Yes, this is what I really had in mind but could not retrieve this from my memory banks. If the combatants are not going to properly identify themselves, then the risk of civilian casualties is going to be very high. I guess interlock breathalyzers was just the opening shot.
I really, really want that to be true, but my experience trying to adopt it has been really painful.
Even selecting things in the UI has sucked. I went in and increased the selection radius or whatever, that helped. But really, should I need to do this as a new user?
Getting the constraints to behave is like pulling teeth.
It also kind of sucks that you have to have really sparse sketches that only contain one closed figure. I gather you can create a "master sketch" and selectively project geometry into other sketches. But the last few times I've tried the app, I haven't gotten far enough into my sketches before rage quitting to validate the technique.
Right now I am back F360 with their hobby license wanting to escape their regular messing with the terms and conditions.
> Even selecting things in the UI has sucked. I went in and increased the selection radius or whatever, that helped. But really, should I need to do this as a new user?
Agree - selection isn’t broken, but it’s definitely sometimes frustrating and as it’s such a common function, absolutely should be as close to perfect as possible. I think it’s partly that the visual indication of what you’re hovering over and would be selected is too subtle, and also I’ve found (on Mac; I’ve not confirmed on other OSs) that it’s not selecting what’s at the exact tip of the pointer, but is rather selecting a couple of pixels away.
> Getting the constraints to behave is like pulling teeth.
Huh, once I’ve actually selected correctly, I find the constraints are fine - say, 95% as good as Solidworks.
> It also kind of sucks that you have to have really sparse sketches that only contain one closed figure.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Do you mean you can’t have a sketch with (to take a very simple example) a circle inside a circle, or two unrelated circles, or something else?
There are situations I can think of where selection does seem broken by design. It's fairly easy to get into a situation in the 3d view where you want to select a vertex but because of the draw order it's very hard to find an orientation of the model that lets you put it "in front". So you spend ages selecting the lines around it, spinning the model, trying again from all sorts of angles. Heaven help you if you're trying to select a bunch of points that have this problem, it's frustrating as hell. The second is in sketches, where the constraint icons aren't selectable when they're grouped but will block the selection of a component underneath them anyway. That's just obnoxious. I think in both cases the UI is working as designed, but it makes for an unusable outcome.
Oh, and if the selection point isn't at the pointer point? That's just a bug, and needs to be fixed. I can't see any defending that.
It's a kind of crappy slide deck, not a proper home page. Even worse, the link drops you into the middle of the deck. (TBF, it wouldn't be so bad if you know that it's a slide deck when you load the page.)
Try using the arrow keys to navigate. It took me multiple tries to get it figured out.
Use up/down to navigate within a chapter/topic.
Use left/right to switch between topics.
The problem is most people won't take that attitude. For most homeowners, the home is the largest asset.
This is a Catch 22 for elected officials. We must reduce housing costs dramatically if we do so, we will devalue significant assets of a large number of active voters and political contributors.
I'd love to see some ideas on how to pull this off, because we need them.
The home is the largest asset, but the one you're living in. I personally agree with the other guy, I'd happily support a housing market crash, artificially induced if needed.
However, it's more nuanced. I can support risking that my house gets less worth than my mortgage, because I consider the probability of not being able to pay off my mortgage very low. I am guessing that people who feel less secure financially do see a house as a last-resort asset, even at the price of their children not being able to afford a home. And that's the root cause that should be fixed with policy I think.
There are a few things I wish we'd do in the US. We could not allow foreign investors to buy up properties in the US to use as short term rentals (airbnb) when they could instead be purchased by Americans and filled with families. We could also increase vacancy taxes to help encourage property owners to fill the millions of empty homes found all over the country. We could also decrease the wealth gap so that more Americans have enough money that they don't have to wait until they are 40 years old to buy their first starter house. (https://nypost.com/2025/11/05/real-estate/median-age-of-firs...)
For a motivated learner with access to good materials, schools provide two important things besides that very important piece of paper:
1. contacts - these come in the form of peers who are interested in the same things and in the form of experts in their fields of study. Talking to these people and developing relationships will help you learn faster, and teach you how to have professional collegial relationships. These people can open doors for you long after graduation.
