dahart

27 ms·

391.
by dahart 10mo ago
I wouldn’t phrase it that way. Relying on willpower is a recipe for failure. Humans generally don’t have enough willpower, it goes for most things, even when you don’t have strong physiological forces involved. The key to getting a diet to
392.
by dahart 10mo ago
Fwiw, that’s not the best way to draw a circle in general, the test shows it’s the fastest way to tessellate a circle, among the methods the author tried, and using a specific GPU. You don’t have to use triangles to draw a circle, and the a
393.
by dahart 10mo ago
> What type of filter do you mean? […] the approach described doesn’t go into the details of how coverage is computed This article does clip against a square pixel’s edges, and sums the area of what’s inside without weighting, which is e
394.
by dahart 10mo ago
I’ve been ordering Americanos for 20 years. Espresso drinks became a very common thing around the time when Starbucks took off in the 90s. But it does depend on where you go. Diners and gas stations and some kinds of cafes and restaurants (
395.
by dahart 10mo ago
> every attempt at answering a question - is valid and should remain. Yeah this is describing a policy that seems like it’s causing some of the problem I’m talking about. SO’s current state today is evidence that not every attempt at ans
396.
by dahart 10mo ago
I wonder if Ray Kurzweil was inspired by this story, or if there was some other futurist who inspired them both. I had a sort of déjà vu reading this, having been at Kurzweil’s Siggraph keynote in 2000. He was predicting this very scenario
397.
by dahart 10mo ago
Reading the rest of this thread, it sounds like moderation truly was SO’s downfall, and almost everyone involved seems to agree the site became extremely anti-social. Not sure I’ve ever seen the word ‘toxic’ this many times in one thread be
398.
by dahart 10mo ago
> This is why all the moderation pushes toward deleting duplicates of questions, and having a single accepted answer. My personal single biggest source of frustration with SO has been outdated answers that are locking out more modern and
399.
by dahart 10mo ago
> It seems like rounding that to “hate” (in the headline) is misleading? Agreed, the NYT decided to prioritize drama over accuracy here. :(
400.
by dahart 10mo ago
OP quoted “non-square pixels” from the article, which is talking about pixel aspect ratios, i.e., width vs height. The implicit alternative to square in this context is rectangular, we’re not talking about circular or other non-rectangular
401.
by dahart 10mo ago
Pans looking juddery no matter what you do in 24 fps is a very well known issue. Motion blur’s ability to help (using the 180-shutter rule) is quite limited, and you can also reduce it somewhat by going very slow (using the 1/7 frame
402.
by dahart 10mo ago
The singular point of debate here from my side has been whether the phrase ‘tragedy of the commons’ applies to cases where the ‘commons’ are owned to the exclusion of some people, and nothing else. I don’t believe I have failed to acknowled
403.
by dahart 10mo ago
If TV settings offend you, you should be offended by anyone watching anything made for movie theater on a TV or iPad or - gasp - a phone, regardless of settings. And it should be offensive to watch with the lights on or windows open. ;) To
404.
by dahart 10mo ago
That’s not quite the word I was looking for, since a function returning a random number isn’t a constant, and also doesn’t depend on it’s inputs.
405.
by dahart 10mo ago
> does applying the same transfer function to each pixel (of a given colour anyway) count as “processing”? This is interesting to think about, at least for us photo nerds. ;) I honestly think there are multiple right answers, but I have
406.
by dahart 10mo ago
Yeah, true. Is there a proper math term for a function of x that does not depend on x?
407.
by dahart 10mo ago
I see what you mean, but FWIW “fixed” doesn’t sufficiently constrain or describe it. For example, filling a rectangle with black or random pixels is a fixed algorithmic sequence, same might go for in-painting from the background. The redact
408.
by dahart 10mo ago
How so? And what’s the relevance to this thread?
409.
by dahart 10mo ago
> You’re confusing public goods with common goods. Am I? Where did I do that? The distinction between common and public is defined as whether or not the thing can succumb to tragedy of the commons. If public goods are “non-rivalrous”, th
410.
by dahart 10mo ago
Nope, no goal posts were moved, Wikipedia and GitHub are both private entities that offer privately funded free services to everyone, and due to the widespread free access, both have been considered to be examples of digital commons by othe
411.
by dahart 10mo ago
They do own the servers. The rest of your comment is what demonstrates why Wikipedia counts as “commons”. Much of the same can be said for GitHub too.
412.
by dahart 10mo ago
Wikipedia does use Wikipedia, a privately owned organization, as an example of a digital commons. The ‘tragedy’ that the top comment referred to is losing unlimited access to some of GitHub’s features, as described in the article (shallow c
413.
by dahart 10mo ago
What use of GitHub are you talking about? The use of GitHub by @c-linkage at the top of the thread was, in fact, based on GitHub being free to use. And GitHub’s basic services are free to use. I really don’t know what you mean. Your oft-rep
414.
by dahart 10mo ago
One of the examples of digital commons in the article is Wikipedia itself, which is privately owned, so now you can be sure the Wikipedia article does backup my claim at least a little. The Microsoft example in this subthread is GitHub, not
415.
by dahart 10mo ago
What’s not what? Care to back up your argument with any links? I already pointed out that examples in the WP article for ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ use private property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common
416.
by dahart 10mo ago
Ownership, I guess. The 2 parent comments are claiming that “tragedy of the commons” doesn’t apply to privately owned things. I’m suggesting that it does. Edit: oh, I do see what you mean, and yes I misunderstood the quote I pulled from WP
417.
by dahart 10mo ago
That is one meaning of “commons”, but not all of them, and you might be mistaking which one the phrase ‘tragedy of the commons’ is using. “Commons can also be defined as a social practice of governing a resource not by state or market but
418.
by dahart 10mo ago
> so I say take as much as you can. Commons would be if it’s owned by nobody This isn’t what “commons” means in the term ‘tragedy of the commons’, and the obvious end result of your suggestion to take as much as you can is to cause the l
419.
by dahart 10mo ago
Why do you blame MS for predictably doing what MS does, and not the people who sold that trust & FOSS infra to MS for a profit? Your blame seems misplaced. And out of curiosity, aside from costing more for some people, what’s worse exac
420.
by dahart 10mo ago
What do you mean? Are you unaware of Nsight VSE? https://developer.nvidia.com/nsight-visual-studio-edition

More ›