If you do go through with this, you can get quite a bit of competent volunteer work, especially from potential beneficiaries and retired programmers.
Post to HN if this moves forward and you want volunteers / low paid staff - currently I dn't know how you find thsiad volunteers when you are finally ready.
I'm not positive but I think one of the first examples of a game accommodating players in a more extreme sense was in Crash Bandicoot during the famous boulder chase level where Crash was running toward the screen / player. If the game detected you were having trouble clearing the stage each subsequent replay would slow the boulder down a bit. The goal was to ensure the player wouldn't rage quit thus allowing for longer play sessions.
If it's not the first it's at least one of the best early examples of this mechanic.
Crash Bandicoot is one of the very few platformers that I can actually stand (got to 103% completion). It's just so very well designed to avoid annoying the player while retaining difficulty.
Crash Bandicoot has a highly entertaining development story as well. They straight up violated Sony's hardware rules, and Sony was so desperate, they let them.
I was curious about what rule they violated -- it comes up in part 5:
"The first is Sony’s first viewing of Crash in person. Kelly Flock was the first Sony employee to see Crash live [ Andy NOTE: running, not on videotape ]. He was sent, I think, to see if our videotape was faked!
Kelly is a smart guy, and a good game critic, but he had a lot more to worry about than just gameplay. For example, whether Crash was physically good for the hardware!
Andy had given Kelly a rough idea of how we were getting so much detail through the system: spooling. Kelly asked Andy if he understood correctly that any move forward or backward in a level entailed loading in new data, a CD “hit.” Andy proudly stated that indeed it did. Kelly asked how many of these CD hits Andy thought a gamer that finished Crash would have. Andy did some thinking and off the top of his head said “Roughly 120,000.” Kelly became very silent for a moment and then quietly mumbled “the PlayStation CD drive is ‘rated’ for 70,000.”
Kelly thought some more and said “let’s not mention that to anyone” and went back to get Sony on board with Crash."
That entire Development Story is such a massive gem. Everyone interested in programming, game programming, and video game creation in general should fully dig into it:
Making Crash Bandicoot
----------
As one of the co-creators of Crash Bandicoot, I have been (slowly) writing a long series of posts on the making of everyone’s favorite orange marsupial. You can find them all below, so enjoy.
That's one of the finest and most entertaining "post mortem's" (it didn't die, though so what's that called?) I've ever read.
There's something in it for everyone who enjoys programming, video games, or technical papers.
My favorite four takeaways from the development story are:
1) The mechanic I spoke of above where the game tries to dumb things down for less skilled players.
2) The fact that Crash Bandicoot was originally designed as the flagship game and mascot character and ultimately Sony messed up in terms of making Crash into the Sony Playstation mascot as Mario or Sonic were to the Nintendo and Sega consoles / companies respectively.
Naughty Dog aimed for that as they saw an opening for it and, I think, absolutely nailed that aspect of creating an iconic and lovable character but Sony seemed gun shy about it. I could see, with hindsight, how Naughty Dog could have developed Crash further as a character and branched out in terms of making all sorts of Crash branded games of various genres in the future instead of the few platformers that we got (although they were all well above average).
3) The fact that pit falls, unbreakable boxes, and other in-level obstacles / item boxes weren't just there by chance. The Sony Playstation could not handle too many enemies on screen so the level designers worked hard to craft levels that would ensure enemies would fall into pits or be blocked by boxes from entering into an area that would ultimately crash the game / console from having too many polygons on screen.
4) The fact that Naughty Dog was thought to have "special secret hardware codes" given to them by Sony because comparatively Crash Bandicoot was performing and looking a few levels above anything else other Sony Playstation developers were capable of creating. The team wrote all sorts of specialized tools and programs to help refactor polygons, smart load levels, and ensure that the team was able to have great looking graphics and models on screen that were as close as possible to squeezing out everything the hardware could handle (see item 3 above) and this caused other developer teams to question Naughty Dog and Sony's relationship behind the scenes.
$87.00/mo or $2045.00 one time payment. That's really nice although as people said it is a little low on the top speed if you need to take it on any faster roadways / highways.
For city driving it seems absolutely perfect in terms of performance, convenience, and most importantly: price.
