In Freeciv, all human players move concurrently, during the same turn. It was always this way; trying to make this work was the reason for creating it.
AI players were added later. Human and AI players do take turns: AI players never do anything during a turn, they only act at the start and end of a turn. They are a lot easier to implement that way. But the difference has been confusing novice players ever since AI players existed.
You could have looked this up in the manual. My guess is that instead you played a few games on your own, against AI players, then got your big cold shower in the first game where a fellow human player approached you in battle. I'm not sure what you were expecting; you must have been aware that human players were moving concurrently, so why did you expect things to somehow be different in battle? But I think I was just as confused as you about the game mechanics after my first Freeciv games against other humans. It was a pretty rough experience. (And it still is. I never got good at it.)
So your experience isn't exactly unique. And you're not exactly unique in wanting human players to take turns, either. What is unique is your conclusion that Freeciv changed between the games you played against AI and the games you played against humans and dropped being turn-based. It did no such thing. As a matter of fact, it did exactly the opposite: in 2.2, and option was finally added that requires human players to take turns. You could have found that in the manual, too: phasemode.
The problem is that Wikipedia editors require "published" references, which typically means "published on paper" - which is a crazy criterion for software.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance.
Paradoxically, the ignorance in this case is a result of the opposite: too much knowledge!
Programmers tend to think in code. Many have never had the need to think about the problem they're creating code to solve in any other way than in terms of code. To inexperienced programmers, code may be the *only* way they have encountered to think about software. Consequently, they may have a lot of trouble envisaging other ways to talk about what the software does, how it does it, or why it does it; let alone imagining how such other ways could be useful.
That is tunnel vision, but not necessarily anal retentiveness - it may simply be a result of lack of exposure to situations in which the level of detail that code provides is more of a hindrance than an advantage, such as teaching other people how to use the software.
Interesting, but you are discussing a different issue. The article is about worse kinds of threats than "go fuck yourself" and it is not about workplace behavior.
Don't you own a cell phone?
I think there is an important distinction here.
Circuits and GUIs are graphical by themselves. To specify them graphically is to specify them in their own terms. Such graphical representations are natural and compact. They are not really abstractions. (For circuits, their behavior can be added to the graphics using a minimal set of graphical conventions. For GUIs, this is not possible; hence, the behavior of GUIS isn't usually specified in a graphical way.)
Most things in programming are not graphical. C functions aren't. Algorithms aren't. Data structures aren't. Databases aren't. Contracts on what a function may or may not do aren't. Communication protocols aren't. Etc.
Graphical languages can be used as an aid in explaining or specifying these things, but the results will be symbolic representations, just like textual representations are. This is a fundamentally different way of using graphics.
Such symbolic graphical languages certainly have their use (UML diagrams, database model diagrams, state machines, etc.) but they take up a lot more space than equivalent textual representations. Take natural numbers, for instance. It's perfectly OK to replace them with a graphical representation (dots and circles on a screen) when introducing them, but only a textual representation such as the decimal representation will scale to larger sizes. This holds for pretty much all aspects of programming. For instance, when specifying program flow logic, a flowchart is a very space-inefficient way to do so when compared to textual code. It also takes much more time to create. There is no way to specify the equivalent of 10 million lines of code in less than 1 million pages of flowcharts, and they would cover only the control flow, not all other things that the code specifies. Therefore, graphics will only be used for those aspects of a program that are easy to visualize, and usually, only as a secondary representation, next to a textual one. Text is a lot more compact and usable.
There is no such thing as 'on your own time' when you're doing work for a company: they are responsible for the results and the working conditions (proper payment, working environment, insurance, supervision, etc.) Not living up to those responsibilities is illegal. The company can ask you whether you're willing to put in more hours at the same salary, and if you agree, that arrangement may be legal. They cannot ask you to do work 'on your own time'.
But it's limited, because I uninstalled their app from my phone the moment they wanted a list of the running apps on my device. I still interact with FB, but using a separate browser app that only talks to FB. With location turned off.
I tried to to that, but the smartphone says the Facebook app is a standard app and cannot be uninstalled.
Read Don't Program on Fridays.
I don't know if there has been a similar study saying Don't Program After 8 Hours, it's a little harder to measure.
(Something wrong with the c on this keyboard apparently. Sorry.)
I too believe it's partly due to the asinine name. The department I work for used to call it Computing Sience (which makes a lot more sense) but changed it to Computer Sience a while back. All this while we do have a different department that is in fact involved in the science of computer hardware: Electrical Engineering. Next thing you know they rename geometry to Earth Science.
Thanks for explaining what the OP should have done.
Smalltalk's creators didn't agree with you - I wonder if they do today.
Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.