If it's anything like the UK then it's likely the games are played in a public space like a park, so it might not be possible to eject the parent.

I remember a parent being "ejected" when I was younger. Technically, they didn't "have to leave", but social pressure is enough for them to recognize they should leave the situation.

* All of the parents already know who the abusive parent is

* The first warning was the coach talking to the "entire group" (at a natural stopping point). The group dialed it back (there will always be some controversial calls), but that one parent didn't get the message.

* Finally, the game stopped suddenly (ball was in play, but in a neutral position) and they we're directly addressed by the ref.

This caught the abusers attention. This was an abnormal event. They were being addressed directly. Whether they realized they were the problem, they certainly recognized the social pressure. They recognized how embarrassing it was (sadly, they probably didn't realize how embarrassing it was for their kid) and decided to take the ref's suggestion to cool down.

You don't need any real legal basis. We're talking about kids sporting events. Social pressure is often enough.

You don't want to be the reason your kids team lost. You don't want your kid getting kicked of their team for your behavior.

I doubt many refs want this responsibility, even if it were feasible. And I don't think it is feasible in most cases. For instance, how is the ref going to pick out the problem fans while also managing the game itself? And how is the ref supposed to enforce the removal?

Keep in mind these refs are often volunteers, working solo, have no official connection to the teams or field owners.

And there is a ref shortage virtually everywhere, at all levels and sports. Making it more difficult just isn't realistic.

There is nobody to do that. And nobody to make sure they don’t just come straight back.

I agree. The word "pond" is what immediately got my attention.

commenting without reading the article, your being naughty again :o)

I did read it. A compiler converts your code into assembly. They usually have varying levels of optimisation depending on what you're doing.

The article boils down to "could AI be a good compiler" and I'd say that consistency and repeatability are far more important than a one-off optimisation of a particular section of code. If you've got to the point where a section of code is worth writing some hand-crafted assembly then it's probably worth your time to really understand what's happening with it. Having it "vibe compiled" for you would be a bad idea.

My boys (then 10 and 8) loved MakeCode Arcade. I promised that if they wrote an original game - rather than following the great tutorials - then I'd make them a physical setup with a Pi Zero and some classic arcade buttons. They were very motivated and learned a lot.

As a primarily C# developer who has done some game engine work, I recently gave Godot a go for licensing reasons. Apart from some quirkiness I'm fairly impressed. Much nicer C# support compared to Unity. I've done a fair bit of Unreal C++ but to be honest unless you really need the performance that's just too much hard work.

Having said that getting the code working properly with a nice 3D UI is my priority, not having a slick game with some code doing some mundane stuff in the background.

I can't comment on Godot or Unity which both use primarily C#.

Unreal engine which uses C++ primarily, has the problem that it's a humongous mostly legacy code macro heavy system .

If anything being proficient in C++ before you start is harmful because of the puckering of orifices when you hear about it's mostly quirky powerful macros all the way down.

Never worked with it myself but I've always heard the people who do describe it as Unreal c++ because to them it's completely different than regular c++ and this must be one of the reasons why

That's pretty much correct. I kind of have to switch to "unreal c++" context whenever I'm working in it. They have their own standard library etc

Don't forget if you make the editor access a nullptr it'll probably crash and take out any unsaved changes to blueprints!

I agree. I came to Unreal with only a basic level of C++. Having Unreal handle memory management for you was useful, but I can imagine the chaos an Unreal-only C++ developer might cause when unleashed on another C++ codebase.

Godot uses C++, and even though there is a C# version, most folks either use GDScript, or GDextension with C++, Rust.

I don't want to design anything in any UI.

I want to use a game engine as a library.

I'm curious, as a primarily C# developer, how do you feel about Godot, in this respect?

It's 100% completely usable for that purpose. To the point where I'm internally using Godot as a backend for my engine, using it for rendering/system events.

It's also really good for a hybrid setup where you use their editor to design scenes, and then you can load/instantiate the scenes at runtime how/when you want. Or, just programmatically creates scenes yourself from code. You can really do whatever you want.

You can do everything from C#, rider launches the player only for debugging if you want. The only thing you probably do want to use the UI for is for... building UIs.

> I don't want to design anything in any UI.

I had the same need and found Raylib_cs suit very well for that

Probably MonoGame is the best option for your case then

I found some of these Visionect displays cheap on eBay and was planning to do the same. I found the backend Docker conatiner was unstable and kept crashing so I parked the project. Maybe I'll have to look at it again.

I once fixed a bug with a similar timeframe. Many attempts by many people over the years. One day I finally fixed it and thought I'd let the user who'd raised it know that it was finally resolved. Unfortunately he'd died of natural causes in the meantime. That really hit home how long it'd taken.

Wow. That really hits hard.

Anything that has a "why" _should_ have a comment. I know people like to structure code so that it doesn't need comments. However, nice clean well structured code can describe the _what_ without comments but never the _why_.

I'm not sure the test rides are for the version of the bike with this battery. The bike already exists with a more conventional battery pack.

I've had a brief test ride on a pre-production version of the Verge TS. All seemed OK but I thought the handling seemed weird - maybe due to the rear tyre size and geometry.