It's not a black and white issue; things aren't getting banned because they might be used for illegal purposes, that is even explicitly stated in the article.
I'd imagine that in some ways people would be happier since their entire existence would just be predicated by workflow, but that's just an offshoot hypothesis.
I'm afraid that I'm essentially nitpicking here, but the games don't really compare that linearly.
For one, "insane micro" was around before SC2 and was more of a deciding factor in BW than SC2. For instance, if you pay attention and analyze pro games you'll notice that macro (the boring repetitive work) that you think was flushed out from BW was actually just translated into other, equally monotonous tasks in SC2. Also, SC2's fights (outside of early skirmishes) are MUCH more based around creating concaves or fighting in favorable positions, and not actual micro. In BW micro is far more of a deciding factor in fights. (see: any pro-game fight consisting of supply over approximately 120 aka deathball)
Another thing, MarineKingPrime didn't really "invent" marine micro, he just excelled at it. And SlayerS isn't a player, it's a team name.
For the last part regarding optimal resource management and exploring timings and makeups, build orders have been virtually completely fleshed out and maximized. There really isn't much that say, 1000 APM (just a stupidly high impossible number to represent computer APM) could do that 300 APM (pro player human APM) couldn't in terms of gaining an early advantage in build orders.
Yes, very nitpicky. MarineKingPrime didn't invent marine micro but he was known for it/popularized in the early GSL seasons before it became a standard tactic. SlayerS (the team) dominated MLG Anaheim with blue flame hellions and basically caused them to get nerfed if I recall.
I don't believe he's being that nitpicky. Brood War had a lot of micro, including marine micro...
Boxer (SlayerS_Boxer is who I think you are referring to, as he also played starcraft 2) was well known for having really insane marine micro in the community before SC2 even came out. Starcraft 2 was just way bigger in the west so more people over here associate MarineKingPrime with micro than brood war pros.
I guess what I was trying to say, in general, was that since SC2 required less micromanagement of your macro (auto-harvesting, etc), players had more free time to spend on unit tactics.
In GSL season 2, MarineKing showed that stimmed marines could counter banelings. Then the rest of the playerbase quickly adapted his tactics.
At MLG Anaheim (2013), the SlayerS terrans (ie multiple members of the SlayerS team) placed 2nd, 3rd, and 4th and destroyed all zergs with their blue flame hellion play.
Those are just two examples of the sorts of tactics that once discovered are quickly assimilated into the metagame and quickly go from innovative to standard play. So my hope was that AI could speed up the pace of tactical innovation.
To be fair, they did address this concern under the 'Operating Leverage in Our Business' section where they said that they may look for another third party to rely on for cloud computing or they build their own infrastructure.
"We have committed to spend $2 billion with Google Cloud over the next five years and have built our software and computer systems to use computing, storage capabilities, bandwidth, and other services provided by Google Cloud, some of which do not have an alternative in the market. We are currently negotiating an agreement with another cloud provider for redundant infrastructure support of our business operations. In the future, we may invest in building our own infrastructure to better serve our customers."
Its obvious that there's a ton of money in selling people's information for advertising, but I don't think that people are even that angry that their information is being sold so much as they aren't aware of what information is being sold. I think that it'd be interesting to see more transparency in selling of information so that target advertising can still be easily done which allowing the users to actively choose one product over another if they don't want their email addresses being given out as compared to cookies for search relevancy or something along those lines.
I am not saying that he is not correct or that he is wrong in trying to enlighten Felipe, I just think he could have been more respectful. If his explanation of his reasoning and logic tends to look more like flame than an explanation I think it should be time to save the email and go do something else for a bit. I also think that posting this and getting it attention as a 'look at this guy, he got flamed!' bit is silly as well.
I agree with your observation but let's remember that we are talking about Linus. He usually replies with a flamethrower - mainly when he believes in another way of doing things, but in the end he has a point. And that point is flame worth (IMO).
Being respectful, polite or sometimes even flammable are not contradictory. A well timed flame instance can act as a catalyst for understanding and development, at least that has worked with me. -- well-done many times
I totally understand your points of sometimes the point justifies the attention grabbing. But I also think that other measures might be worth taking other than flaming - like I often see the use of swears in titles to grab attention and help convey the importance of the subject, I think that alternative measures would be much more reasonable and still achieve the same goal.
Agreed. And that is a good observation, what is the actual goal of L.T.? I can only guess -- but perhaps the flaming serves as a tactics he utilizes to save one of the most precious we all have, the time.
Note that this email comes at the end of a really long thread arguing this point (reversion in stable trees) on LKML. The discussion also spilled onto G+. I'm not at all surprised that Linus (among other people) might be losing some patience.
I don't think that it is necessarily fair to be extremely critical of Kickstarter. I think that we should consider the viewpoint of the respondent to her, he probably thinks that she in some way caused the stalker to spam her project. I agree 100% that this problem should be fixed - but I don't think that Kickstarter would intentionally ban her account for this situation if they had the full story, and now that it has come to light I hope that apologies are made and this situation is corrected.
he probably thinks that she in some way caused the stalker to spam her project.
No matter what happened here, this entire concept is horribly, horribly wrong. It's blaming the victim -- saying that it's somehow her fault for "causing" the stalker to do something... as opposed to the stalker's fault, for stalking.
Except that Forrest's point is that they probably didn't know the spammer was a stalker. This is kind of relevant. If a random person walks up to you and asks if you've seen this person and shows you a picture, you'd probably help them out, completely unaware they're a serial killer. That doesn't make you a bad person.
If Kickstarter does respond to this by maintaining their stance, then there's a huge problem. Until then, it's more a case of an incompetent employee.
I don't think that changes anything? Again, replace the word "stalk" with "spam": it's the spammer's fault for spamming, not her fault for hypothetically "causing" the spammer to make the decision to spam her.
I was in no way saying that it was the victim's fault. I just don't think that Kickstarter should be on the receiving end of a lot of criticism until we get the full story from them. It may very well be that they are under the impression that that it is her fault, although I am not saying it is, it is just plausible and would account for their reaction to her ban.
