As someone who bought Half Life 2 when it was released …

I only remember people being excited about Steam, Web stores weren’t a thing back then and they were the future! (It was the following years of audio and ebook stores locking stuff down and evapourating that taught us to hate it).

Game/Audio CD DRM hacking the kernel and breaking/massively slowing down your PC was pretty common back then and Steam’ s DRM didn’t do that.

The HL2 disc installer didn’t require you to install Steam, once installed it asked you to setup Steam and there was a sticker under the DVD with the Steam code for you to enter.

You were then rewarded with a copy of HL2 Deathmatch and Counterstrike Source.

Steam wasn’t always on DRM, back then ADSL/DSL was relatively new and alot of people were still stuck on Dial Up modems.

Steam let you sign in and authorize your games for 30 days at which point you would need to log into Steam again. This was incredibly helpful feature for young me.

Basically Epic like every other publisher has created their own launcher/store.

They aren’t trying to compete on features and instead using profits from their franchise to buy market share (e.g. buying store exclusives).

The tone and strategy often comes off as aggressive and hostile.

For example Valve was concerned Microsoft were going to leverage their store to kill Steam. Valve has invested alot in adding windows operability to Linux and ensuring Linux is a good gaming platform. To them this is the hedge against agressive Microsoft business practices.

The Epic CEO thinks Windows is the only operating system and actively prevents Linux support and revoked Linux support from properties they bought.

As a linux user, Valve will keep getting my money and I literally can’t give it to Epic because they don’t want it.

If you signup to social media it will pester you for your email contacts, location and hobbies/interests.

Building a signup wizard to use that information to select a instance would seemto be the best approach.

The contacts would let you know what instance most of your friends are located (e.g. look up email addresses).

Topic specific instance, can provide a hobby/interests selection section.

Lastly the location would let you choose a country specific general instance.

It would help push decentralisation but instead of providing choice your asking questions the user is used to being asked.

Basic rule if someone claims X magically solves a problem they don’t follow X and are a huge generator of the problem.

For example people who claim they don’t need to write comments because they write self documenting code are the people that use variable names x1,x2,y, etc…

Similarly anyone you meet claiming Test Driven Development means they have better tests will write code with appalling code coverage and epically bad tests.

The butler informed me Kinder Eggs don’t make a nice pyramid, Lindt doesn’t stack and suggested I would offend her ladyship if I tried Heroes.

I have the staff practicing making a house of cards using After 8’s, the butler thinks its something those terrible colonialists would try but he sees no other option

One type of sweet!

Candy is the generic American word for sweets. American’s think chocolate should include stale milk and use Fructose! (cancer causing, obesity driving) Fructose in everything.

One could easily argue American candy has nothing in common with UK sweets (have you tried an American Kit Kat?).

Its like serving a German a Richmonds sausage, they’ll get confused.

Thats two hundred years and would cover the end of Plantagenet reign and the Tudor era.

Henry VIII reign happened during that period, at the beginning of your time period everyone would be catholic and at the end Queen Mary of Scotts was executed because the idea of a Catholic on the throne was unthinkable.

The UK is littered with castles and estates, normally they focus on specific historic events which happened at that location.

Using real world applications is changing the problem (what are you trying to solve).

My issue is teaching how you solve the problem.

As an example the indian method to teach multiplication is to draw lines equal to the first number, then perpendicular lines equal to the second and then count the points they bisect (e.g. draw 3 horizontal and 3 vertical lines and they cross 9 times).

Lastly I coach people in Agile (its a way of delivering stuff). An Agile team is brought together because a Product Owner has a problem and a vision on how to solve it.

The biggest factor in motivating a team and getting high performance is the product owners passion for their vision. You can have the most interesting problem in the world, if the product owner doesn’t care neither does the team.

I suspect the same is true of teaching

Not really.

