Cocodapuf @ Cocodapuf @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

1,322

Joined

2 yr. ago

When I say "compress" I mean downscale. I'm suggesting they could have dozens of copies of each texture and model in a host of different resolutions.

Yeah, that's generally the best way to do it for optimal performance. Games sometimes have an adjustable option to control this in game, LoD (level of detail).

Texas has made noises about secession in the past, they still seem to think they're exceptional in some way. But here's where I'm at, if this relationship isn't working, why are we waiting for them to leave? We should just dump them. "It's not me, it's you. Just leave the key, don't forget your toothbrush".

Seriously though, we should just drop some states from the union.

On that note, what has Alabama done for me lately?

Actually, you're not off track. The same oil companies that provide this tar also provide fuel for power plants. Hot buildings means more need for HVAC which means more power consumption. It's a double win for them (and a double lose for the planet and the consumer).

Self censoring is not the answer... Come on MIT, you know better.

Well, now that I say that, MIT has a not perfect track record when it comes to legal matters and policy decisions. I think of Aaron Swartz for instance...

Safety is all about preparation.

An orbital cannon for 1 lb kinetic impactors. You'd probably want them to be in low earth orbit so they can strike quickly. This would of course require a constellation of satellite cannon systems, probably 2000 or so would be sufficient. Also, you'd want to be standing back from your target, probably 20 feet would be safe. Probably.

Also, they'll have mixed results indoors, either putting holes through every floor above you or not quite reaching the target if you were at the base of a skyscraper. Probably not awesome for the skyscraper either...

Maybe someday everyone could have one of these for personal defense.

Omnidirectional body mounted claymore mine.

Just watch your hands.

A gun would easy win against someone with a bat or coins in a sock

After being hit with a bat, I'd wager about 2 in 5 people would still even be holding their gun. If the bat hits the gun, hand, arm or head, 0 in 5 are still holding that gun.

Now that's assuming the bat gets a swing in, but in close quarters it's entirely possible.

That is definitely a concern! But as the company's entire future depends on their digital security policies and practices, I expect them to take it pretty seriously. There could will certainly be shitty companies, but hopefully they won't last long and the reliable companies will survive.

Was Alpine built specifically to be able to tune out Richard Stallman?

No. Because it isn't, though GNU terminal commands are generally Unix compatible.

It's like if you had a dog (Sir Licksalot) and taught him to "sit", "roll over" and "stay". And then you got a second dog (Barkley Von Woofington the 3rd) and you taught him the same commands.

Licksalot and Barkley respond to the same commands but they're definitely different dogs. They may even perform the commands differently sometimes, so it's important to know which dog you're dealing with. (so you can give them the appropriate amount of belly rubs)

Much to the chagrin of Richard Stallman who feels he isn't getting credit for his work. This is his punishment for being the absolute worst at naming things.

Hear hear! And let's hope he learned his lesson!

This is why it really should have been called "NNU", that would work perfectly.

My only gripe with GNU is the acronym itself.

Sure, the joke is clever, a recursive acronym "GNU is Not Unix", cute. But they could have used absolutely any letter as the first letter and that joke would still work. So why didn't they choose something pronounceable? I mean, the option was right there. ENU, ANU, INU, ONU, SNU, those would all work. Hell, even NNU would work, you could pronounce it "the new project".

Yeah, you could tell. This isn't really news, just a confirmation.

People will go to some great lengths for a little extra performance. Think of the Wankel engine, it works, but this is basically the same sort of power/weight improvement and it's immensely less complicated and more practical with this 2 stroke engine. But that crazy Wankel engine has actually gone into mass production in a few cases, notably in the much loved Mazda RX-7.

And let me be clear, this 2 stroke is far more practical than the rotary Wankel engine.

And yeah, I agree. I don't see this replacing most existing two stroke engines, a cheap simple engine is generally cheap and simple for a reason, price and complexity are usually the greatest factors in those cases. It's the existing 4 stroke engines that need to watch out, those are the engines that this is a clear upgrade from. I mean if you look at any car with a turbo charger, it would be better off with this engine, with either more horsepower or less weight.

I thought the video was pretty convincing, this engine seems pretty badass.

Honestly, this engine could be a pretty big deal for a few industries, small aircraft especially. Switching to these two stroke engines could improve the power/weight ratio of your engine by nearly 2x and not lose any fuel efficiency in the process, for small aircraft that's a really big deal.

For a specific example, a Cessna 172 carries about 300 lb of fuel, and we know that the plane's performance improves significantly when it's tank is nearly empty, the top speed for example is about 15% higher on a nearly empty tank. Its standard 4 stroke engine weighs about 250 lb, so a 125 lb weight reduction would mean a proportional improvement, not just to top speed, but also shorter takeoff distance, faster climb, higher max takeoff weight, etc.

(Side note, the impact of weight is so great in small aircraft that you can see similar performance improvements by going on a diet and getting some exercise)

I've said it before, there's really only one way to make user data safe. Nations that want their citizens' data to be safe need to pass laws that make exposing that user data extremely (cripplingly) bad for companies.

The penalties need to be so harsh that the fines could put them out of business. Companies should not want to hold user data, they need to think of user data like toxic waste, more of a liability than a valuable resource. When companies need user information to operate they can utilize "data handler" companies, firms that specialize in secure storage and and cryptographic systems. Companies that would actually be willing to risk holding user information. These companies can provide APIs for other organizations to access the user data when needed. But to be clear, most companies will not want to store that data locally, because the risk of exposure could be ruinous to the company.

There's an extra benefit of this plan too. Most organizations don't hold user data, they pay someone better at it to hold it for them. Because they need to pay for API access, they'll use the data sparingly, not frivolously throwing user data everything, tracking users on the web, or sharing data with advertisers. Having to pay for access will make companies use our data less.

The exactly.

You want something from me, fine. But nothing is free and you may not like my price, and in that case you're simply out of luck.

Budget?