1,205 karma · joined February 18, 2015
Both Google and Apple control enormous number of devices, the data on them (or data collected by them), their software, and their users. They make money by selling you tiny bit of access to that, directly or indirectly. End of story. Should I remind you how much being special to privacy restrictions costs Facebook?
Focusing on personal favours in exchange for personal favours seems quite archaic. That's literally reinventing the wheel from many thousands of years ago, with, for example, offerings to the dead quite literally seen as payments of debt to them.
However, proper recreation of the original graphics would require shaders and much more modern extensive and programmable pipelines, while the relaxed artistic attitude (or just contemporary technical limitations) unfortunately resulted in trashy y2k amateur 3D shooter look. Leaving certain parts to software meant that CPU had to do most of the same things once again. Also, 3D engines were seen as a base for exciting new features (arbitrary 3D models, complex lighting, free camera, post-processing effects, etc.), so the focus shifted in that direction.
In general, CPU performance growth meant that most PCs could run most Doom levels without any help from the video card. (Obviously, map makers rarely wanted to work on something that was too heavy for their systems, so the complexity was also limited by practical reasons.) 3D rendering performance (in non-GZDoom ports) was boosted occasionally to enable some complex geometry or mapping tricks in popular releases, but there was little real pressure to use acceleration. On the other hand, the linear growth of single core performance has stopped long ago, while the urges of map makers haven't, so there might be some need for “real” complete GPU-based rendering.
Though I wonder how sprites, which are a different problem orthogonal to polygonal rendering, are handled. So, cough cough, Doxylamine Moon benchmarks?
“Quality” and chances of success are relative, you need to have reference points. As space missions had none, they all were test flights AND scheduled flights at the same time. If boosters for a new rocket to Venus, radios and solar panels were ready, you launched a rocket with a dummy to check how those systems behaved, and so on.
In other words, such dramas are fake, and smokescreen the unclean consciousness. Remember the story about digital spying clerks from US complaining about being lent to Saudi Arabia, not because it was against their principles or laws, but because they were not paid “well enough”?
It seems to me that the main goal of the project is automatic routing that promises that in any peer graph any peer can reach any other at least somehow, which is fine for many use cases. Only in case of moving big data or very different cost of links you might want to check the node hierarchy and set manual peering from X to Y and Y to Z to make traffic flow the way you want.
Public network is a volunteer-run test ground for real life usage, and a way to connect systems that can't connect directly because of NAT. Internal speed test that is 8 hops away on the other side of the world gives me 30 Mbps, closer one, in 5 hops, reaches 90 Mbps (and the local interface is 100 Mbps), so it has some throughput for casual users.
As far as I can understand, current latency-based routing selection is just the most simple way chosen to optimise the network across the whole world, and prevent random 200 ms hops back and forth to intermediate nodes. If traffic from nodes in one half of the tree not having direct connections to the other half goes through the central nodes, it seems that at the moment it's enough for owners of central nodes to peer with each other, and have enough bandwidth. In the future they might need to take the proportions of available channels into account.
I remember the time when normal internet users who visited imageboards simply couldn't figure out what was happening, and went back to normal sites (sometimes in disgust). There were no tourist guides written by journalists for the general public. Big forums had informational topics teaching users who “internet trolls” are (starting a short period when any argument which someone didn't understand, or pretended to, was automatically called “trolling”). Someone who used imageboard slang on a regular site was seen as an underage idiot (and certainly looked like one to outsiders), and could find that his accounts with “original” passwords no longer belonged to him (because internet was serious business). Oh, and if someone wrote a post praising some politician, no one needed an explanation that it was a satire that made fun of people believing in “supporting our candidate”.
Compared to that, and after 15+ years, 4chan public is pretty normal, even if it is not exactly the same as on some other site.
The elephant in the room is that USA appointed itself as a policeman for the whole network. Demands of its state and business entities are somehow tied to the fact that there is no true free speech on the open internet.
Even though it might be hard to ignore the well-budgeted choir of well-intentioned promoters of status quo, you still don't have to believe in this concept.
Like many others coming from social web, you expect to find some kind of community which fashions everyone shares, an apparel you can put on. The idea is complete opposite: you don't need to follow any fashion, or imagine yourself “part of the team” any more than you want to. Even though it's not written in any rules, you don't have to use slang or tone if you find them dumb, overused (globally or locally), or forced. Neither do you have to treat stupid posts with respect.
