You make the mistake of thinking that emacs is a text editor. Emacs is an extensible framework, a display system with lots of scripting code underneath. In the early days it was basically just a text editor plus shell interface, but that quickly grew and the program became more flexible.

This is just like web browsers, which are basically just display systems designed to handle an arbitrary set of layouts that are given to it. In the early days they basically just gave you a list of scientific articles from the net and then would kick off an ftp program to fetch them for you, but today they can show video and let you do banking and so forth.

Emacs can emulate vi which is emulating emacs.

It had a plot?

My Stallman periodically gives me patient lectures about how I could be a better human being if I followed his advice.

Agreed. SVN just works. It's a very standard model that many source code control systems use. I think 99% of source code control systems have one of two methods:
- check out files explicitly which locks them, then unlock when you check back in.
- don't check out files then when you check them in it tries an automatic merge if necessary (this part is prone to failure, even on git, never trust an automatic merge without verifying it).

The big variants between them all is in the details. Ie, SVN and Perforce have change sets (all files checked in succeed or none of them do). Or the amount of headaches to go through when creating branches. Or how much effort in administration there is.

Git is great for what it does and was designed for: a distributed system where all of the developers are in remote locations and never talk to each other in person and don't work for the same company (ie, typical open source). That does not mean it's automatically the best solution for ever possible project.

We just converted from CVS to SVN about three years ago, so it's too soon to move on :-)

Git may be ok, but I hear lots of horror stories from groups trying to get it to work well, which then invokes the fans to respond that they're doing it wrong, then it all goes down hill with twenty year olds scuffling with sixty year olds until the forty year olds break it up.

Everything in Developer Center sends me to the app store or requires an Apple ID.

App store feels less optional over time. You can't officially get xcode without it, even xcode command line tools (make, etc) required app store until an outcry and then they provided an unadvertised side channel to get it. Software update is tied to store though you don't need an ID. In Yosemite the software update menu item is gone altogether and presumably you have to at least open up app store to get to it (though if you don't use any Apple applications it would only be for os updates).

The problem here is not that they're letting low-risk criminals free (big deal, she stole something), but that we still are incarcerating tons of people for even lesser crimes. Possession of drugs, selling small quantities of drugs, being a member of a gang, etc. They get locked up. Unless white of course.

When prisoners are released the concern of officials is how it looks to the voters; let a minority kid go who had some crack and it looks like they're being soft on crime, but let an old lady go and it's fine because no one is scared of jewel thieves.

The prison system does not work current, and has probably never worked in the history of mankind. There is no attempt at rehabilitation whatsover, these are just holding patterns with an "out of sight, out of mind" policy. The prison guards have strong unions that advocate for more prisons and more prisoners.

It's all a labor of love with programming, or we'd leave and take a job where we get respect and a life.

They interviewed a "game designer" and "PR manager", which is not at all the same thing as the grunts who actually have to do the programming 14 hours a day and then get laid off when it's done.

The alternative in the rules for someone using magic was "warlock". They had yet to use a term that denoted either gender, or a term that did not imply evil-doer. There was no "magic user" or even "fighter".

Is this relationship story even important to anything? Yet everyone keeps bringing it up. It's character assassination, in other words a way to ignore what the person is saying if the person is not 100% pure.

Gaming journalism has always been wannabe unprofessional journalism, even when it was men reporting on men. There's nothing new here except as a way to discredit views you disagree with.

Next, someone will redefine things and note that in console and PC games that most women are in "casual" games like RPGs and not in serious hardcore shooter games that real men play... Making these distinctions is pointless, and feel more like someone is trying to protect their sacred bastions.

I'd say gamers are completely atypical and wholly different from other human beings. The article talking about the early wargamers in the 60s and 70s, and for sure that game crowd was composed of nerds through and through. This was not a mainstream activity that you proudly announced to the Rotary Club.

Sure in the last decade perhaps some games have become more mainstream (shooters mostly, whereas RPGs are still for the nerds), so of course the rise in the number of non-typical gamers is growing.