The only one who is dense here is you. You haven't shown me a single shred of actual evidence that I am wrong. I on the other hand have pointed out multiple sources of reliable data and experimentation that back up what I say. You can't be bothered to post anything other than what amounts to satirical cartoons because you don't have any evidence to support your position.

No, I'm not gonna waste my time on your propaganda videos. All they amount to is an op-ed piece by someone who refuses to acknowledge scientific facts.

I bet you can't provide one single study that actually contradicts what I've told you in regards to climate change, temperature changes, atmospheric change, weather change, or anything else I've put forward.

Again, I've backed my assertions up with actual data. What have you got? The weather channel? LMAO @ your "REAL" science.

Any idiot can make a video. And all it takes is another idiot like you to share it with the rest of the idiots in the world.

When the top 1% holds 50% of the wealth in a nation, taxing the rich is NOT Socialism. How do you think they got that rich? By exploiting people. The USA is basically an oligarchy, served by a corrupt government who caters to their whims. Trump is just a figurehead for the rich and powerful. He's one of them after all.

If it were that simple, they'd have been doing it a long time ago.

NO WAY IN HELL. I program computers for a living, and the one thing I know is that they are not to be relied on when it comes to making life or death decisions. You will never get me to let a computer drive me around in a car. Too many factors that can't be accounted for by an artificial intelligence that a real human driver can handle easily.

Aaron's right on with his description of the good ole USA. No one should have to die because they can't afford basic health or hospice care.

Poor choice of words there. "unusually poor results" are actually typical in most of America. I love how you want to blame Aaron and his mother for "poor life choices", when it's the system that is broken. You are so completely oblivious though, there's not much point trying to convince you otherwise.

Who the hell are you to judge your mother? If she left your deadbeat dad, I'm sure there was a good reason for it. She raised you and took care of you on her own, and you're gonna criticize her decision? And you're gonna criticize Aaron's mother for being a single parent? That's just b***sh*t.

I don't know why you're ripping on the weather network. They're meteorologists, not climate scientists, and the article that he linked to even countered his argument (which I pointed out). In other words, they were in no way, shape, or form supporting his argument. On the contrary, they explicitly stated for stupid people that it was not in dispute with climate change.

Well said. It should actually be unreasonable to allow individuals to have so much wealth. Billions of dollars? They could live like the wealthiest kings every day of their lives and still have billions of dollars left over. There's absolutely no reason to let individuals or even corporations hoard all of that wealth. Wealth that could literally change the lives of millions of people, as well as boost the productivity of the world and literally change people's lives.

You cannot become a billionaire without exploiting people. There is no product or service worth that kind of exchange over the course of your life. It's disingenuous to allow this to happen without spreading that wealth back out over the population. These extremely wealthy people and corporations are exactly the parties that "lobby" AKA bribe our governments to act against our best interests. It's understandable why the government wouldn't want to dismantle them, but it's dumbfounding why an average citizen would think it's reasonable to permit them to operate that way unchecked.

I generally agree, but with caveats. I do believe that some day we may get to the point where we can trust computers with this task. I don't think any of us will be alive for it though. We may get to see the precursors, but I'll probably refrain from getting in one until I've seen the outcomes of 10 or 15 years of operation.

Case in point: the Boeing 737 MAX or whatever. The engineers decided it would be wise to let the computer decide when the plane was in trouble and recover automatically. Except instead faulty sensors cause the planes to think they're stalling when they aren't, forcing them into a dive and crash. Worst of all, it was so nonchalant that pilots weren't even properly trained on how to disable it.

They may well have automated cars on the road today, and they may well expand in our lifetime, but I anticipate we'll have similar failures with these automated cars. Non-trivial computer programs are hard/impossible to review and prove. The more complex they get the more likely edge cases and things will trigger unanticipated bugs. There may be a day as I age when I consider the computer a more reliable operator than I am, but hopefully it won't be for a long while. As it is even ABS systems are sometimes unreliable. We disabled it in my pickup because it was flaky at low speeds. It seems to contradict logic, but I think I've improved stopping distances without it again. Even for a 2008. Hopefully they've figured it out by 2019, but I've heard even 2019 trucks still do it.

