It is just another symptom of the system that makes affordable housing rare, not the root issue.

I think we don’t actually disagree and I was just not precise enough in my original post.

What I described above applies to abilities that are relevant in combat and any other type of encounter that the respective system mechanically treats as a conflict similar to combat. That absolutely does not mean other abilities should not exist, just that they should not be practically usable during an ongoing combat-like short term conflict.

Also: Abilities that are useful in short term combat-like conflicts and abilities that are not should not compete for mechanical resources of any kind, that is never fun.

It was my impression that we are at this point discussing (rp)game design in general, not specifically D&D. If your context was D&D specifically, that explains a lot of the disagreement between us.

I absolutely do want mechanical homogenization. Interesting variants can be handled with flavor without forcing everyone to learn completely new rules for every ability. The existence of generic rule systems (e.g. Savage Worlds) proves I am not alone with that view.

That sounds nice in theory, but actually charging stuff for several rounds while the encounter is already ongoing practically just means one player is doing nothing for most of the encounter. Not ideal.

I was thinking more along the lines of preparation before the actual encounter even starts, e.g. setting up an ambush or the magical equivalent of building a trebuchet during a siege.

Abilities that are too powerful for that should either not exist or require significant preparation

Most abilities should be either “per round/turn” or “per encounter”.

Abilities that are too powerful for that should either not exist or require significant preparation (enough for the opposition to have a chance to discover and interrupt it).

Abilities that fall in the second category should automatically come with a less powerful variant in the first category.

Maybe as a middle ground some player abilities could use the “roll for recharge” mechanic from powerful monster abilities.

Why do you think it would not be worse without the UN?

Do you think this is the only thing the UN does? Or that everything else it does does not matter?

Self-Hosting GitHub is available under the name “GitHub Enterprise”, but there is nothing stopping a smaller company from getting an “Enterprise” license. At my job we are running self-hosted GitHub for less than 50 developers.

Judging by the title this is most likely just a hit piece on any kind of activism the author does not personally agree with. I will not put effort into bypassing a paywall for something like that.

You could always argue that humor does not equal jokes I guess, but these were just my 2 cents

That was exactly my main point; but thanks for sharing your 2 cents anyway, they were still interesting.

I would argue that:

1. This is not actually a joke in the strict sense of the word. There is no punchline. The humor is entirely in the context.

2. Your friend does not understand any of this and is just repeating the “joke” because other people laughed about it at some point. It has nothing to do with the Windows operating system, so if that was part of his explanation he is probably just making shit up to cover his own ignorance.

Nowhere in that text does it say “managers are the real software architects”. What it does say is “what managers do affects software architecture”. Sure you can extrapolate that to delusions of grandeur, but if you take into account the explicit call for collaboration it is much more likely what was meant is more along the lines of “we can mess things up if we ignore the architecture, so let’s talk to the real software architects before making org decisions”.

About the comic: That one does have the line “management designs software architecture”, much closer to the negative interpretation; but that too can be interpreted in a more positive way as “… and we are not good at that, so let’s make sure to bring in the people who are good at it at important points”.

That is pretty much a given. Why else write about it at all?

I read it similar, but also kind of from the other side: If your organization is set up in a way that ignores the technical requirements of the product, your are going to have a bad time.

And yes, of course this is more often on the bad side than on the good side in practice. If everything was already fine most of the time, there would be no point in discussing this topic.

The original post advocates for a holistic, collaborative approach; management and technical experts should be working together to align technical and organizational structure. I fully agree with that view (and I’m not a manager).

There is more than enough “shit managers say” material out there, but this is not it.

Please don’t mix executables and data created by applications, even if the application happens to be a game. Those are supposed to be separate. That being said, “Documents” is obviously the wrong place for save game files.

Mir erschließt sich der Sinn hinter der Platzierung des “-” nicht. Wäre Berlina-tor nicht passender?

Would you mind elaborating on that thought?

it’s really useful to comment functions/methods, because otherwise you never know if something’s a bug or a non-obvious feature. Comments act as a parity check to the code, since they tell you what the dev who wrote the code wanted the code to do.

Unit tests should be the parity check for other code. Those don’t get outdated with the next refactoring where someone didn’t remember to also adjust all the comments.

Also, everone thinks they write good, clean and obvious code. Hardly anyone purpously writes bad, hacky code. Yet if you look at code you wrote a year ago, or code someone else on your team wrote, it’s full of non-obvious hacks. That means, people constantly misjudge the obviousnes of their code. Comments should be put on anything that could maybe be non-obvious.

Why would people be better at judging if something needs a comment than at judging if something needs a better name or refactoring? Asking people to skip that judgement step and comment everything just gives you a bunch of useless boilerplate comments. That trains everyone reading that codebase to ignore comments because they are almost always useless anyway.

putting documentation of the code anywhere else than in a comment (e.g. Confluence) is a total waste of time

At least this we can 100 % agree on. Documentation should be as close as possible to the code. (I just think most of the time that place is in the name of things, not in an actual comment.)