dahart

54 ms·

811.
by dahart 2y ago
What is interesting or unique about honesty as a shared norm? You are, again here, despite trying to deny it elsewhere in this thread, claiming the “anything goes” part within the bounds of the game and within the rules of the competition i
812.
by dahart 2y ago
> Removing extra clauses Oh, “fundamentally about exploiting” is just a “extra clause”? Hahaha. Your sentence intentionally juxtaposed game exploits with ethics. If you disagree with that, you’re contradicting yourself and not me. What’s
813.
by dahart 2y ago
Whether someone was honest or lied in competition isn’t a unique set of ethics anywhere. Yes they use ethics, and those ethics are shared with society’s notion of ethics. You’re failing to make a case that speed running has their own norms.
814.
by dahart 2y ago
> That’s not what I was suggesting was interesting to me. What interests me is the social phenomenon that is what the actual members of the community deem to be acceptable or in this case unacceptable, how the the community works to iden
815.
by dahart 2y ago
Ah, you’re right, thanks. I read that sign stealing was allowed, and missed the parts about devices being banned.
816.
by dahart 2y ago
You’re framing this in a very funny way. This is not at all the same thing as the Astros scandal. Astros didn’t break the agreed upon rules (edit: I’m wrong - human sign stealing was allowed, but electronic sign stealing was not). Groobo di
817.
by dahart 2y ago
I’m surprised nobody has yet (as of this writing) pointed out that Moore’s Law never claimed anything about single threaded execution or clock rates. Moore’s Law is that the number of transistors doubles every two years, and that trend has
818.
by dahart 2y ago
> “The big question is always the mechanism,” Goforth said. “What’s the mechanism and what is the sensor? We know that for the visual sense, you have eyes; for the sense of smell, you have a nose; and for hearing, you have ears. But no r
819.
by dahart 2y ago
I think waking time away from work, and not work pay, is the most relevant metric to answer the question raised in this sub-thread. (Though there is obviously overlap, what you can do with your free time and how much you have is obviously d
820.
by dahart 2y ago
I’m unconvinced. Working hours in industrial countries have gone down over the last century or two, not up. Things were even worse for the vast majority of people before the 1800s, most people didn’t even get “careers” or have the luxury of
821.
by dahart 2y ago
That is fair, if true. But I’m very skeptical any modern drivers are dropping compliance without being asked. The one possibility I could buy is that you ran into a case of someone having dropped precision intentionally in a specific game i
822.
by dahart 2y ago
What shaders (presumably GLSL & HLSL) do precision wise isn’t an IEEE compliance issue, it’s either a DX/Vulkan spec issue, OR a user compiler settings issue. Dropping compliance is and should be allowed when the code asks for it.
823.
by dahart 2y ago
What GPUs aren’t IEEE compliant? I don’t think that’s been true for more than a decade.
824.
by dahart 2y ago
If someone says branching without qualification, I have to assume it’s incoherent. The branching mechanics might have lower overhead today, but the basic physics of the situation is that throughput on each side of the branch is reduced to t
825.
by dahart 2y ago
The primary concern is usually over the masking you’re talking about, the issue being simply that you’re proportionally cutting down the number of threads doing useful work. Using Nvidia terminology, if only one thread in a warp is active d
826.
by dahart 2y ago
So what? That’s a language convenience, not a performance feature. Calling mix with a vec4 is no faster than using 4 scalar mix calls, and possibly much slower than using 4 ternaries. If your x & y params are expensive functions, and yo
827.
by dahart 2y ago
Only more precision. But no, doubles are not faster. At best they’re the same instruction latency & throughput as singles, and that’s only on a few expensive pro/datacenter GPUs. Even if they are technically the same instruction
828.
by dahart 2y ago
A GPU/SIMT branch works by running both sides, unless all threads in the thread group (warp/wavefront) make the same branch decision. As long as both paths have at least one thread, the GPU will run both paths sequentially and sim
829.
by dahart 2y ago
IQ is most definitely aware of that. Are you unaware of who IQ is?
830.
by dahart 2y ago
If you only pass a boolean 0 or 1 for the “a” mix parameter, when is using mix better than a ternary? Can you give an example? I’m not sure mix is ever the right tool to choose between two values. It’s a great tool for blending two values,
831.
by dahart 2y ago
> the meaning I grew up with, which is that a conditional is a branch A conditional jump is a branch. But a branch has always had a different meaning than a generic “conditional”. There are conditional instructions that don’t jump, e.g
832.
by dahart 2y ago
> The problem is that “your boss” usually has to conform to the budget set by their manager working alongside HR. Very true! Though isn’t it also normal in that case for HR to be recommending inflation raises at least? The exception migh
833.
by dahart 2y ago
If you want a raise or promotion, you should talk to your boss or otherwise figure out how to remind them regularly of your value. Ask them for a quarterly or monthly one-on-one, and take an interest in what they do and what the team priori
834.
by dahart 2y ago
Agreed, parity is a strong constraint. Since the premise under discussion was “production” environments where some kind of parity is presumably required, I think it’s a reasonable assumption. If there is no baseline and it’s not a productio
835.
Render Path-Traced Hair in Real Time with Nvidia GeForce RTX 50 Series GPUs(developer.nvidia.com)
2 points by dahart 2y ago|0 comments
836.
by dahart 2y ago
Agreed and well said. Furthermore, a lot of the statements in the post are making opposing tradeoffs when you put them together. A bunch of them value experimenting and breaking things, and a bunch of others value using what we already have
837.
by dahart 2y ago
>> But they shouldn’t use that in production. > Why? Generally speaking, because that’s very likely to end up being “pushing for rewrites of things that work”, and also a case of not “taking complexity into account when adding feat
838.
by dahart 2y ago
Are you talking about Bhopal in 1984? If so it would be an understatement to refer to half a million people as a “town”, and an overstatement to imply it was terrorism. Willful negligence, yes, but terrorism, no.
839.
by dahart 2y ago
You’re right, interviewers will still care about whether you come up with a solution, and they care about the quality of the solution. The part you might be missing is that what I said and what you said aren’t mutually exclusive; they are b
840.
by dahart 2y ago
> That looks like it could be useful. Hehe. Sure. > You claimed that it was because it don't occur in all humans that we know something is vestigial. Nope, you’re insisting on running on your own misunderstanding, even after I cl

More ›