I assume that after 15-20 years of being part of collective consciousness, anonymous image boards have mostly the same public as any average site. Amount of crap that you can read there is just the same as everywhere (though in some cases this or that Big Brother hides it from your view — obviously, to make you more comfortable, and spend more time in his warm embrace). The difference is that regular social fashions mandate the use of suitable set of candy wrappers for the crap, then there are customary ways of dealing with them, so in the end people just spend their time wrapping and unwrapping crap, but are proud of themselves, and call it “civilised discourse”.
a) It seems that no one actually saw the school map to state that it really exists.
b) Doom maps are flat 2D blueprints with varying floor heights, they are quite unsuitable to “simulate” any building with multiple floors, not to mention complete lack of realism in everything else in the game (say, player has a speed of a car relative to the environment). There are some tricks in modern ports to combine detached level geometry into seemingly whole thing for niche maps, but those were not available at the time.
c) Trying to copy one's own school, house, or city block is the most stereotypical thing kids do when they find the level design tools. I remember quite a number of Counter-Strike maps that were nice at least visually, if not gameplay-wise, which were made that way. Surely, not everyone put that much work into a typical map made to play a couple of times with friends.
It seems that cases of overreaction to such funny nonsense that still happen after 30 years, despite everything, are something to scratch your head about.
The real situation is more complex. Harris did use game metaphors: https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre Of course, those cliches are not unique to Doom, and were just borrowed from comics and fantasy. We should generalise. The real hypocrisy is that people like to enjoy media and entertainment about The Hero domination everything and everyone, and don't want to be restricted in consuming that, but, at the same time, they don't like to become mere film extras that get shot by the dozen when some idiot believes in that fantasy a bit too much, and decides to live the dream. This is not limited to shootings. If you hate people so much, but instead of getting guns and ammo get yourself hired by social network data extraction press, it's not a straight path to electric chair, but a “successful IT career”. If you read trashy action packed novels, and consider that crippled offspring of romanticism as ideal life, you can try that high-adrenaline amusement ride, as long as it happens in some distant land, and can be called “military career” by others.
So media and entertainment significantly shape everyone's life, but limiting that argument to a small number of scapegoat cases is cowardice.
But you don't want any of that. You want to have a familiar pop cultural label (“Miyazaki”) that produces a familiar reaction (“Oooh!”). Purely decorative, symbolic objects. Stories, ideas, hard work? Eh, don't bother me with that nonsense.
There is nothing new or “cutting edge” in ignorance. And AI companies know perfectly well that they work for exactly that audience. Despite all the talk, they don't create the next genius artist, they want to be a next “enhancement filter” in TVs, something that no one uses, but everyone has to add to impress the public. That's just parasitism on lack of ability to discern.
Art is humane. It tells humans how to be humans. A thought about an ill person in pain is worthy of being told as a story. Not only that animation automation thing is of no use to someone trying to express those thoughts, its authors — just like many, many others — have no idea what humans do with their lives, and which tools artists may need to show it. They've made a toy, and were told that it's just useless wanking, together with the whole genres of pointless amusement that introduced such images into pop culture.
“An insult to life itself” is not just a phrase. There is life, and there are people who deliberately ignore it, and enjoy the sights painted on cardboards.
No, it is not “politically incorrect” to call people lacking curiosity and/or education like you see them.
No, someone's personal preferences or transitory fashions are not automatically promoted to the holy reference for the whole world.
It is maddening that the whole world uses typewriter keyboards with some facelift in the era of Unicode and even blasphemous full color emoji font rendering. What has changed in decades? Windows logo key, power keys, media keys, IE and Outlook logo keys — all Microsoft's fancies.
So initially IBM made some ad hoc decisions on what keys would be suitable for a single user office computer (as opposed to data input and admin terminals they had). Then everyone copied that, because sending unexpected scan codes could lead to bad things (random BIOS and program code couldn't care less about your ideas of forward compatibility). Then Windows became the “basic system” installed on most computers. Microsoft really pushed forward the internationalisation at the time, making a lot of national layouts and code pages (sometimes contradicting the national standards, for better or for worse). Then everyone copied what they decided. What's more important, even single byte code pages had the basic typographic symbols, anyone could've been using them for three decades, but they were not added to most physical keyboard layouts.
I wonder if that was because they wanted Word to seem more sophisticated than it was, and to make people think it was a requirement for “proper documents”, or because programmers still treated all non-ASCII symbols as free data markup constants that would “never appear in a regular text”.
Moreover, even if it's complex from the technical point of view, morally it's dead simple: hired programmer is the same as dirty grunt with a gun, and the leader delivering speeches, and the rocket engine scientist, and the data processing clerk, and everyone in between. They all serve the Order they believe in, the king of this world.
Despite what success fantasies and other self-help garbage teach people, a lot of society — most of it, actually — does not work on greed. That you can ignore thinking about it is itself a statement about deep foundations under the shallow bling.
Being rude is not the issue. The issue is being ordered to “act now” by someone else, and haphazardly executing that order. Neither Linux Foundation, nor Torvalds has made any direct statements making it clear they acted on their own accord (which would be most obvious thing to do). If this doesn't bother you, you may believe a bit too much that nothing extrajudicial happens in USA.
If that happened, Linux community might need to put some pressure on organizations involved instead of cheering carelessly.