What I like about it is that I don’t need to delve into second hand shopping to get some old classic games.

I’ve always wanted to get into getting retro games, and I would get different consoles, but as a matter of money and space I’ve found it difficult unless I get into only one system, and I find the evercade as a compromise for getting a variety of collections from different systems.

Of course, emulating ROMs would give almost the same experience, but the physical releases with their little manual got me.

It’s me, or there’s an Evercade VS on top of the table? Curious if it’s on all versions of the game, or just in this physical edition for Evercade.

It seems they consider themselves complimentary with OpenStreetMap, as stated on their FAQ https://overturemaps.org/resources/faq/#

Overture is a data-centric map project, not a community of individual map editors. Therefore, Overture is intended to be complementary to OSM. We combine OSM with other sources to produce new open map data sets. Overture data will be available for use by the OpenStreetMap community under compatible open data licenses. Overture members are encouraged to contribute to OSM directly.

I don’t know a lot about any of both projects, but it seems fair.

I use it, and combining it with autocorrect and suggestions I find it really easy and fast to use.

More like unknowns about implementation details. Defining in brainstorming sessions how we want a solution makes sense, but I don’t imagine talking about details.

I was referring more about discussing the details inside of an already defined solution, like, for example, trying to use a library, which one we use, or how would be implemented in detail something.

I’ve always felt that pair programming is more useful on early stages of a task, where there is enough doubt about implementation details and discussing them is worth.

This way it felt more of a meeting between two persons discussing details first, while testing them live to check if we were on track second, instead of programming first and discussing second.

By the time we stand on the screen without talking too much we just stepped aside and separate the task if needed.

Any other kind of forced pair programming feels wrong, either because the task was already planned enough to no create enough discussion, or because it was small enough and the discussion was not worth. I’ve found myself on situations where “we needed” to make a task in pair programming and was dull as you say.