yazzku

You don't. Theoretically, they would respect the user agent, but who can trust that anymore?

tl;dr the crawlers do not respect robots.txt or the user agent anymore, but you can drop big bucks on the enterprise HA offering to stop them through other means.

Not as much pizzazz.

You are right. fregus leaves it at "ambient light" and calls it a day, but ambient light is just an empirical construct, not grounded in physics. In reality, light bounces around, and areas will appear darker the more the light paths otherwise converging on them are blocked by occluders.

I think "overlapping shadows get darker" is just not a very intuitive way to think about it because it disregards the stuff that actually matters, which is the light sources and how the scene may block their light paths.

For early games that could not afford advanced methods of global illumination, making overlapping shadows get darker seems like a reasonable, though not necessarily correct, way of faking it.

And the other thing ignored in these comments is perception. For the case of the two businessmen looking at their shadows under a bridge, it is easy to show with a diagram that some areas of overlapping shadows are, in fact, darker. But in such a poorly lit scene, people are likely to conclude that there is no difference, which isn't to say that there isn't one but, rather, that they don't perceive one.

Can you not use std::condition_variable to avoid the active waiting of the signal?

Great guide, thank you.

Here is what I dictate: this is fucking stupid and I'm tired of seeing this nonsense parroted.

Working on your own engine gives you a level of understanding that cannot otherwise be obtained. It's like writing your own OS. This is very much a worthwhile endeavour. People should be encouraged to write their own crap, even if they don't end up using it on the job or whatever (whoever the fuck said this was the only metric for deciding what to work on?) because of the level of insight it provides.

Generic engines like UE5 and Unity break down both in terms of functionality and performance the moment you do something they are not intended to do. They are also an overkill for a project of the scale shared here. From an engineering perspective, it's absolutely ridiculous to use an engine for this project.

So please stop parroting this nonsense. Use your goddamn brain to form opinions. There isn't an off-the-shelf engine for that.

> More and more, antitrust is a means for people who dislike big, successful companies for no particular reason to attack them. On some level, the government is just throwing its weight around. The message is "don't forget who's really in charge."

The same government that gives it tax cuts when building new "fulfillment centers" and billions of dollars in cloud/military contracts? Something doesn't add up in your logic.

> Consider all the "Lina Khan fans" you see on HN and elsewhere. They rarely articulate why the government should be suing these companies, which laws that company broke, or if those laws make sense. They just don't like big companies and want them taken down a peg.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...

* Not a yolo VC-backed project from Silicon Valley that becomes abandonware two years later.

I am skeptical too, but the company is Finnish. Anybody know more about them?

Edit: looks like a non-free OS indeed. The developer tools just seem to include an SDK. It's a pass for me.

> hundreds of thousands of Instagram users posted a block of text to their accounts hoping to avoid the plague of artificial intelligence online. [...] “I do not give Meta or anyone else permission to use any of my personal data, profile information or photos.”

Actually, you did. What you didn't do is read the fucking terms of service.

But sarcasm aside, it is a general failure of the system that things have gotten to this point. The amount of naivete like is seen above is tremendous, yet somehow we and everyone who understands this crap have failed to deliver the memo.

Look at the memory consumption diagram on page 6. It looks like you're basically getting the same running time for less memory usage.

> There's a difference between the battery in a gas car and the lithium batteries in EVs

To be clear, EVs often have both batteries, actually; the lithium-ion one to power the transmission, and the good ol' lead-acid one to power the electronics, just like in a gas car.

https://motorandwheels.com/do-electric-cars-have-one-or-mult...

But I suppose you're saying EVs burn more easily. That's fine. Most of these articles I've run across are still rather dishonest, though.

I've seen a gas car light up just as well. That was also years ago and I don't know if shit has improved, nor am I an expert on the matter. But humidity may accumulate near the battery and explode either way, gas or electric. A gas car in the garage will take down your house just as fine. The gas in the tank is irrelevant here.

Disclaimer: I am also not a Tesla fanboy. But articles like these are rather dishonest in how they present the "information".

I don't know what you mean by "responsiveness". Html/Css/Javascript is dogshit when it comes to latency. I assume you're talking about fluid layouts, which can be accomplished just as well with native GUI libraries like Qt. Note that Qt runs like a champ in embedded devices; I don't think it can possibly get more responsive than that.

> and this site seems to disrespect user expectations about layout, menus, and interactable elements, from a glance.

Why does this matter? GNUCash is a desktop application. The website is not all that relevant. And I have a different opinion about expectations anyway. The website is functional and easy to navigate, unlike the column-style, white space wasteland that "mobile-friendly" websites typically are.

