> because I remembered Godot as "a bunch of C++ libraries for gamedev".
Yeah it's never been that, it's always been an editor-driven engine. Started life as a proprietary game engine by a consultancy, then open sourced about a decade ago.
Super cool though, learning Godot at 13 is a great opportunity.
I would bet SDL; it's a C library that a ton of other libraries are influenced by or based on. It's not usually thought of as an engine on its own nowadays
Nah, like you said, SDL is just window creation and a bit of audio etc. If that counts as a "game engine" then so does every web browser.
EDIT: Sorry if I seem grumpy, I'm not actually grumpy at you, I'm grumpy at PyGame for calling itself a game engine when really it's just SDL + the ability to blend images.
> SDL is just window creation and a bit of audio etc.
It's a bit more than that, especially the current version. You're right that it isn't an engine in and of itself but you could probably build a decent engine on top of it. SDL3 + WASM + Lua would be chef's kiss.
Might’ve been MonoGame? It sounds enough like Godot that you might’ve confused the two, it’s a code-first framework, and it’s popular enough that you might’ve heard of it (Stardew Valley, Bastion, and Celeste are all built on MonoGame)
I switched to Linux circa 2010 when I needed a word processor but didn't want to go to the store to buy Office (was pretty young and poor at the time). After some Googling I found LibreOffice and Ubuntu. I had used Suse Linux years earlier when I was a kid but it definitely wasn't ready for use (2003) so I was also curious about Ubuntu and the current state at the time. I installed Ubuntu, used LibreOffice for the thing I needed, and never looked back. Linux was a breath of fresh air and it did all the things I needed. I went to university using only Linux (2012-2016), opened businesses, did all sorts of things, all 100% on Linux. Nice to see everyone else finally catching up.
Also has always been interesting seeing people whine about Linux the whole time I've been using it problem-free, across 4 PCs and 16 years.
> Jordan Lasker, who often writes about race and intelligence under the name Crémieux
It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest.
Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.
> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence.
Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that material himself. No, he didn't invent his theory, he simply followed accepted science.
> Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.
There isn't much that resembles science in social academia, data isn't science and the prediction of the so-called "social" sciences have been disastrously wrong all along.
Data isn't evidence ether - you have to have a theory within a science with a sound methodological foundation before you can treat data as evidence. We don't have that now and we've never had it, the few meager attempts were politicized and bastardized in their infancy.
> It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest.
Center-left? Like all Democrats in Congress who joined the fifty-odd Republicans to vote for letting the government remotely mess with your car while you drive?
At the time of a real shooting war in the streets in Minneapolis they seized the opportunity to put some more shackles around public's ankles.
There isn't left, right or center in US party politics - only Orwellian-left theater vs Orwellian-right theater in service of forces who view the public as sheep to be sheared.
Yes, I know you mean eugenics. But that fundamentally isn't science. It's government policy. You are blaming this on science, so please point me to the science that you blame this on.
Eugenics is the name of a scientific theory, part of "scientific racism", first formulated by Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Darwin. See 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", and 1869 book "Hereditary Genius".
Make sure you research on the science and history of eugenics instead of seeking support for your prejudice about it. Of course, it's a shameful example of accepted but disastrous "science", which social scientists, media and politicians don't like to talk about. They always have many theories, to provide room for plausible deniability, but eugenics was accepted no less than any other social theory at the time.
That theory was significantly expanded later and used by politicians in the US to justify forced sterilization of Irish and black women (not sure about others - DO research"),
It was also used and adapted by Hitler to justify his racial believes and policies.
No one considers eugenics science. Just because some guy in the 1800s said it was science doesn't make it so. Next you'll say Scientology is science... Or astrology, or whatever. We have a pretty defined view of what science is today and any random person calling something science doesn't discredit actual science.
No one considers eugenics science NOW, but it was considered science back then and we're commenting on modern scientific studies that would be adopted wholesale by the eugenics scientists of the time.
It doesn't matter what you call it, if it walks like eugenics, if talks like eugenics it is eugenics even if that word was thrown out as politically inconvenient. Go back to my first comment in this thread and understand it in this light.
> Just because some guy in the 1800s said it was science doesn't make it so.
It continued well into 1900's up until WW2 and it was a social theory as scientific as any other at the time, otherwise it would not be used for justification of government policies.
This is definitely not true. There are hereditarian scientists working to rehabilitate "eugenics"; this comes up a lot with the people working on embryo selection.
Eugenics is a simple concept that is morally neutral. Embryo selection or forced sterilizations are implementation details that are absolutely not morally neutral. But when most people say "eugenics" it seems like they are usually referring to the particular implementation with forced sterilizations.
That's not science. The actual study of genetic inheritance is science. Eugenics is just saying "hey, that means we can breed humans like any other animal." And forced sterilization is an implementation detail that isn't even inherent in the concept itself. Blaming this on science is like blaming a shooting on science because ballistics, chemistry, and metallurgy are sciences.
> core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS
It's obvious you've never used Android if you think these are core features LMAO. No one cares that much about connector type, more the fact it's using an industry standard versus proprietary. No one cares about RCS, everyone uses WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Messenger, Line, etc...
Core features are stuff like being able to search for a business through the phone app, Maps telling you where you parked your car, unprompted, compatibility with the casting protocol, the ability to make ANY app the default for a particular task, the ability to sideload, the fact you can switch phone brands and get whatever hardware you want but your core OS with all your accounts stays the same. Basically the ability to do what you want win your OS and no one restricting your phone's features.
As for Google's strategy, it's the same as Valve's. Having a platform they can't be locked out of since both MS and Apple have shown they'll abuse their market power.
Yeah it's never been that, it's always been an editor-driven engine. Started life as a proprietary game engine by a consultancy, then open sourced about a decade ago.
Super cool though, learning Godot at 13 is a great opportunity.
reply