u/akmark

I agree that the early DMRs are not in a great place right now. They really struggle to compete with an AK or other assault rifle with a few attachments and at longer ranges even a headshot doesn't feel like it has enough impact (e.g.: an SKS doesn't 1hk on a headshot against an enemy with no helmet). I don't think from a balance or vibe perspective the gun's gameplay is wrong it just doesn't match the price tag. In my mind the sks and svd should be closer to the SMG pricing as an 'interesting alternative.' Right now just taking an AK with 2x optic and using semi-auto is more cost effective.

The scout rifle is also a bit of a meme gun and is too much money for what it provides in value. Its a fun toy but just not practical to use as a source of recon XP. This leaves the Mosin being the first 'real sniper' and in my usage its totally OK and is a good weapon option for the price. It has the threat of a 1hk in a lot of situations and is good enough.

The answer for low level recon XP grinding is just to spot. If you have your item slot open, take the $75 binoculars every time. Its easy just by tagging a helicopter or two to make that money back instantly. I was able to get to mosin tier at a reasonable pace by just spotting when I could in normal play.

If you are doing recon by being sneaky and trying to find angles to support your team in tracking enemy movements its quite fun. Getting into positions where you are behind the enemy lines can be tricky and all of a sudden your team has full visibility to where enemies are and the enemies get routed quickly is quite rewarding.

The setup is the pain. When I am moving my laptop around a shared working environment I am rarely setting it up exactly once for the day, I am bouncing around 6-15 times going to meetings or whatnot. A single screen I can tuck under the laptop easily, lay flat on the table next to me, or set it up properly. I can't imagine a universe where I would carry around this larger setup and actually spend the time redeploying it 'properly.'

If I am coming to home base I'm just plugging in my external dock and existing setup where I can have a bigger monitor. I also have my monitor at my home base on an arm so its extremely adjustable, and this seems quite fixed and has limited vertical adjustment (higher or lower specifically). Most monitors are too low for me in a default configuration.

No, I would not use it. I have a single USB-C external screen that I use regularly that seems to be the same panel size as one of the three additional screens. I like the screen I have because it is something that I can setup as a secondary screen but also hand to someone else to work with them in a display mirroring configuration. I also like how easy my second screen is to setup and stow, this looks like it would be a pain.

There are levels to feedback that you can provide and disliking a video fit into the decision tree quite easily in my eyes. I usually reserve it for a video from a creator that I normally enjoy but at some point past the start I find something that I strongly dislike in a way I want to provide feedback. There's already plenty of ways to give feedback for things you don't like by not watching the video or abandoning the video after the first few seconds, but if I was watching the content and hit something that caused me to stop beyond boredom.. that's where the dislike button hits + potentially upvoting or contributing a comment with a similar critique if I can find it or have time.

I want content creators to know the difference between me just abandoning the video because I'm bored and there being something genuinely off-putting about it.

It's just a lot easier to fill helicopters during the initial leveling and at other times during the leveling grind then once players start having other options they want to try.

The disconnect for me is that if I jump out at CZ border I'm likely not going to be instagibbed and/or spotted. I rarely get to experience a pilot trying to land deep in the CZ or at the HZ because I'm spotted.

This happens in a lot of disciplines that are trying to model reality in Mathematics. Sometimes the underlying model is researched to see if any efficiencies can be developed and through other breakthroughs in the space there are ways or pure Mathematics tools to optimize a narrow use case.

That doesn't mean it always advances the applied work of the discipline or is the advancement in the place most needed.

At a certain point when you are exploring modeling stuff with Mathematics in research you are trying some new X in an existing context Y and seeing if that moves the needle. At a certain point when you are trying to bring this research back to the applied sphere you'll end up realizing that the theoretical model's requirements doesn't fit reality and the result of the research is that it didn't apply to some set of problems. That's OK. That's a research finding in itself.

When it comes to picking things that get distributed to undergrads and the wider world often the stuff that is easiest to explain wins. It can be more academically perfect but if it is difficult or fragile to implement in reality it may get hard to get traction. I'm more from the computer science background and there's loads of that in theoretical computer science. Quantum computing at a certain level was theorized by just applying quantum mechanics and computing and working out if it was interesting or not and decades of theoretical exploration happened before we started actually trying to build a real quantum computer. Sometimes the vehicle that makes some heavily researched theoretical item to become the norm just takes some other advancement.

I think a lot of problems would be solved with a visibility fix. There's no way of knowing someone bought a FOB. There's also no way to signal the team that you plan on deploying a FOB in a particular location.

