Capitalism is generally good at the startup scale, to figure out who has the best ideas. Once we have collectively decided (or was forced into) a single or a few implementations, good job, you won! Now you are non-profit / state-owned company / worker coop.
Games are not the real world. When you play a game, you are look at an image. For the current topic, motion blur in games is like motion blur with a camera, not like when you turn your head.
Games however are not movies either. Specifically, they are interactive and thus have different requirements on their visual looks. Most games are also expending significant effort trying to make the experience as immersive as possible and simulating looking trough a film camera works against that. Camera motion blur, film grain, lens flares and other such effects should have no place in games where you play a human or human-like character rather than a robot.
Larry Ellison used to have a TV projector in his house, with the light output for a drive-in movie theater but aimed at a small screen, so he could watch movies in broad daylight. That was before everyone got bright screens.
I don't see how the result would avoid being either uncomfortably bright or still having shitty contrast due to the unavoidably high "black" levels from the ambient light.
Modern HDR screens already cause the same subconscious perception as the sun would. You flinch, your eyes adjust, you even move a little bit back and feel a kind of warmth that isn't actually there.
The information travelling down the optic nerve is already processed heavily by the retina. At a minimum, you have compression by differentiation, i.e. a bunch of rods and cones are bundled together by comparing their signal.
But I suppose your point is still possibly valid - just even more complex.
I did a roundtrip to the password security rabbithole since the LastPass incident and my conclusion is there's virtually no way to have something truly safe - you can have a lot of layers to protect your accounts, but there's always a weak spot somewhere. Plus the more layers you add, the harder it is for you to use...
Sure you can have a yubikey for your 2FA, but then you need a backup in case you loose it or break it, and you need to store that backup somewhere (physically or virtually), and you need to trust / secure that location, or encrypt the data, but then you need another secret to decrypt it, and you need a backup of that too, and so on.
I don't see any way to break that Russian Doll effect. Any suggestions?
There has to be a point where the data is secured by a password, and you will need to keep that password safe both in your head and in a secure location. In your case this would be your password to your backup file.
Pick a good password for the backup and recall it every morning and at random points in the day; the intent is to make you remember it even under stress. Also have it printed out or written somewhere in a place that no one will notice/find - say as a scribbling in your sketchbook or printed at the bottom of a document in your file folder. If you're creative you can even hide it on a sticker inside an object or so forth. No one will know that the string there actually is your password, and if you want you can split it among different pages/etc.
A backup second factor is not very likely to be useful to an opportunist. Is they a reason to not just store it at home, perhaps in a fire resistant safe?
Mmm maybe. A bit annoying to backup regularly, but maybe by doing an hybrid approach like other have suggested here could help reduce the backup frequency/annoyance, i.e. duplicated two-factor key for important accounts, and the rest is stored in a password manager.
Now if only banks would implement proper two-factors...
Maybe start by having a sustainable growth (or you know, no growth!) so you don't have to write a completely emotionless letter explaining why you have to lay off a whole village?
Remember the CEO is also accountable to the board and investors who have certain expectations.
The morality here is hard because the end results are largely driven by the system. Sure, there are some leaders who are particularly ill-suited for their jobs from the employee POV. Unfortunately some of those leaders serve their investors quite well.
If you point one finger, you'll quickly realize you might need many more to follow the interconnected trail of power.
Also let's not forget that so much of Silicon Valley's advantageous job market is linked to investor behavior, good and bad. My point? Sure, criticize these feaux-emotional layoff letters, just don't forget to look back to see the reality distortion field already in place when you joined that job.
You really think so? I've picked many places to work based on my perception of their business model stability and how they treat people. I'm far from perfect of course.
I think many employees and investors care about employee retention. I don't know how much it factors in, but it is something.
Engineers wants C++, scripters and artists wants Visual Scripting. Seems like an obvious choice to make everyone happy instead of trying to find a middle ground where nobody is?
I think Godot shows there's a clear subset of people (generally indie developers) who are fine with the middle ground of a proper scripting language instead of either extreme. It's why languages like Lua are still fairly popular when the option to use it exists.
The problem is that at least until very recently, That subset of people have not been Epic's target market. UE had been targeting larger studios, and in that space, UnrealScript was largely a hindurance.
This is it for me. GDscript allows for quick prototyping and structural changes without fuss. If I really need it I could outsource some GDExtension (formerly GDNative) development.
I'm working with media artists and the very best way to make them flee is to tell them that they have to use the keyboard. Yes, there's the occasional geek but the overwhelming majority really doesn't like it - I'm not even talking about coding (I saw people get up and leave when showing code stuff in art contexts), just for instance having to use some keyboard shortcuts to do something is already too much in many cases, things have to be doable through mouse interaction exclusively.
those are salaried people who have to do a job and get paid for it each month, the artists I work with are independent artists who do stuff like art installations, etc. on their name. It's really really not the same mindset.