2. facilities - ever want to play with an electron microscope or work with dangerous chemicals safely? Different schools have different facilities available for students in different fields. If you want to study nuclear physics, you might want to go to a school with a research reactor; it's not a good idea to build your own.
To extend 2. facilities, my experience had a - somewhat older and smaller - supercomputer that we got to run some stuff on.
And I'd argue for:
3. Realisation of the scope of computing.
IE Computers are not just phones/laptop/desktop/server with networking - all hail the wonders of the web... There are embedded devices, robots, supercomputers. (Recent articles on HN describe the computing power in a disposable vape!)
There are issues at all levels with all of these with algorithms, design, fabrication, security, energy, societal influence, etc etc - what tradeoffs to make where. (Why is there computing power in a disposable vape?!?)
I went in thinking I knew 20% and I would learn the other 80% of IT. I came out knowing 5 times as much but realising I knew a much smaller percentage of IT... It was both enabling and humbling.
But you can also meet experts at a company and get access to a company's machinery. To top it off the company pays you instead of you paying the school.
Naming comments are useful when someone catches something like:
1. you are violating a previously agreed upon standard for naming things
2. inconsistent naming, eg some places you use "catalog ID" and other places you use "item ID" (using separate words and spaces here because case is irrelevant).
3. the name you chose makes it easy to conflate two or more concepts in your system
4. the name you chose calls into question whether you correctly understood the problem domain you are addressing
I'm sure there are other good naming comments, but this is a reasonable representation of the kinds of things a good comment will address.
However, most naming comments are just bike shedding.
If the person reading the code doesn't quickly understand what's going on from the name or finds the name confusing, the name is poor and should be changed. It is way too easy for the author to be caught up in their mental model and to be unaware of their implicit assumptions and context and choose a name that doesn't make sense.
The bigger problem is people who feel ownership of shared codebases tied to their ego and who get angry when people suggest changes to names and other bits of interfaces instead of just making the suggested change.
If you get code review feedback, the default answer is "Done" unless you have a strong reason not to. If it's not obvious whether the name suggested by the author or the reader is better, the reader's choice should be taken every time.
> If the person reading the code doesn't quickly understand what's going on from the name or finds the name confusing, the name is poor and should be changed.
I used to think that way, but in many nontrivial circumstances, every conceivable name will be a mismatch for where some person is coming from, and not be self-evident for their mental model. Even the same person, over a longer time span. There is often a gap to bridge from name to meaning, and a comment isn’t the worst way to bridge it.
I find the thesaurus helps a lot with this. Actually more than just naming, because often a word in the synonym list will stand out as a more accurate representation of the concept you’re trying to add to the code, in a way that reveals subtasks that will substantially increase the value of the feature.
In short I use it as a form of rubber ducking. No it’s not like this word, it’s more like that one, but most of all like this one.
I’ve seen this enough now to consider it a trope instead of a coincidence. There’s that one or two guys on the team who may be noteworthy in their math clever but only high school reading level, who use the same word in three parts of the code but use a different dictionary definition each time. They don’t see the big deal, they can keep it straight in their head, they insist. And if you can’t then you must be dumb instead of what you really are, which is sick of his bullshit.
Given enough time and rope, these parts of the code start to encroach on each other and the cracks start to show. There are definitely bugs the smart guy introduces because no, in fact, you can’t keep them straight in your head either.
So it does matter if you use, as a top of my head example, the word “account” for both the user and group management features of the app and to describe an entry to an incident report in another part. It will bite you in the ass, and it’s easier to change now when there are three references instead of 23.
US states are, in some ways, less independent than UK countries.
Wales can no more disavow the PM than California can disavow POTUS. So this separate status is limited.
The big counter to this is the idea that US states have their own militaries. States may have militias, but they can be subsumed by the federal government pretty easily, as we saw in California in 2025. They are not truly independent armed forces.
OTOH, states are not allowed to leave the US, we had a war about this a while ago. Meanwhile Scotland had a referendum on leaving the UK a few years ago.
Love it or hate it, we are Americans first before we are New Yorkers or Mississipians and so forth. This is especially true when it comes to international relations; that's handled on a federal level and most people in the world couldn't tell a Nebraskan from an Alaskan.
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt
reply