I one time bought a Ural for a quick cargo run, found out nobody bought a FOB, stole a little bird and flew it back to HQ to grab one, fly back and deploy it. Someone else had bought one but missed my chat message and now was holding a dud.

I do wish the value prop of a FOB was better, or if like a crate you got a refund for tools and bandages taken out by others. I almost would rather them get rid of the other junk that never gets used and give more small/med hammers.

Yeah, lucky for me I haven't run into that yet. Was this on community servers or officials? I feel like sticking with community servers has been 'better' for a lot of that stuff. Whenever I dip back into officials whatever problem people on reddit are complaining about is more prevalent.

I don't know. I feel like I have only hit two cheaters.

There seems to be a common lack of understanding that the killcam follows the movement of the killer after they shot and is not a snapshot of the world when they were killed. The number of people who say that I killed them through walls when I shot a half-exposed body and stepped back into cover is frequent.

It also would be cool if in the combat log it at least told you that you were spotted or not. When you have a spotter in a good position its trivial to play off radar and make it seem like you are not even having to search for enemies when you are hunting... because you aren't. You already know what corner they hid in.

I've had mixed experiences. If one team decides to fobbit and the other team plays HZ often times you end up in the same holding pattern of low interaction that happens even on 3 team servers.

I have no problem with the attack little birds because you can shoot at the pilots with any rifle available. I have shot out little bird/blackhawk pilots enough to feel like I can at least take a swing at them (which has always been an interesting gameplay in any game with little birds- their best attack angle to you is the angle they are most vulnerable to being shot out).

A havoc seems impossible in comparison to a little bird or blackhawk. The only 'reliable' strategy seems to be suiciding little birds into them. Since there is a gunner painting them with a lock is not a good enough bluff to drain flares because the pilot can just look to when the rocket is actually fired since they aren't preoccupied with aiming. I have tried shooting the tail rotor or prop off and even though I land hits there doesn't seem to be a 'sweet spot' you can nail to threaten damage. The last option of a dedicated AA fob only works for one havoc before it gets leveled by mortars.

So I would argue that people have less issues with attack aircraft and more specifically the havoc.

I wish it was something where you could post a bounty instead of dumping boxes and spamming chat in hopes of people buying things. Someone wants to try a LMG? Let me see that they are looking for them.

I also wish that these delivery contracts existed for pilots/drivers as well. I would love to drop a crate full of goodies to teammates but it is really difficult in the existing system to have people express what they need.

I use a combo of mouse control and keyboard control. Keyboard for primary inputs and mouse for fine adjust.

I do feel like some of the assists can put you into a death stabilization loop that is difficult to fix with the lakota that just doesn't happen on the little bird. I've been experimenting turning some/all of the assists of and I haven't gotten it to recur, but I have been shot out of the sky too often recently to really feel like I got it figured out.

I'm really thinking that the 'outcome' for all this is to just do Hollywood accounting where they spin up an LLC for each video game as the 'video game manufacturer' and then just burn it down on the way out.

The only version of this I would be interested in would be a Shire-based Hot Fuzz homage.

College Football in my opinion is on the path to being destroyed because of the attacks on higher ed. Part of the draw was that the college team was attached to a prestigious university, but when that university is a skeleton of what it was and the only purpose of a university's existence is a football team what's the point.

College football also is at its highests levels of popularity in republican regions.

I think you are missing the OP's and my point a bit.

Yes, they can unlock a big hammer after one game. However at the start of War Dogs once it entered early access nobody had access to a helicopter with miniguns or rockets. There were no tanks, kodiaks, or humvees to fight. Now that people have gathered requisite unlocks a brand new player can encounter an attack helicopter or vehicle with gun and needs the tools immediately in their first game.

Compare this to a Battlefield or Battlebit there was always a class option that was available immediately that had some sort of anti-armour or anti-air. It may never have been the best option but it was always available. Heck even getting a backpack big enough to hold a reasonable amount of RPG ammo is a bit of an unlock slog and the single use personal AA launcher option that wouldn't need a backpack comes after the RPG option in the support tree for some reason.

The point put forth by the OP that I am supporting is that it was a lot easier to do these things in the first 72 hours or first week than it is now. During the initial unlock push I went from being able to drop in and fight pretty much anything you ran into to needing additional unlocks to deal with certain situations that simply weren't happening at the beginning.

This is criticism compared to whining. I am having a lot of fun being able to run down enemy Ural's and steal their trucks with a m249 vehicle. I also understand that I am punching down people that simply do not have the tools to respond to it, and it would be nice if all players started with a reasonable option so they could react. Since I am an experienced player this was obvious looking at the unlock tree and I spent a bit of time chasing a few power spike unlocks but encountering players who have unlocked the even later items like tanks and T3 armor it is skewed to be not fun if I try and take a light/new player tier loadout which used to be way more fun.