There are multiple ways to approach and conceptualise multiplication, division, simultaneous equations, binomial distribution, probability, etc…

I have met a few maths geniuses and we teach Maths the way they think and conceptualise Maths.

In my last job I was viewed as a superstar because I could take the algorithms the data scientists produced and explain them to non data scientists.

I didn’t change the underlying maths, I tailored what to explain and examples to use based on my audience. This tended to get people really excited at what the data scientists had done.

Its the same with teaching, people need to understand and conceptualise a problem in a way that makes sense to them.

The issue is we only teach one method for approaching Maths so if you don’t get it, tough.

In primary and secondary school I always struggled with Maths. During university I spent most of my energy reverse engineering the maths lessons so I could understand them.

Years later my sister was struggling with her Maths GCSE, I spent one evening explaining how I solve each type of problem. She went from a projected D to getting an A.

I was explaining this to an ex maths teacher who started asking how I approached things. Apparently I used the Indian method for one type of problem, the asian for anouther, etc…

The idea a student was struggling with one way of solving the problem and teaching them alternative methods never occurred because it was “outside the curriculum”.

These days I quite like Maths puzzles.

This advice isn’t grounded in reality.

Management normally defines ways to track and judge itself, these are typically called Key Performance Indicators.

KPI’s are normally things like contract value growth, new contracts signed, profit margin, etc…

So if the project manager is meeting or exceeding their KPI’s and you walk up to their boss telling them the PM is failing as basic job functions, the boss won’t care.

This is because the boss might have set the KPI’s or the boss might also be judged on them. In either situation its to the bosses advantage to ignore you.

The boss will only care if there is a KPI you can demonstrate the PM failing to meet.

Every person/group will have various incentives and motivations. To affect change you have to understand what they are.

Wikipedia lists all 12 subs as having Rolls Royce Pressured Water Reactors.

Your PWR reuse idea is is kind of where Rolls Royce is looking to go with Small Modular Reactors (https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx).

I suspect refurbishing decades old PWR reactors would be far more expensive than just building new ones, for example a SpaceX Merlin engine costs $1 million and a Blue Origin BE-4 costs $15 million. Nasa argued it would be ‘cheaper’ to reuse Shuttle components for the Space Launch System (SLS). Refurbishing Shuttle RS-25 engines has cost Nasa $50 million dollars per engine, restarting a production line is costing $100 million for each new RS-25 engine.

A project manager has responsibility for delivery of a project but they typically lack domain specific knowledge. As a result they can’t directly deliver something, merely ask subject matter experts for advice and facilitate a team to deliver.

Most PM’s cope with the stress of this position poorly.

This cartoon is an example of micro management (a common coping mechanisim), the manager has involved themselves in the low level decisions because that gives a sense of control. If a technical team then tell them its a bad decison the team are effectively attacking their coping mechanisim.

The solution isn’t to tell them their technical idea is terrible, when you’ve fallen down this rabbit hole you have to treat the PM as a stakeholder. They are someone you have to manage, so a common solution is to give them confidence there is a path to delivery, a way to track and understand it.

Tactic developed by Wagnar.

The create a plan with fixed waypoints for a squad to run. They plan for 5-8 squads to run the route at set intervals.

The idea is each squad exposes the Ukrainian position so the next squad knows where to attack. By sending so many squads in a short space of time the Ukrainian position is overwhelmed.

Wagner would plan to have the first 4-7 squads made up of convict units with minimal training, with a trained well equipped squad operating as a reserve. The idea being as soon as a Ukrainian position looked to be close to failure the reserve is dispatched.

Fundamentally everyone apart from the well trained reserve exists to soak up bullets and explosives. They are “meat”.

The Russian army had “well” trained battalions, as those battalions are attrited it would shrink them down to maintain effectiveness.

With Wagner’s success they backfilled the battalions with convict and mobilisation soliders. Those soliders are used following the tactic above with the original remnants of the battalion representing the well trained reserve.