Looks really slick as well. I'm loving the different color options. Too bad you can only pick one stock ;P
Sorry for the long post but I felt it was related and contains personal experience in a criminal case tried by a jury that I took part in:
----------
This always comes to mind when I think of anything to do with "DNA Evidence" or "using Lab analysis or DNA sequencing" in terms of crime scene evidence as the "most important" or "most damning" portion / part of evidence brought against a defendant:
Annie Dookhan, chemist at Mass. crime lab, arrested for allegedly mishandling over 60,000 samples
Like red light cameras, radar guns, drug dogs and anything else law enforcement and/or the government like to use to bolster their cases or work toward a more iron-clad / strong body of evidence to win their case it seems that DNA Evidence is something that was never really believable or strong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I spent over a months time on a jury for a double attempted murder and while 95% of the testimony, expert analysis, and other direct / cross-examination was compelling enough to keep me focused and tuned in the lengthy, scientific, and overall information-packed expert testimony from the DNA Lab Scientist who performed the DNA Analysis did little to keep me awake.
Throwing endless numbers, percent chance that a sample is from a specific person, the likelihood that a sample could be from anyone beside a specific person, or the methods and means by which a scientist comes about determining the likelihood of a given sample belonging to a specific person seems like something [on paper] that should NEVER have been given enough credit to stand as evidence that could be believed beyond a shadow of a doubt. I felt certain, in those moments, that even the smartest folks on the jury and in the courtroom those days experienced little more than information overload, a lack of context, and certainly a sense of "I have to believe this because I'm not informed enough to question it and the world seems fairly certain that DNA Evidence is not only acceptable but highly accurate and therefore nearly useless to question".
It all felt and still feels like a grand performance akin to a magician using misdirection or sleight-of-hand to keep their audience paying attention to the exact wrong things.
----------
Lastly, I think it's also important to note that the defendant confessed immediately upon being picked up by the police without any lawyer present and it was all recorded on video and audio. The defendant was 99.999% guilty from all directions including analogical, anecdotal, character, circumstantial, demonstrative, digital, direct, exculpatory, forensic (beyond DNA), hearsay, physical, prima facie, and most damning: physical evidence.
I imagine in another case without such strong evidence beyond forensic evidence being the cornerstone of the State's evidence that the State would have liked to keep the case away from a Jury thus seeking a plea deal. I can only assume that would be the case, but from my POV in the ordeal the only reason the State spent so much specific time on forensic evidence was due to formality, due to due diligence, and because of the mountain of other credible evidence it served to bolster all of it.
Without any other hard evidence I can't imagine many juries taking only Forensic DNA Evidence as beyond a shadow of a doubt. No matter how certain or how close to 100% a scientist or lab analyst says a DNA Sample matches a certain persons the entire point of "without a shadow of a doubt" is to prevent innocent folks from winding up behind bars for things they didn't do when the people trying to get a conviction don't have the evidence, tactics, strategy or any other means to demonstrate the Defendant's guilt.
I'd love to see a really talented and fast working artist modify their deck mid-tournament to always be best prepared for their coming opponent and the deck they are known to use. I'm sure that wouldn't go over too well.
I think I'm about to say something that might be met with displeasure but I feel like it's a question I'd like to toss around anyways:
Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? I feel like 95% of what was said is implied at other places and when that's the reality but it's never spoken of it would probably create an even higher level of anxiety? Maybe the more extended life of bigger and more dug in companies offer some sort of incentives or worker's rights that alleviate some of those anxieties?
I guess I feel like what's being said isn't surprising nor is it that remarkable, to me. What would be surprising or remarkable is if the message was: You don't have to work so hard, we're hiring 7% more people because we feel like it's a nice thing to do and regardless of our performance the failures of this company or the products we make will never be your (the workers) fault.
I'm sure everything I just said is stupid but, even if the message from Tesla rubs people the wrong way I somehow feel like the harsh truth might just be an OK pill to swallow compared to the, "Aren't you going at least buy me dinner before you... " type message / ethos that I see and have felt in corporate environments for decades?
The harsh truth is that the company is offering a particular compensation package for a particular expectation of work. If an employee doesn’t like the trade, he can and should leave. That’s not what the letter says. It pretends that we are all in this together to save the world.
> Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce?
No—there's nothing wrong with it. The results might be bad, though.
2019 will be hard for Tesla and its workforce. When things are hard, people start asking the question "Is it worth it?"
This could very well have been the very best way to handle the business necessity of reducing the workforce by 7%; it just might have some bad consequences that were unavoidable when the available business options are: be unprofitable or layoff workers.
My comment was aimed at the realities (2019 will be hard for Tesla and employees)—not a moral comment on the action of laying off people.
I've agreed with everything you said not only in this comment I'm replying to but also your original top level one -- it's just that it spurred the thought in my mind to ask the questions I did and say what I said. Hope it didn't come off otherwise.
