I presume you know this, but maybe for others: judging by what was written in that paragraph, I'd indeed assume he means the same paradigm that has been driving replicated real-time simulations since at least QuakeWorld - some world-state updates (in this case _"object transforms, velocities, and player positions"_, among others) don't have to be reliable, because in case you miss one and need a retransmit, by the time you receive it, it's already invalid - the next tick of the simulation has already been processed and you will get updated info anyway (IIRC this is essentially John Carmack's insight from his .plan files).

The command messages (player operations and events) _need_ to be reliable, because they essentially serve as the source of truth when it comes to the state of the world. Each game client depends on them to maintain a state that is the same for everyone (assuming determinism the Teardown team has been working on ensuring).

I have decided a couple years back that my setup will have a hand-rolled physics engine, specifically for the reasons you outlined - having complete understanding over what the code does, how it's structured and how it manages data - but after starting actually-not-so-arduous process of getting it together, it quickly became rather clear that whatever I could implement would pale in comparison to solutions that are robust, field-tested and generally created by professionals.

Physics development in particular is known for wonky nonsense, but there are better and worse heuristics and ways to deal with their shortcomings; a handful of books and Youtube presentations still couldn't prepare me for the actual depth of the problems ahead. What I have now works, is relatively stable in initial demos and I am proud of it, I'm going to tweak and use it in the game I'm working on. It is however pretty obvious already that a lot of time is yet to be spent on massaging jank out of the equations.

I wholeheartedly recommend spending more than several weeks on implementing various subsystems if one either is generally interested in how these things work or silently wishes for that badge of honour (it shines brightly). However, as they say, if you want to make games, do NOT make an engine. Not just because of the time it takes - it doesn't have to take that much (even though it usually does) - but also because along with total control over the medium for expressing your creative vision, it gives you total responsibility for it as well. Sometimes it's better to work in the confines of rules set out by actual engine developers.

That is absolutely not true. A much closer analogue of industry collaboration in the academic setting would be cross-university programs and peer review. The actual analogue of plagiarism is taking work of another and regurgitating it with small or no changes at all while not providing any sources. I'm sure you see what this sounds more akin to.

Nowadays, as mentioned, Fischer trumps all with its simplicity, but some still enjoy playing with byoyomi (supported both by newer chess clocks and by old Ing clocks), since they got used to managing their thinking time in regular intervals once base time was spent. Personally, I've been advocating using Fischer for the longest time, since said management strategies were more natural to me in this case, and I'm glad DGT clocks became the common standard at tournaments now.

Considering how much people can struggle with these issues, even in spite of proper medical care, it's safe to assume for the time being that this falls under the magic device category.

I assume this move, in essence, is meant to combat spam?

I think I and a lot of people around me got used to the relative comfort in life. To the sceptics this may sounds like just more scaremongering, but let's face it, it _has_ been getting worse in many more ways than we wanted or expected over the last decade. The least we can do to try to revert this trend is to attend a march, send an e-mail or try to spare some time to vote. Nobody can ignore the fact, that it will not reverse itself on its own.

Personally, I find the argument that the data we currently have is not enough to force us to make such changes absolutely understandable - but at the same time, I find this kind of inertia unwarranted in the age where the world looked almost unrecognisable just a decade ago.

> The design of their machines is so bad I have come to the conclusion that no one is designing them. I know this sounds like a ridiculous claim, but I am quite certain it’s true. I happened to work on a laptop project with a Dell competitor and saw how their “design” process worked. They wanted to make a laptop with an outstanding webcam, that was the purpose of the laptop.

Would not be written by a human in a serious critique of one of top producers of business line laptops though.

Copyright doesn't, for sure.