I've been a C++ developer for 20 years, and when I was playing around with UE4 back when it was first released, I found both options to be extremely clunky.
There's a lot to be said for C#, at the very least. I know a ton of not-very-technical people who have learned enough C# to write simple Unity games.
Linear vs non-linear is a confusing terminology. Linearity is a relationship. Anyway, usually it means values are encoded in the sRGB color space (with sRGB primaries) without applying any "gamma" curve (also bad term).
Like subb said, "sRGB Linear" means sRGB primaries without the sRGB EOTF (gamma curve) applied, which you could say is "raw linear" values, the most common way to input colors in 3d applications.
Colours are, in the outside world, fuzzy ranges of electromagnetic frequencies: they do «exist outside of your brain».
(Similarly, "brain" and "mind" are not the same.)
Otherwise, the intended general idea is that found e.g. at the beginning of Arthur Schopenhauer's Welt als Wille und Vorstellung:
> "The world is my representation": this holds true for every living, cognitive being, although only a human being can bring it to abstract, reflective consciousness: and if he actually does so he has become philosophically sound
Some electromagnetic frequencies are colors, but not all colors are electromagnetic frequencies. That’s why parent stated that color is a brain phenomenon.
What do you mean? (Outside the detail that "hues" are electromagnetic frequencies, while colours are compositions - there I just simplified.) Which colour is not such?
I would explain it as colors are byproducts of electromagnetic frequencies, but they are qualia generated by your brain. There are many optical illusions that play with this fact. For example, in twilight, the frequencies you would call blue are different than what you call blue during daytime. This is because the brain /eye adjusts to the general light conditions. (As sunlight is generally "redder" at twilight).
If the colors were the same thing as the electromagnetic frequencies, then the same electromagnetic frequencies would be the same colors, by definition.
They aren't. For example, put a card of color A in front of a background of color B; now move it in front of a different background of color C. You will experience color A as being a different color (especially if colors A, B, and C are chosen to maximze the effect).
The electromagnetic spectrum returned by card A isn't different, but the color perceived is. Thus, electromagnetic spectrum is "out there", but color is "in here".
The original post claimed that «Colors don't exist outside of your brain»: such statement, while true, is false, as its negation is true (we have mentioned paraconsistency in this very page): "colours" do exist outside your brain, as their nature also is, in a way, being electromagnetic phenomena, function of frequencies.
While such ontological property is pretty common, it is just summoned with some force when someone claims "[fuzzy] is [strict]".
> Thus, electromagnetic spectrum is "out there", but color is "in here"
Of course. That just depends on what you want colour to be. If you put it conceptually near "electromagnetic spectrum", then the distinction emerges.
It is the sum of two ranges (magenta is the sum of red and blue lights): it also exists "outside", like the rest.
For that matter, not even "pinkish grey" is defined by simply a frequency (the hue is, the colour is not): the definition for this purpose was meant to be concise, not literal.
Your previous comment had stated that hues are electromagnetic frequency and parent comment showed a counterexample. Color is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic frequencies and their composition. For an example, see impossible colors [0].
> Your previous comment had stated that hues are electromagnetic frequency and parent comment showed a counterexample
That was not the point, and said counterexample is not such (also magenta is, in a way, "electromagnetic frequenc[ies]"). Impossible colours - virtual colours - do go more towards the counterexample, though up to a certain point as they refer to the mental phenomenon of colour and leave the physical nature of colour untouched.
But finally I get what you meant when you stated: «not all colors are electromagnetic frequencies». True ("not all perception is produced by a direct influx of"). But also false, apparently (to the best of my), as objectivized hybrid colours are compositions of electromagnetic ranges; objectivized virtual colours are as well etc.
> Color is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic frequencies and their composition
Yes, and nobody ever stated the opposite - no reduction was never implied, no «overlapping» (as written in the other post): the point was expressed, nearby, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217999
The distinction between colors exists outside our brains (different frequencies of em radiation), but the color "red", for example, only exists in your brain. Heck, I have no clue what someone else perceives when I perceive "red". As long as it is stable, it doesn't matter.
Well, our brains are only wired up to detect a limited spectrum of colors. There are insects and birds that can detect a greater variety of color. So, how can it just exist in our brains?
One way to look at colors is to see them as qualia, which is basically a subjective experience. Electromagnetic waves come in a large range of frequencies, some of which excite the nerve endings in your retina, causing your brain to experience colors. But colors are a bit more complicated than that: for example, there is no such thing as just "yellow": yellow is the subjective term given by humans when there is a certain balance between the excitation of their there-color vision. You can experience the exact same sense of "yellow" from different types of light: there is true monochromatic yellow around 580nm, but you can also experience that same yellow when mixing the right amount of red and green light. There is no wave of 580nm in the second case, but still you see the same color.
Our eyes are wired up to detect a limited spectrum of wavelengths. Although those wavelengths correspond to a color, not all colors correspond to a wavelength. That’s why OP stated that color is a brain phenomenon.
