A billion dollars is still a billion freaking dollars.
I encounter the same attitude sometimes with program optimization too. Sometimes it’s death by a thousand cuts and you just need to shave off 0.1% at a time until your program is fast.
6,812 karma · joined March 1, 2012
A billion dollars is still a billion freaking dollars.
I encounter the same attitude sometimes with program optimization too. Sometimes it’s death by a thousand cuts and you just need to shave off 0.1% at a time until your program is fast.
The trunk our of studio's SVN is hundreds of GB and the full repo is many TB. And SVN handles this no problem.
This happens becauase the person who buys a new car sells their old one to someone else, who sells their old one to someone else, and so on down the chain.
The oldest cars from America go to other cheaper markets replacing the cars in use there.
Greedy algorithms are about making locally optimal choices.
They are not "brute force" algorithms or inefficient ones.
In fact, greedy algorithms are almost always faster. They are faster because they consider only local information instead of the entire data set. In exchange for that, a greedy algorithm may produce non-optimal answers.
I have never felt older than in that moment.
You can gather data in other ways.
Of course in PoE2 it's used in full 3d.
The benefit of this approach is that you get global illumination with a constant cost for the entire scene and because it doesn't use any temporal acculation, it has zero latency as well.
This means you can rely on it as the lighting for fast effects. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1SvodIDz6E
There is no traditional "lighting" added to these two effects. The light on the nearby surfaces is indirect light from the GI solution that you get for free by just spawning the particles. That means all effects just naturally emit light with no extra work from artists.
On my GPU (which is admittedly a 4090) the GI solution runs in 0.8ms for a 4k scene in "High" quality. This is exactly what it will always cost, no matter what scene you choose.
It had to be an unaligned memmove and using a 32 bit binary on a 64 bit system, but still! memmove!
And this bug existed for years.
This caused our database replicas to crash every week or so for a long time.
This is because when you insert a value into the map, it has 80 bit precision, and that number of bits is used when comparing the value you are inserting during the traversal of the tree.
After the float is stored in the tree, it's clamped to 32 bits.
This can cause the element to be inserted into into the wrong order in the tree, and this breaks the assumptions of the algorithm leaidng to the crash or infinite loop.
Compiling for 64 bits or explicitly disabling x87 float math makes this problem go away.
I have actually had this bug in production and it was very hard to track down.
Like for example, if you collect server side crash dumps, are you really taking care that there is no sensitive information sitting in the memory image stored in them?
And I took that to mean that you just have to provide the server binaries and no support for them.
And fair enough, as a developer of a large online game myself, could get behind that.
But the moment this extends to needing to find solutions for people to be able to actually run it, I would withdraw my support.
If the server software a game uses requires a licence to a third party library, what is the developer expected to do about that?
We are seeing a reversion to the mean.
I find it more secure in some contexts to never give a company my phone number at all if possible, so that it simply can’t be used as any kind of authentication no matter what.
Not only is it a way simpler problem, but it’s actually a requirement for self driving also.
Like SELECT FOR UPDATE.
Why not just be upfront with a fixed dollar value per year of fees for that part?
It’s like some kind of uncanny valley of human interaction that I don’t get on nearly the same level with the text version.
People don't say no to increased density because they are worried about increased overall housing supply affecting their house value.
They say no mostly because they like the place they are how it is, and they don't see any reason for it to change because the upside doesn't affect them.
And the rest of the time they are saying no due to a direct downside like having a new large building near them that wasn't there before.
I'm not saying that this attitude should be allowed, but let's be honest about the cause of it.
And then you turn around and blame the “home is your piggy bank” mentality.