This was obvious from the free weekend when we got to see the tech tree, as it happens with every game like this with a personal XP unlock system. The fun is in the initial rush but as soon as things are slightly figured out its over.

A common example of this is when the revive mechanic has a flat better option (in this case defib). Having the reviver be mobile and just run up and revive someone to a higher health than either the revive mask or miyagi hands invalidates a fun interaction of the reviver having to expose himself and dragging around players to be worth it. This happened in Planetside 2 where levels in revive increased the health restored on revive. You would get told not to revive people if it wasn't sufficiently strong.

This game also has the curious choice of level locking personal AA and armor piercing rounds. Why the heck does it give you flesh rounds after FMJ? Buying armour piercing rounds is how newer players could 'punch up' against T3.

In normal 'balanced' and competitive games things are just unlocked for everyone and people just play the game. Usually in these sorts of games the base level unlocked gear is competitive but I would say in War Dogs against vehicles and armour newer players are completely outgunned, even in silly ways. A great example is the free medium hammer that you get for free with a FOB can't deploy key defensive structures. Why isn't it a big hammer? There's tons of these little choices that made it clear that there was a race to get the strong stuff and stomp.

I would say that you generally only see the evidence of people selling it or stealing it. There is a subset of people that modify software to suit their own personal use and don't tell anybody (because they freak out like this).

If the user made an enhancement for their own needs to software they paid for to me its about the same legality as someone modding a video game or cheating in a single player video game to add fast forward. Sometimes just adding a few extra keyboard shortcuts is all you want to do.

What's missing from the OP is whether or not the customer was trying to circumvent the licensing to get more than what they paid for or were just working around a problem. I have repeatedly had to work around problems by circumventing licensing in enterprise software but it was in good faith- I still paid and whenever the issue that was breaking the system for me was resolved I just went back to the unhacked software.

It could be as something as simple as wanting to run your software in a VM to test something or restore after a problem and it was faster to work around it.

As long as he is trying to use it within the parameters of your existing user license/agreement, they are paying, and they are not redistributing their crack this can be resolved as simply a customer service question. Ensure you have language out there that you won't support cracked versions in your user agreement, but also consider if you need a different class of user agreement to best suit this customer's needs (e.g. if you have a per device license and there is one user and six devices they might be happier with a suitable seat based license).

Often for most teams stuff didn't meaningfully change between yesterday and today. In our team we decided three times a week was the right cadence. We still meet everyday but the ceremony of scrum does not consume more casual news sharing and updates that we do the other days.

I would also say the more senior your role is often times you have a few days with standing meetings or other work that doesn't move your scrum work and showing up and saying 'I have wall to wall meetings and will get nothing done today' is just depressing.

I would agree this sounds like shared CI hosting. Commodity CI is not graded in speed it is graded in completion. GitHub Actions has tiers to point you to self-hosted or the larger runners if speed or cost matters.

I would question the initial concept that you are trying to do a regression benchmark in a CI context. I would expect highly variable results for GitHub Actions based on how well GH is doing and recently there have been plenty of issues. I would also question using different versions of Python and SQLite compared to what you are running against. Python can be built in various ways and they have a lot of subtle improvements that get added between versions which can have drastic performance implications and SQLite also has improvements and build params to make something that is the same version act differently. You also in CI might have extremely slow storage and so a WAL might be your bottleneck as well and might affect the query plan. Query planners look at the kind of disk and IO performance they are getting to decide what tools to use. Your case here might hit [4.4](https://www.sqlite.org/queryplanner-ng.html).

If you were to pursue the GitHub Action CI for this benchmark test I would bring your own build context that matches what you have locally.

I am an emacs user and ever since the language service protocol got established and made popular by VSCode there really isn't much else that an IDE gives me. In modern Emacs I barely do any customization. The only place I use an IDE is for creating WYSIWYG GUIs in native widget toolkits. I also use emacs for note taking, writing, text processing, and other activities so its easier to just have things all in one. It also helps that the interface is the same in all programming languages I encounter in my life as some IDEs are better than others at certain things (or expensive).

Being able to opt into things as opposed to be fully featured by default is just a lot easier and the fact that I can run the same configuration on local and remote hosts and across multiple OS's is just easier.

The one key advantage for emacs and coding is that it is trivial to work across many different projects at once where usually in an IDE you have to manage a set of open projects/workspaces. Bouncing between them becomes really quite easy even when you are dealing with git worktrees. I do not find that the current VSCode/IDE views really help there.