Curiosity. It began while trying to play around with programming, and finding a lot of talk and resources about Linux, and then trying it. 3 broken Debian installations just for messing around, then Ubuntu as a more permanent install, all of this alongside Windows.

Then I began using less and less Windows until I just deleted the Windows partition because I needed more space.

Dead Cells is a game I always have installed just to pick it up in bursts of 30 minutes or an hour.

It’s a roguelike, it’s challenging and it’s easy to pick up any time.

Even though it has levels, the intended way to play it is in runs. You start the game, start a new run, and try to go as far as you can, you die and repeat.

Multiple paths to choose, so it never becomes boring, and the levels are generated, so you can’t memorize everything.

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.

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.