This is how Russia solved their inability to train new soliders

SpaceX are launching 26-52 satellites at a time and have sustained 3 launches a week for most of the year.

The satellites are in a Low Earth Orbit, without constant thrust, atmospheric drag will force them to re enter earths atmosphere within a few months. This means they aren’t adding to junk in space.

Unlike Nasa, ULA, Arriannespace, RoscosMos, etc… SpaceX have always performed 2nd Stage Deorbit burns, so they aren’t adding to Space junk by launching either.

The Low Earth Orbit is to ensure low latency and the need for constant thrust means the satellites have a short life expectancy by design. That is why SpaceX fought to keep the satellites as cheap as possible (e.g. $250k)

First stage booster reuse and fairing reuse means the majority of the launch cost is the second stage ($15 million).

The whole lot is privately funded

SpaceX have funded it privately. It apparently started operating at a profit this year.

If you read the reports…

Normally JPL outsource their Mars mission hardware to Lockheed Martin. For some reason they have decided to do Mars Sample Return in house. The reports argue JPL hasn’t built the necessary in house experience and should have worked with LM.

Secondly JPL is suffering a staff shortage which is affecting other projects and the Mars Sample Return is making the problem worse.

Lastly if an organisation stops performing an action it “forgets” how to do it. You can rebuild the capability but it takes time.

A team arbitrary declaring they are experts and suddenly decideding they will do it is one that will have to relearn skills/knowledge on a big expensive high profile project. The project will either fail (and be declared a success) or masses of money will be spent to compensate for the teams learning.

Either situation is not ideal

I have always had 1 question.

In voyager we see the Borg have thousands of ships of varying sizes and control a vast area of space. Voyager is able to take down spheres and small cubes.

Yet in Wolf 359 a single cube attacks and destroys hundreds of star fleet vessels. If a single cube is able to have that level of effect why didn’t the borg commit a larger fleet?

You have the same issue in First Contact, they only commit 1 cube.

Considering how difficult the federation finds holding them back, attacking with 3-6 cubes would seemto assure victory

The issue is end to end encryption.

The law change requires messaging applications to be able to provide messages between people using their service.

In the 00’s, messaging applications would have a secure connection between themselves and person A and anouther secure connection between themselves and Person B.

Person A would encrypt the message, send it to the service, who would decrypt it, open a connection to Person B, encrypt the message and send to Person B.

So if the police got a warrent for communications of Person B (say the police think the person is involved in human trafficking), then the messaging service could provide all messages sent to Person B.

Message services have taken themselves out of the loop, Person A now encrypts the message and sends directly to Person B. So the police appear with a warrent and the message service shrugs its shoulders since it hasno means to get the data.

The law effectively requires messaging services to design the apps/service so they can comply with a warrent.

The issue is less encryption and more the balance between your right to privacy and states right to intrude.

This is why banks aren’t upset, they aren’t talking about back dooring encryption and bank encryption is between you and the bank so they don’t have to do/say anything.

Because the Tories have upset everyone internationally, so it isn’t really an option. If you’ve been paying attention the EU has been playing a bunch of jobsworth type games with the UK.

Notice how he will do this in 2025, when the current agreement is up for renewel rather than immediately.

You also have the fact rejoin isn’t winding the clock back to 2016, firstly we would loose all of our opt outs, things like the rebate, the euro, etc… I don’t think the reality would actually be popular.

Secondly the UK blocked a number of things like the EU Army (personally I think its a terrible idea, countries that don’t spend enough looking to combine to “save” money) so it isn’t the same EU.

Lastly see above mentioned jobsworth behaviour, I would not be surprised if the EU demanded the UK to complete all the paperwork of a new joiner and drag the process out as long as possible (it takes ~10 years for most countries).

Far better to put the UK on a stable footing and then ask if EU membership is something the UK still wants. It took the 13 years to get to this point, so its unlikely everything will be fixed during the next government. So why bring something like rejoining up?