The most impressive part of Control's RT (on PC at least) was that it very much applied to (most) dynamic objects - and it features a TON of dynamic destruction.

The "office building" setting meant resticted areas, sure, but it features TONS of reflections - especially transparent reflections (which are practically impossible to decently approximate with screen space techniques).

Oh, and: The Northlight Engine already did more than most other engines at the time to get "90% there" with a ton of hybrid techniques, not least being one of the pioneers regarding realtime software GI.

  $file = Get-ChildItem "C:\some path\having spaces.txt"

  Write-Output $file.DirectoryName
  Write-Output $file.Name
  Write-Output $file.BaseName

Or if that's still to verbose:

  $file = gci "C:\some path\having spaces.txt"

  echo $file.DirectoryName
  echo $file.Name
  echo $file.BaseName

People should really get over their aversion against powershell.

You could just one line it too:

  Get-Item "C:\some path\having spaces.txt" | select DirectoryName, Name, Basename

I certainly won't argue that pwsh is even close to perfect, but...obtuse is just about the most unfitting description of powershell. It offers a level of structure and consistency that is - even with all its shortcomings - orders of magnitude above the wild west of the daily reality of the linux cli.

Just because it's the mess we are all intimately familiar with, doesn't make it less of a mess.

"Just because it's the mess we are all intimately familiar with, doesn't make it less of a mess." I kinda feel like you could apply the statement more to powershell tho.

I just dont see how Remove-Item is superior to rm and thats just the first example that came to mind (Atleast there are aliases for most stuff afaik so i guess its not AS bad).

I also just googled and there seem to be 3-4 different commands (not including the aliases) that do EXACTLY the same thing, atleast the Microsoft article used 1:1 the same description for all of them.

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make with picking out a single command and vaguely asserting doubt.

It's about having a high degree of systematization and standardization and detailed guidelines around command structure and behaviour. The same with parameter naming and handling. About actually being able to work with typed data at input/output/pipes instead of only raw bytes, with all the benefits that entails (and a "standard library" of cmdlets/modules liberally making use of that). And so on. Having the whole .NET runtime available as a first-class citizen if needed is a nice bonus as well.

Don't mistake lack of familiarity for obtuseness.

rm only removes files and directories right? Remove-Item can be used for any powershell provider, such as environment variables, active directory, certificates, and registry. And of course you can implement your own providers that utilize *-item cmdlets. I don't know that i'd call either superior, or that i'd even say that they're equivalent. rm is a utility for removing files, remove-item is a little more than that.

> I pushed through to the bitter end of Ghosts n' Goblins. And damned if I wasn't rewarded with the message, "This was all an illusion created by Satan."

Weeell...here's the thing. Erm. You didn't push through to the end. You just got the "bad" ending.

The game does very much have a proper ending, and reaching it is surprisingly straightforward.

You just have to beat it twice.

Sure, I get that. I was just aiming for comic effect in pointing out that the player's initial reward for having made it through all the levels of a very difficult game is "lol, do it again".

I did work my way through it a second time to see the "proper ending", and what's interesting is that I remember nothing about it. There's a moral in there, somewhere.

In Austria you don't need an Austrian passport/Personalausweis for a Digital ID registration. Your original passport (or equivalent) in combination with a certificate of residence, student permit or similar is fine.

Apologies that I'm latching onto your post for visibility, but for the sake of discussion - the European Identity Digital Wallet project specification and standardisation process is in the open and lives on github (yeah, the irony isn't lost on me :) ):

https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet

https://eudi.dev/latest/

Everything's very much WIP, but it aims to provide a detailed Archictecture and Reference Framework/Technical Specifications and a reference implementation as a guideline for national implementations:

https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-archi...

https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-wallet-re...

https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-stand...

You'll find several (still evolving) Technical Specifications regarding ZKPs (including a discussion area) in the latter.

And the usual corollary: Not just thanks to his training data, but because training data of that kind and for this kind of topic - still - exists.

>verifiable "never looked at the original source"

...erm.

To adress the elephant in the room: Who exactly is supposed to be verifiable to never have looked at the original source? You or the LLM?

Both. Good question.

Although it would be much harder to prove, of course, that I never saw the original code/implementation.

The new Windows 11 22H2 task manager?

Works just fine here (1920x1200 125%, 4K 150%, 1080p 100%).

Nah, that's not a "sacrifice", but the only sane way. In the ideal case, clearly document the constructor with a warning that it's not ISO conformant and offer a ISO conformant alternative.

In my (unfortunate) experience, DateTime/Timezone handling is one of the things most prone to introduce sneaky, but far-reaching bugs as it is. Introducing such a behaviour change that (usually) won't fail-fast, will often seemingly continue working as before until it doesn't and is deceptively tricky to debug/pinpoint/fix ist just asking for a fast lane into chaos.

And even with JS going the extra mile on backwards compatibility, I don't think most other languages would introduce that kind of breaking change in that way either.