On the other hand, I believe that the majority of people are careless and clumsy behind the wheel so computers might well be able a viable replacement for most operators in our lifetime. Still maybe not as safe as competent human operators, but I think it's fair to say that many human operators are incompetent too.

I think he actually had a valid point there, but I think it was by accident. Studies do show that single-parent homes, particularly single-mother homes, predict more delinquencies and unproductive members of society. Fathers are very important for children. So are mothers. Both parents are important, and certainly the stability that both parents can provide contribute towards a brighter future. It's still not guaranteed. It's just one of many variables. There are exceptions to every rule.

Also, it should be noted that it has nothing to do with religion or god or the Bible. It makes sense that two-parent households would have more resources in general, whether it's more money, more energy, more time, more discipline, etc. On and on. While mothers are really wonderful nurturers, they're pretty nonthreatening to even a young boy pushing double-digits. Fathers on the other hand tend to be pretty scary forever. There may come a time when you can technically overpower your father, but by then it's probably because their health is failing so it's not a fair fight. And by then you've hopefully learned to respect him well enough that you'd never lift a finger to him unless he forced you to.

Marriage as a religious institution isn't significant. What I think is important about marriage, religion aside, is that a man and woman committing to stay by each other's side for their entire lives allows them to invest in their future together in ways that couples otherwise cannot easily do. Of course, the modern day courts that favour women and hate men have stretched this advantage to its breaking point. Men have little choice. You can either gamble or you can play it safe and skip the family. Ultimately, it makes for a lot of very unstable members of society, which is counter-productive. Nevertheless, marriage is still probably your best bet, but I encourage you to be very blunt with your bride-to-be up front, and lay down the law as it were. At least do your best to come to an understanding of what marriage is, and what a productive family is, and that "divorce because the grass may be greener" isn't a viable option.

It all comes down to both adults doing everything they can to pick the best suitable mate. Which means compromising. There's no such thing as perfect. And also, it means establishing a compatible outlook on life, love, and family. Marriage is about agreeing to stick together no matter what. So you had better be damn sure before you say I do. People make mistakes, and we need to be able to forgive and work through challenges. That's what marriage is all about. Nobody ever said that every successful marriage was perfect. There's no such thing. It's about not giving up, and BOTH people continuing to work together. To take care of each other's needs.

@NiteHackr (and anybody else), do you understand the concept of "average temperature", right?

@Aaron: Great! Me wants. Only for Windows?

I thought it was made using Allegro... or does LÖVE use Allegro?

I discovered a lot of itch.io games that require download and install LÖVE (so I didn't), don't know what actually is.

Read this on a fellow programmer's blog a while back and it made me laugh. He has a point though!

“Software engineers aren't afraid of the robot apocalypse. There's no reason to be scared of something that can be taken down with a misplaced semicolon.”

(this is actually my most common error in programming)

But spaces, that would be worst...

Lua seems to be a nice language, however, I’ve never been able to get myself into learning it.

How it is compared to python or ruby?

We may reach a server limit one of these days

I think you're wrong. It's Lua, btw.

C++ is tied with Lua for my favorite programming language.

Lua is just so flexible.

I wrote my own class system supporting inheritance and reflection.

A callback system supporting binding parameters.

I wrote a DSL for a graph-like ORM I call the GameDB.

And a DSL to generate behavior trees, including wiring inputs/outputs to/from nodes, using my custom C++ AI library BMASHINA.

A dialog system that abuses coroutines.

I find Python inferior as a language. As an ecosystem, Python is way better.

I've not used Ruby so I can't comment.

I also use FreeBSD on my servers, use zsh, and one of my favorite bands broke up after one album.

I'm just cool.

You forgot the smiley: