Lisias

You tried the heap-trick?

Try MEMGRAPH. it has a trick that forces the heap to grow, making the GC a bit less cranky. Your mileage may vary, but it usually works for me.

I couldn't do better!

FTFY² https://newbloommag.net/2019/02/15/china-airline-pilot-strike-end/ People are not that powerless as you are implying. But you got it right in a sense: you, alone, are powerless. And that's the reason that hypothetical employer from my hypothetical parable will swiftly handle the situation as fast as he/she can.

It's not (only) about this specific case, but about the practice per se. Try to imagine every single service provider of yours trying something like this. Now try to think how life will be if you have to send one or two letters/day to every single service provider you ever contracted. Let's play Devil's Advocate. What you think your employer should do if you send him an email telling him "From the next payment and forward, I'll be working 4 days a week. You should sent a hand written letter to my grandma in Alaska before the next payment if you want to opt out". Assuming your manager is completely idiotic and you walk away with this stunt, next month he will be flooded with similar stunts from the whole company. See? This is exactly the same thing.

Yep. But the drilled compartment is ejected before reentry, and it's destroyed. Had that hole be done on the reentry capsule, that guys would be still there - there's no way they would allow the capsule to come back with people inside.

In a nutshell: "we are going to drill a hole on ISS to see what happens". Most Kerbal impossible.

Crashes change everything. (Cindi Lauper feelings!)

Wha's "heavy" on KSP is not the graphics, but the physics engine. Each single part you strap on your craft is a "entity", with tis own rules and physics properties. And the KSP core needs to calculate the physics and movements for every part, and then cascade the effects on the attached parts. In a example: the engine has a mass, an ISP and a thrust. Once KSP determines if the engine have the fuel to work, the thrust is applied to the engine (subtracted its mass 'weight'). The engine, so, "pushes" whatever it is attached, than so needs to have the current weight subtracted from the force. Whatever remains of that force is applied to the part in which it is attached. Fuel tanks needs to have the weight recalculated once its fuel is used by the engine, and then the process starts again in a loop. This is what happens on the "fixedUpdate" Unity callback, by the way, (and I didn't even touched atmospheric flight - see my example as what happens when you are in deep space, so far away from the nearest Reference Frame that its effect on you is negligible) I don't know about Simple Planes, but I'm pretty familiar to Orbiter. In Orbiter, each whole craft is handled as KSP handles a single part. So, a vessel on KSP with 130 parts is way more CPU intensive than an Orbiter running 130 concurrent vessels (in Orbiter, you only collide to the ground - there're no collisions between vessels!!). Wind is simple to implement - it's a Force Vector that you applies to the resulting craft's movement vector. KSP doesn't have it by design. It's not a "expensive" feature, Squad just choose it doesn't fits on their vision on the Game. Since I got some Private Pilot lessons as young (also have a license as small boat's master - believe me, I know about navigation) , I can understand why they did it. I don't know about Simple Planes, but if they choose a hybrid approach between Orbiter and KSP (i.e., they cooked up a kind of "compiler" that weld all that parts into a single one), they saved some serious CPU juice on that. And then could use the sparing CPU to make clouds - assuming they are "clouding" the same way Scatterer is - there're some ways to paint clouds on the screen - but most of them are terribly ugly on flight simulators . I'm a Flight Simulator addict since the 80's (yeah, I played Flight Simulator 1 e 2.0 - used the latest on some Pilot lessons, by the way), and I can tell you for sure: "cheap" clouds would make KSP looks bad.

This is the list of your posts on this thread: And this is the only one where you provide a link, but without any kind of citation: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/182829-forced-arbitration-agreement-what-is-it-why-opt-out-letter-template/&page=4&tab=comments#comment-3567727 So, let me cite somethng from your link to you: SO, and again, you need to cite your country's law on the subject - and since TTI's is a foreign company (unless they have a Office on your country), you are subject by New York Convention your country is signatory. It's pointless to pinpoint EU "generic" guidelines, you need to refer to your country laws, specifically, the laws on the New York Convention. What I did for mine here, by the way. Since I don't even know in which country you are, I cannot assist you finding the interesting and relevant bits of your own legislation, as I did for you on the EU link you provided (apparently, without reading it properly). Nice history. But things change in 15 years, so I advise you to redo your research on the subject. US Companies are "learning", it's not wise to plain call them "idiots" because you manage to find a flaw on their EULA 15 years ago. And, by the way, "Bladobe" apparently had offices on the EU, perhaps on your country. This changes everything. What have no effect on USA courts if they insist on suing you there, unless you do it by the New York Convention aware local laws. I.e., they still have how to sue you "in absence" there (don't know the proper term on English). They are bound to the terms your country signed on the New York Convention, and just by these terms - EU rules doesn't apply to them: you can still be prosecuted on U.S.A. if whatever they have against you worths the cost (and public backslash, if any - don't expect it from me). But, and again, your story appears to describe a case against a local company, or a company with local offices. This made them subject to your local laws directly, you don't need the New York Convention to sue them - what can be inferred from your history. No. THIS is how law works on international affairs. You are mislead and misleading. [snip]

Rent a DVD!

Yes, the latest it's compatible with 1.6.1 with some reserves (some parts are not supported yet due some new features). Publish your KSP.log on some snippet service, so I can give a look on it. It's always possible that you ended up finding a new Unholy Interaction between Add'ons.

It's not so bad as it appears - unless that room in question is a Toilet. Way worst if it's an airplane toilet.

Ow… Now I see. Sorry. @Gargamel''s way is the easiest, if you wants to settle down to 1.6.1 . You can also use the Beta Program, where Squad twists the system by publishing older versions - on your Game Inventory, right-click Kerbal Space Program, select Properties and then look for the "Betas" on the Tab. Ignore that "private betas" thingy, you want the top Drop-Down items. Alternatively, if you are on the mood to deep dive into Steam's guts, you can use the download_depot command from the Console. More info here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/220200/discussions/0/1729827777347272311/?l=russian

BitBucket has private repositories, so this is not a problem for me. I also rsync things from my computer to my site's "cloud repository" when I intend to do something similar. I didn't knew about BackBlaze - way cheaper that cold storage (SC1) on AWS with the same size. Nice idea, thanks.

By downloading a old KSP to use them! You see, you didn't agreed to the new EULA when you downloaded that version, you had agreed to that older EULA. You don't download the new version (or, better, you recover your old backups), you are not bound to the new EULA. Even Microsoft had to push you new updates, with new EULA terms, in order to force their hand on you. It's legally impossible to change the contracted terms without mutual agreement once such contract is stablished.

Pushing the kraken damned local repository into bitbucket would also accomplish the same - what's essentially a technical way to apply what you said on this situation.

Yes, you can. Using them on the last KSP those EULA's you agree. But this is not he subject of this Thread, if I understood correctly, The EULA itself is. And this is probably the reason they are forcing the hand by demanding you to write a letter to them to opt-out this stunt. Send your thanks to Microsoft, by the way. They paved the way for this stunt. You need to think out of the box if you intent to outsmart them. Your misunderstanding of things is… [self-censored]… on this case. It would help a bit trying to find citations about what you intent to defend, as this normally [usually] would reveal when you are wrong. As in this case. Consumer arbitration is not illegal on EU. But the consumer needs to formally agree on the subject, this cannot be stated unilaterally, Trying to unilaterally bind the consumer to this is not enforceable, as there's a law telling the Consumer has to explicitly agree with the movement, Since there're no law saying "You are forbidden to try to get unilateral consent from the User", you can't say it's illegal to do so. And, again, you don't want this to be illegal: source: https://www.upcounsel.com/illegal-agreement-in-business-law So, and again, I advise against the use of the "illegal" adjective.

As far as I understand, nope. I was quoting a guy talking about being "illegal to try to enforce arbitration". It's not illegal - it' not enforceable. And you don't want them to be illegal on your country, as i would make the whole contract null and void (Civil Law tends to nullify the whole contract when the object of that contract is illegal!), and then you would not have the right to use the software, as the clausule that would allow you to do so was voided by voiding the contract. And if you are talking about the post where you state "Take 2 is literally doing something illegal curtailing your rights AND YOUR DEFENDING THEM! ", I have some bad news for you. They are not taking any rights from you - you are the one waiving them (or not). It's not illegal - perhaps it should, but it's not.

Nops. Some of us are writing code for Tesla's Auto Pilot, for Boeing's MCAS, for AirBus FATEC, for your bank's accounting systems, for your mobile's firmware, you name it. We should be a hell of more demanding on fields where such precision are really needed. In my humble opinion, a video-game doesn't needs such zealousness - neither we have to pay for ir. On video-games.

Backups. I hate backups. Mainly because they are useless when done by stupid people And when you are one of these stupids, backups become even more hateful - as you need to hate something, and just yelling on your image on the mirror is not cathartic enough. I just destroyed half my works made this year by deleting the right savegame from the wrong KSP Installment. I found a bug last week affecting my "production environment", and not my test beds. So… I copied it into the test bed, deleted things not related, mangled crafts due the stunts, you name it. Friday I insisted on playing for longer I should, as I was somewhat tired, and then decided it was time to get rid of the clutter on my testing beds but somehow ended up firing the wrong KSP and… Yeah, you already know what happened. What about backups? Well, this Dud SAS typing this post was using a clever idea of versioning things using GIT. Hell of an idea, but it has a flaw: you delete the savegame, you delete all the git info related to that savegame. So, yeah. I hate backups. And I hate even more the backups I didn't did,

Since you studied laws, here are the keywords: "software limitation of liability". I can't be fully liable for my software if it relies on other people's works that limit their liability. And it's impossible to ship a product without third-parties works embedded nowadays. This would lead to the Software Industry on its knees. I remember an issue on VisiCalc being used on engineering and borking due a flaw on Applesoft's float point routines. Something about a bridge collapsing or almost collapsing, I don't remember. Anyway, VisiCorp wasn't considered liable because the error was caused by a third party, Apple, that wasn't considered liable because they subcontracted the thing to Microsoft, that wasn't considered liable as they never intended to ship a product to be used on Engineering but to be used on homebrew (as we call nowadays) software. It's a chain of thrust: or the whole chain is liable, or none of them is. Otherwise no one would afford the costs of a single software product.

I landed on the moon in my first attempt, playing on Demo. The first time I landed there, with parts "existing enough" so I can do something with them, however, took me some more time. I will know how much when it happens

No. But it's way worse launching without the needed requirements met. Doing the right thing is not the same as doing things right. Sometimes, you just can't win the battle. All you can do is to choose the less painful/costly way to lose the battle, and live to fight another day. So, yeah. It's a "the right thing" to be delayed if the launch is doomed (see Challenge). Perhaps setting up the launch date was a mistake, but it depends on what really happened - a last minute update on the console firmware would demand a full recertification (see Anthem problems on PS4), and this is completely unforeseeable . Real life talks louder than any reasoning.

Non Disclosure Agreement. Essentially, "you want to work with us? Sign this agreement where you will agree on not talking anything we don't want you to talk about the work, otherwise we will sue your pants off"