Yep, the citizens are now far smarter in their path finding. They’ll walk quite a distance now, or follow a route via multiple different transport types.

A feature I’m really enjoying is pedestrians will walk along routes not intended for them if you’ve failed to provide adequate pedestrian routes. They will walk alongside a highway without a pavement if it saves them time. Or even more recklessly I’ve got people finding their way onto my rail tracks to shortcut their way to the station in places I’ve failed to put pedestrian paths.

Each citizen has their own preferences too, They’ll take whatever transport is most suited to them. There’s a surprising amount of depth to it.

When traveling by car or public transport they choose:

Teens - the cheapest route.

Adults - the quickest route.

Seniors - the most comfortable route.

https://cs2.paradoxwikis.com/Citizens#Age

This cost is calculated using multiple factors such as the city’s road network, traveling time, travel cost, agent preferences, and more which we will cover in more detail below. Furthermore, agents will adjust their route based on events along the way. They may change lanes to avoid a car accident or a stopped service vehicle or make room for a vehicle responding to an emergency.

https://cs2.paradoxwikis.com/Traffic

Cars have seen massive improvement as well. They do indeed now pull into another lane to make way for emergency vehicles.

No longer do citizens store them in a magical pocket, they need to find parking which can be roadside or in dedicated parking structures.

Roads can be upgraded to remove roadside parking, given wide pavements, you can add signage to prevent left hand turns etc. But rather enjoyably some more reckless drivers will ignore your road layouts and intentionally take turns they aren’t allowed to, or if a road becomes blocked they will perform an illegal u-turn and find an alternative route.

Honestly, I’m really not understanding why this game is getting so many people complaining. Sure it has bugs, but the core mechanics are working perfectly fine - it’s an incredible feat of software engineering.

Interesting. It looks like that was the case in the past but they eventually adapted https://vimeo.com/blog/post/new-upload-rules/

deleted by creator

I have been meaning to ask, can Shelly be used to turn existing light switches/circuits smart? I have four separate light switched each for a single light, and I’d love a simple solution so if I turn one switch on all four lights come on.

I found the customisation of Sync to be severely lacking. The default text size is illegible and the sleuth of options to increase that size have practically no fidelity so end up making the design look terrible.

My mantra has always been to bring solutions not problems. Applying that to code reviews makes for a far more productive experience.

Rather than just pointing out errors in code help the developer with prompts towards the solution.

Or, if you’re too lazy to explain why something shouldn’t be done then why should another developer have to act on your criticism?

I wish this had been my experience. I pushed for so long in my last company for standards to be written, code formatters implemented and objectivity to be brought to reviews but it was always ignored.

Instead I had to endure every employee who claimed seniority (in a non hierarchical company) subjecting their opinion on style in reviews. It came up the point that I dreaded having to work with specific people because they kept triggering my PTSD with their moving target of micro management.

Only afterwards did I truly appreciate how poor a lot of their opinions were. Now one of my first questions when approaching a new project is what standards we’re following. If they look at me blank faced that’s a pretty solid red flag.

This was my experience too. At first I found code reviews to be an invaluable resource for improving my code. But I then reached a point where I’d learned everything I could from a particular reviewer.

I’d submit code that met every criteria, but the reviewer would still nit pick on tiny details that were entirely subjectective. It was no longer about the quality of code it became about the reviewer trying to put their mark on my work.

The only solution was to either ignore their nits or adopt the hairy arm technique whereby you include intentional errors for the reviewer to comment on so they feel their time had been valuable and you get away without yours being wasted.

jQuery was an essential stepping stone back when JS was lacking a ton of features that people take for granted these days.

Sure everything could have been done with Vanilla JS but it was verbose and difficult to follow. jQuery made it possible for any developer to quickly make a page dynamic

Yep. And three functions is better than one for legibility even if one would be fewer lines of code

I used to see this a lot with Facebook. Every time they altered the design people would kick up a fuss and I never understood why, the new design always looked far better.

Nowadays of course I don’t use Facebook but will occasionally have to sign in to look up the details of a business or something. The design has of course changed and I can’t find a damn thing on it. So I’m finally on board with the masses.

But they aren’t getting forced to change accounts. Their service continues just under another provider.

People who use the default email their ISP gives them don’t like change. The new service will probably have a different login screen and that’s going to upset aunty Ethel and uncle ron. And then a different colour background. It’s the worst thing that anyone could ever do to them

I’ll occasionally

1. stash my changes
2. unstash them.
3. Revise the file in my editor so only the chunk I want to commit is present
4. Commit
5. Unstash the changes again to get back the uncommitted change

It’s clunky but it’s robust and safe. It does sound a lot cleaner to just use commit -p though

-p –patch

Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index.

This effectively runs add --interactive, but bypasses the initial command menu and directly jumps to the patch subcommand. See “Interactive mode” for details.

The documentation is entirely meaningless? What does it do?

You’ve never used a graphical git client?!

I’m comfortable on the command line but a decent git UI is a way better experience.

git diff is so basic using a GUI makes it far easier to compare changes.

Same for merge conflicts. I’m not sure you can even resolve them on the CLI?

Any form of rebase: I think I used the CLI to do an interactive rebase a few times in the early days but I’d never do so without a GUI now.

Managing branches: perhaps I’m a little too ott but I keep a lot of branches preserved locally, a GUI provides a decent tree structure for them whereas I assume on the command line I’d just get a long list.

Managing stashes: unless you just want to apply latest stash (which admittedly is almost always the case) then I’d much rather check what I’m applying through a GUI first.

There are some things I still use the CLI for though:

git remote add git remote set-url because I’m just too lazy to figure out how to do that in a GUI. It’s usually hidden away somewhere.

git push --force because every GUI makes it such an effort. C’mon! I know what I’m doing - it’s /probably/ not going to mess things up…

We really should start a community specifically for bets on when a newly launched Google project will be shut down.

Ah, MO;KR

I’m so tempted to now question what VPN stands for 😆. Although I suspect more people would recognise the acronym than the full name

MYD? Have you just invented an acronym because a search reveals zero relevant answers as to what it could possibly mean.

Using acronyms, especially obscure ones only serves to exclude people.