Why is it inexcusable? And what standards?

This is for serious finance, not for swiping yolo stonks on Robin Hood.

Nothing should be built with a Microsoft product as its foundation. It's not even a mystery how such endeavours end.

Capitalism will live yet another day, whew. We can keep on with the destruction of the environment with this just one little trick.

At least they're not deploying another IIS server somewhere on the Internet.

"All information be available".

Have you filed or read any software patents? Many are so vague that they do not embody any significant "idea" or contribution, and are mostly just a hindrance to actual innovation. And some are just plain stupid, like the patent to average two integers without overflow.

Like the parent said, a compromise could be "source or GTFO". But even that seems of questionable value.

The shit show gets to the point where many companies file patents defensively. They'll file a patent just in case their competition does it first, even if they have nothing to show for it. And this naturally affects smaller companies disproportionately because they do not have the funds to pay lawyers (there is a hilarious interview on Youtube of a small startup CEO that explains how his company spends more on lawyers than engineers.)

So tl;dr, we'd probably be better off without software patents altogether.

There is nothing "source" about the "open source models" that companies typically release. The use of the term "open source" is deliberate marketing BS. If you want to argue there's a difference between software and a model, then don't use software terms that are already well-defined to refer to some property of the model.

https://opensource.org/osd

Instruction pipelining is literally a form of instruction-level parallelism. To argue it's not parallelism is a weird take.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_pipelining

Your argument basically amounts to forming an arbitrary definition of "unit" that consists of the whole thing so that then you can state that there is no parallelism. By that token, an 8-core processor has no parallelism because it can only execute a single package of 8 threads at any given time.

Nothing from here to the parent post suggests any defense of Google. It's you who brought it up.

[citation needed]

Also, very low quality post, amounting to just a tweet, and an unsubstantiated one at that.

Android sits at the heart of their mass surveillance network. Rust experiments in the kernel? Seems like quite a stretch between the two to me.

I'd find more comfort in the "others" that you mentioned, although I don't know who they are.

Why are you posing criticizing MS vs Google as a dichotomy? Both are a piece of shit, MS even to this day. nabla9 is absolutely right, read the history.

Google funding is a positive signal?

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Appreciated indeed. I happened to want to mess around with the C11 concurrency API and write a server of sorts, mostly as a curiosity of how those constructs work out in C coming from C++.

C++ compilers today already auto-vectorize simple loops, even without manual unrolling. For manual SIMD, I agree a built-in type would be best to abstract over the 10 different HW APIs.

> Yeah, that's wrong. Primitive arrays aren't "boxed". An int[] is not an Integer[], and no boxing is performed unless you ask for it. SoA is fine in Java.

Yes, I botched that one, agreed.

> It's pretty easy to avoid boxing if you don't want it. They are separate types after all. Even so, Android lint has an inspection for it, and Intellij (presumably Android Studio too?) has an inspection you can turn on to detect it [1]. If you're running afoul of autoboxing, it's probably mostly in collections-based code and you'll want something like fastutil [2].

Autoboxing is a contradiction of "It's pretty easy to avoid boxing". It's specifically egregious for any place where you need performance guarantees.

> I don't understand this. You aren't using more than "native size" on any platform in any language without some sort of emulated Big* type.

Because you don't have unsigned integers (or arithmetic). So, for example, if you're playing with a 16-bit unsigned value, then you need a 32-bit signed integer to hold the 16 bits you care about (and you can kind of pretend you have 16-bit unsigned arithmetic.) But if you need a native-sized unsigned integer, you're out of luck.

> Implementations typically have both escape analysis and a nursery generation for this. This works well in a desktop/server environment.

Not on Google's VM the last time I tried. Shit went on the heap and the "concurrent" GC would then stall the entire application for ~1s every ~10s.

> I'm knee-deep in GDX and LWJGL, right now, but again not in a mobile context. I used to hang out in the Java gaming forums with the folks who originated LWJGL (e.g. cas).

I used to be on #LWJGL on Freenode, but it seems the guys moved to Discord or something.

By the way, we haven't talked about how horrible the JNI is, which requires you to wrap every C function so that you can pass around the JNIEnv handle and to manually marshal data structures to/from, like you're writing fucking Lua bindings or something. The right way to do FFI is the Haskell way, where you just call the function and get compiler support for auto-marshalling data structures (and, if you want, you can get your Haskell program to build and statically link the C library from source; no need to compile separately using another build tool and then dynamically load a shared lib.) Even C# does it better than Java. So in the use case where you have optimized C code and the rest of the application in Java, even the bridge itself is a pain in the ass to write.