic deadline, the game has an unrealistic deadline

I’m a bit confused by this message since I was suggesting JRPG as a genre wasn’t clear, and the argument(?) Is that Dark Souls isn’t a JRPG and you’ve sub-classified a bunch of different JRPGs how I agree.

If the argument is that we can still use JRPG in conjunction, I think this is valid but I still feel that coining things based on country of origin isa bit off, almost like insinuating a stereotype when we also agree they don’t have to follow it.

This just goes back to JRPG being vague and not giving any real info anyway.

If I told you I like Dark Souls which is arguably a JRPG or a more obvious Earthbound, why would it be better to say ah, “Disgaea or Kingdom Hearts are JRPG, you’ll like them”.

I wasn’t suggesting all games should be labeled “earthbound-inspired”, the term JRPG is so broad that just suggesting it’s inspiration is more informative.

I know what you mean but what you’ve done is just define two sets of games with varying differences in mechanics. So only WRPGs can assign attributes and JRPGs must have ensemble casts? There are many components of games that can transcend genres. A racing game like Mario Party can have an ensemble cast with unique abilities, A game like Sims can have attribute spending to create a player build. Locking these to genres doesn’t help understand as you suggest but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

It’s much easier to used these parts as extra descriptors and even better when you also add perspectives

• BG3: An turn based strategy [with complex choice]
• Valkyria Chronicles: A turn based strategy [with player recruitment]
• Disgaea: An turn based strategy [with unlockable job systems]
• Wargroove: A turn based strategy [with resource management systems]

I’d even prefer “Earthbound-inspired RPG” as thats more clear on what I’m going to be playing

Two things on this,

• X-Com can easily be classified a turn-based strategy rather than Turn-based Action
• This confusion still exists in JRPG. Why would you suggest Disgaea is a JRPG but Fire Emblem or X-Com isn’t?

Ah that’s my bad, when I think about FF I still think of the earlier games but the newer games aren’t in that bandcamp. Should have suggested dragon quest

I disagree with both article and your point. The J is unhelpful when we can just label them turned-based action. This is just an issue of grandfathering a genre which means very little, is incredibly decisive and even unhelpful. It’s easy to imagine someone who like Final Fantasy may like a game like LISA. But harder to suggest someone who like ~~Final Fantasy ~~ Dragon Quest will like Kingdom Hearts, Demon Gaze or Disgaea. Just split JRPGs into mechanical genres. Turn-Based Action, Action RPG, Turn/Tile-based Strategy.

This issue extends to more genres (Generally RPG and Action) but I think it’s probably the easiest one to start moving away from

If you didn’t guess that last paragraph was specifically about Death Stranding. No reason to fault that game for what it is

I think adding difficulty options is fine but the accessibility of difficulty is risky because lowering difficulty is so enticing to the average person. I love souls games but I admittedly, in games where I can change difficulty on the fly, swap the difficulty to quickly move forward if I hit a wall. On the other hand, I spent 8 hours fighting the Guardian Ape in Sekiro and beating them is my favorite gaming experience of the last 5 years. I am pro accessibility but there should be some disadvantages to doing so (ironic, less accessible accessibility options). The easy one is making them a one-chance option. For example, moving your difficulty down from hard to normal, forces you to play the rest of the game at normal (Dragon Quest XI does this). There are other considerations that can be done, hidden difficulty that gives concessions (Crash Bandicoot, RE4) or attempt to estimate a flexible difficulty.

I think with difficulty there’s always going to be a question of “can we make this easier”.

I think the obvious query is “why should I be punished because you can’t hold back your urge to decrease the difficulty” but the reply could easily be “why should Devs do more work so you can play a game not aimed at you?”

Tl;dr: Shits complicated, cheat engine is always an option for the time being. People who mock you are losers.