MajorasMaskForever

Auto Code formatting, not a big deal? What kind of hellish demon are you? What eldritch horror created you?

One of the big advantages to modern operating systems like Windows (XBox) and Linux (PlayStation, though technically it's BSD but we're gonna ignore that) is it separates the program from the hardware enough that so long as both machines run the same OS, the software drivers for the hardware have the same interface, they can run the same programs*. This is helped by the hardware running the same kind of CPUs and GPUs so the only piece of variability left is performance.

In the olden days, where companies would make specialized silicon chips for custom graphics processing, the OS, drivers, and driver interfaces were so specific to the hardware you had to use something like a devkit

*I'm wildly over simplifying, there are some edge cases to this but it holds true for the most part

You probably can't find it because you're mixing mutually exclusive terminology.

A stack is a First-In Last-Out data structure. If your entry criteria is time, the oldest files will persist and the newer ones will get purged first.

If you want to remove oldest files first, you want a First In First Out queue.

Both of these will permanently delete the original file.

Caches are just a copy of real data, sitting somewhere that ideally has faster access times but smaller storage space. The real original file does not get modified. A cache will typically hold onto as much data as it can until it hits some cap, at which point a replacement algorithm is used to select which entry or entries to make space for the newly requested item. Very rarely will a cache delete entries on its own to minimize actively used space, but if they do they will likely just run the replacement algorithm without backfilling the space

Oof, I always wondered if there were more things of his that were inaccurate.

What I caught was the hexagon video and his claim about triangles (combined to make hexagon) being the best for building rockets. I worked in the launch side of aerospace at the time, and true Atlas V and Delta IV were built with triangles.... But only on their booster tanks. Their upper stages had a completely different design structure, as do Vulcan, Falcon 9, Starship, New Glenn, Electron, etc etc

Triangles were only used on Atlas V and Delta IV because CAD in the 90s didn't do rectangles very well. That's not a problem anymore, so triangles don't get used

Yeah, but it does take a lot of work to coerce them to do it.

GCC is honestly obnoxious, and you have to do a bunch of unintuitive things to get it. The compile stage needs the built-in RNG seeded, parent file paths stripped, you need to ensure that the date/time macros are not used anywhere, and you need to ensure that all command line flags are passed in the exact same order every time.

I just went through this with GCC16 on a new project.

Current defense worker here:

Was talking with a coworker recently about how ITAR/EAR rules are hilariously out of date. Basic IMUs coming from China these days are good enough that you can establish a reasonable dead reckoning nav to where those parts of the munitions list are just defunct. Shit I did that in college ten years ago with high power rockets and things have only gotten better.

The new proposed regulations over AI chips are also wildly misguided and demonstrate how Congress/Executive branch have no idea what the tech even is. The top of the line chips today are needed for LLMs, fast fixture acquisition and tracking can be done on a way less powerful piece of hardware that new regulations will fail to stop (that's even assuming that the bans would have worked in the first place, which they won't)

I mostly listen to just LTTs podcast WAN show and on there Linus has said several times over the years that he doesn't like having his kids in videos, he finds it grimy and takes a real issue with family YouTube channels since the kids don't have a say.

His family only appears in videos when they ask to be in a video, and even then he makes the kids do the pitch so they have a real vested interest in wanting to be in the video.

That's why his one son has been in several videos, one daughter has been in a couple, and the third I think was just in one video years ago. The videos can be a bit clunky because while the adults in the room try to make a video engaging and interesting there's only so much they can do. Linus has also stated that he'd sooner let LMG as a company fold than just hand the reigns to his kids.

The clunky pool and yard video iirc was a case of the business development team signing a brand deal and the video production team not knowing what else to do

I'm a gun owner, I enjoy shooting, and I agree that carrying a rifle is more terrifying than a hand gun here.

It's a power play, and a fantasy attempting to become reality.

You carry a rifle like that because you want to be seen with it. You want others to fear you because they see that you have the power of death in your hands. You want to feel like you're the big man in the situation, and if that's your line of thinking, I'm more inclined to think that you're the type to escalate a situation where you'll feel justified to use that power of death and and actually shoot someone.

If you were actually concerned about defense you'd carry a small pistol that you can grab in a moments notice, action it to put one in the camber, aim, and pull the trigger. A rifle like that you're not carrying loaded, maybe you have a loaded magazine in your pocket but you're still several seconds away from me able to actually shoot it. It's bad theater

Lights*

Sorry, not sorry

Carrying forward technical knowledge is definitely a big help. I suspect that's why Atlas V was able to pay for itself because the booster was so similar to Atlas III which itself was similar to Atlas II.

The satellites I work on play this game constantly. Mission A and B both use the same underlying tech that needs to be developed, but mission A is first. So we charge mission A with all of the cost and then mission B looks a lot cheaper on the books

I work in the aerospace industry, mainly to satellites these days but I've worked in launch in the past and have plenty of friends who have as well.

That 450 figure is probably all of Falcon 9s development which has gone through several design iteration cycles. Industry rumors point to a new Falcon 9 booster being around $50 to build and a million or two to refurbish on average. The re-use is saving them a significant amount, but the upfront design cost was just so stupid high.

It's also worth noting that Starlink supposedly launches at near cost meaning little profit for each of those, but then SpaceX turns around and prices Falcon 9 close to Atlas V for government contracts (90-150m total price so probably 60m profit) and gouges people on Transporter (they're almost certainly pulling in 150-200m on each of those)

Nuance on the Internet? Not allowed, fuck off

/s cause last time I made this comment a mod deleted it