Digging for treasure in Aladdin’s source code by Rich Whitehouse October 7, 2017 When it was released back in 1993, Disney’s Aladdin for the Sega Genesis (or Mega Drive, depending on which side of the pond you lived on through the early 90’s) was really a visually striking game.
Ayo Game is a board game play all over Africa and some parts of Asia, America and the carribean. Its is a strategy board game and and the rules are not uniform in all the countries where its played.
The first version of this game developed by bonako is based on two forms of game play- Pia and Seca – that is popular in Cape Verde Islands. This is an ancient game wich its origin is unknown.
However, some believe that the game was invented in Egypt during the time of the pharaohs and was later taken to various parts of Asia and other parts of Africa. During the slavery, it was taken to Americas and Carribean.
Is a reddit for discussion and news about Guidelines. Please keep submissions on topic and of high quality. Just because it has a computer in it doesn't make it programming. If there is no code in your link, it probably doesn't belong here.
Direct links to app demos (unrelated to programming) will be removed. No surveys.
![Source code ayo game rules Source code ayo game rules](/uploads/1/2/5/6/125639149/273171720.jpg)
Please follow proper. Info. Do you have a question?. Do you have something funny to share with fellow programmers?
Please take it to. For posting job listings, please visit. Check out our. It could use some updating.
Are you interested in promoting your own content? Related reddits. There seems to be absolutely no actual story of what this guy really did, seems fairly harmless from what I see. That aside I feel like this fork is going to end up failing, there was a link to an issue and it seems as if the project has no actual direction other than just making sure that code of conduct is upheld to the highest degree.
![Code Code](/uploads/1/2/5/6/125639149/624032962.jpg)
It could be my own personal bias talking, but it all seems overly unnecessary and just done for the fact they don't agree with this guys opinions and it's seemingly brought about some kind of personal hatred for the guy. But overall I'd need to actually see more of what happened to get a bigger picture, cause right now there's so little to go off of. A bunch of emotionally immature, stridently intolerant SJWs took issue with someone not toeing their line on extremely important things like the appropriate use of pronouns. Being emotionally immature and absolutely intolerant, instead of engaging in rational conversation like adults, they flounced off with their own fork of Node.js, where they can concentrate on the really important stuff like the code of conduct and gender-neutral language, without getting distracted by all that silly technical stuff, like coding. Is as close as I think we'll get to the complete story at the moment.
Mainly. rvagg (Rod Vagg) apologised to someone who was frequently moderated, without discussing it with the rest of the Technical Steering Committee or Core Technical Committee. rvagg posted some details from internal/private discussions which he was told to remove but refused to do so. rvagg tweeted an article critical of codes of conduct.
As a result the 13 members of the TSC voted to determine if rvagg should be kicked off the TSC. Rvagg was a member so he did not vote, 2 abstained and the vote went 6-4 in favour of keeping rvagg.
The 4 as far as I know have resigned from nodejs and are now responsible for ayo. This is as much context as I could find but from Twitter he is accused of undermining the ability for women and minorities to contribute to open source projects. I imagine there's a longer history of transgressions or misconduct that prompted this extreme response. Maybe one day we'll find out what happened behind closed doors.
So basically. Member of project does something people in project do not like (aside from fact it was not really on github but on private twitter account), gets called out (which is good, if it really is what they claim it should be discussed).
Have a vote to decide things inside the project (good idea in general, as long as everyone involved in it knows the topic well). Fork the project the moment you're outvoted - what the. Why even bother with voting then I imagine there's a longer history of transgressions or misconduct that prompted this extreme response. Maybe one day we'll find out what happened behind closed doors. On one side projects airing their dirty laundry in public just look bad. On other, going 'you should use fork X because maintainers of original project are assholes, but we wont tell you why and will not provide any proof' is even worse and instanely toxic to the community. As is private moderation in 'open' project.
Honestly from outsider perspective it looks like they do not want to air the reasons because someone might say '. But that's bullshit and code he rejected was a piece of garbage'. I mean if you want to only read the third point. The first two are pretty legitimate reasons for disciplinary action if it violated their Code of Conduct. I don't know the timeline but if he violated the CoC, got called out for it, then passive aggressively tweeted out something against CoC in general then I see that as good reason for his removal. As is private moderation in 'open' project.
Honestly from outsider perspective it looks like they do not want to air the reasons because someone might say '. But that's bullshit and code he rejected was a piece of garbage' Where did you get the idea this was about him rejecting code? They can in effect hold votes (and their contributions) hostage I don't see how they can do that by leaving. Yes, by washing dirty laundry in public and trying to shame the other core members, they are playing dirty. And I don't agree with that. I completely agree with their ability to leave and fork node.
This is separate from the other political shit being pulled. Node core committee meeting comes up with on Monday I too hope they let the other members walk.
And let the vote decision stay for now. They can revisit the CoC to see if it requires any modification in a month or so (to let matters settle a bit).
But the voted decision should stay. I don't see how they can do that by leaving. It's could play out this way: the Node Committee calls for a new vote, with the old members as well, and they make it known that they'll collapse the fork and rejoin the community if the vote goes their way this time. The vote goes their way this time, and next time they want something, they threaten to fork again; not wanting the public disaster, the rest of the committee acquiesces. It's not the actual forking that holds their votes hostage, it's the threat - assuming Node doesn't want to deal with a public political fork.