ɔiƚoxɘup @ Quexotic @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

197

Joined

2 yr. ago

Or they could go with the good old "if you sacrifice privacy for security you will have neither" - Benjamin Franklin

I'm sure this could never backfire.

Humanoid

Straight prompt

Not that it necessarily knows anything but I think it associates Mayo on a burger as being a thing and it's making it drool Mayo

I had to tell it that that's what the username referred to.

Another attempt was a lot of really weird queues of people in strange lands.

IT'S SO ADORABLE!

I'm keeping it!

I... I don't know what the hell I'm looking at

Photorealistic version:

Interesting. My understanding of field programmable gate arrays is that they were field programmable and therefore programmable in the field. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm just thinking that it would be foolish for them not to leverage this for higher profit. Their handheld has a MIDI sequencer.... Something tells me that maybe they were leveraging it there too.

I recognize this sounds sarcastic but I don't mean it to be. I've just never done any in-depth study into FPGAs, just a little bit of an intro to them when I was back in college an Eon ago. 😂

That makes a lot of sense. I just figured it was because there are a lot more boobs online than there are fingers. 😂

Rom play would be good. That would make sense, but I think it would definitely be a mistake to not fully leverage the FPGA and make it do other things. If you have the ability to change your processor into a different processor on the fly, and don't, you should be using custom chip design instead of FPGA. In the long haul, that should be cheaper.

No, if they're using FPGA, and advertising it, the consumer should expect this box to be a chameleon. Anything else would be a disappointment, just looking at their earlier work.

Still, it'll be interesting to see what they do with it but I already know I can't afford it.

Yes. That is it. It's been since before I had kids... Everything before that is a little bit fuzzy.

Yeah, it was probably project64 I was using. I get th FPGA is fantastic and allows for, basically reprogrammable hardware (think re-flashing all your firmware at the rate of a few KHz) but isn't this a solution seeking a problem? I never had any real issues emulating N64, and it didn't cost anything.

I'm not really seeing where the benefit of this product is. I hope the sell the crap out of it because it sounds cool, but I would never invest in the idea.

Hope I'm wrong for their sake. If I can't remember the name of an emulator I used 13 years ago, hopefully that means I'm wrong about this too.

I wonder what they're selling it for. FPGAs are about 150-300 off the shelf. Looks like the pocket is selling at 500-800 by scalpers, and I can see the demand for that. Maybe if the 3d plays all PS1, N64 and PS2 games, all in Super sharp 4k?

Regardless, this will be interesting to watch for further developments.

Huh. I remember playing perfect dark at high res on my PC. Guess I forgot which emu that was. Thanks for the heads up.

Now get off my lawn! Lol

Right? Like, doesn't dolphin already do this?

FF3, US version.

There was magic in that game.

Most especially work.

I understood the answer, not the meme. I guess I wasn't clear. Sorry internet friend. Clearly GPT was lacking some nuance too, as evidenced by some discussion ITT.

Did I say that? It's obvious that it's a fairly nuanced as topics go, and GPT is not great at nuance. It doesn't seem like it's totally wrong though.

Anyhow I don't rust, so it's kinda irrelevant, just an interesting topic.

GPT is fairly useful but I definitely don't trust it implicitly. Lol

A Rust procedural macro (proc macro) is a metaprogramming feature in Rust that allows you to define custom syntax extensions and code transformations. They operate on the abstract syntax tree (AST) of Rust code during compilation and can generate or modify code based on annotations or custom syntax.

Sandboxing a Rust proc macro refers to restricting the capabilities of the macro to improve security and prevent potentially harmful code execution. There are several reasons why someone might want to sandbox a proc macro:

1. Security: Untrusted code can be executed during the macro expansion process. To prevent malicious code execution or code that could access sensitive information, sandboxing techniques are employed.
2. Preventing unintended side effects: Some proc macros might inadvertently introduce side effects like file I/O or network requests. Sandboxing can limit these actions to ensure the macro only performs intended transformations.
3. Resource control: To manage system resources, a sandboxed proc macro can be configured to run within resource limits, preventing excessive memory or CPU usage.
4. Isolation: Sandboxing helps keep the macro's execution isolated from the rest of the compilation process, reducing the risk of interfering with other parts of the code.

Sandboxing a Rust proc macro typically involves using crates like sandbox or cap-std to restrict the macro's capabilities and limit its access to the system. This ensures that the macro operates within a controlled environment, enhancing the overall safety of code compilation and execution.

-GPT

I didn't get it either.

Seems to me if your code will be this unpredictable, you should only run it on an air gapped machine