kuberoot

@kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨On new installations, Android rebinds the power button to open up Google Assistant⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think “update notes or any marketing material” qualifies for making this kind of change non-silent - if the update is pushed through the same channel as regular security updates, and doesn’t explicitly notify the user the behavior of the button has changed, that’s pretty silent.

  Often for those kinds of updates software will show a special introduction screen, tutorial, or outright a prompt asking you to choose between the new and old behavior - but that’s software from people that care about the user having a good experience, and making such changes is a big deal for them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A hypothesis⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Framework let you swap everything

  I think there’s still a pretty big asterisk on that, because laptop parts are generally not built to be swappable… So I don’t think you can swap the CPU without the rest of the mainboard, and some parts like the CPU cooler are probably tied to the specific variant of mainboard and need to be swapped together if you want to switch CPUs.

  They do let you swap out parts that are reasonably swappable, so it’s pretty much a guarantee you’ll be able to upgrade storage and memory, and even where you can’t swap to different parts they make sure you can replace broken parts more granularly, so it still seems like a good deal.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, now on GOG⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ll add Luck be a Landlord as a game that’s surprisingly fun, has no time pressure, and lets you save and quit anytime.

  Also worth noting is that FTL has a great mod, Multiverse, adding new features and lots of new content. I’m not sure how well FTL works when you have little time, but if it works, there’s a lot of unique content to see.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fictional⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, in history we’ve really been ignoring the experiences of the sunwalkers, but thankfully society is leaving those prejudices in the past now.

  It’s all arbitrary one way or another, but the meter was (seemingly) chosen for a specific purpose, creating a unit based on a good and verifiable frame of reference (though probably not as absolute as people thought back then), while also having 1 meter be a convenient and useful measure on a human scale.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fictional⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s still an arbitrary number to pick, and the choice of cesium oscillation seems pretty arbitrary in the grand scheme of things.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fictional⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Because people weren’t traveling around the moon, mars, or the sun back then, they were traveling around the earth :V

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just answer the question you fuckin' nerd⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Or is it? We don’t know what’s going on inside the singularity, it might as well actually be a hole in spacetime.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Games with Text-based Interaction?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is certainly an odd suggestion, and not what you’re really asking for, but makes me think of Space Station 13. It’s a janky round-based multiplayer roleplay/social intrigue game. It’s free, and the game is opensource (though not the engine), which also leads to there being many servers with unique variations. It’s cheating to suggest a multiplayer game when talking about single player natural language processing games, but using actual players is probably the easiest way to pull it off.

  The reason it reminds me is because on a roleplay server, you’ve got something like 20 people, each with their job to do, talking to each other, talking on common radio, etc. - and if you’re lucky, a player playing as the station AI, complete with a (modifiable) lawset they have to follow, Asimov’s laws style. And of course, a few antagonists that have objectives to do.

  If you’re curious, I personally recommend BeeStation, though there are a lot of fine choices for the server, just maybe stay away from the 18+ ones.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Pop-up Amazon TV ads despite charging people monthly fees for their ad-free plan.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You can call “bs” all you want, but you’re yelling at the messenger. If I understand the situation correctly, you’re using an Amazon service, so Amazon promoting Amazon stuff on that service might count as self-promotion (or whatever the term is) rather than advertisement. The difference being that they’re not being paid by somebody to promote their thing, and just calling out their own services/events.

  Note that I’m also not supporting this, I don’t like it, but I’m also not surprised if that’s how that works, and that Amazon would be using it this way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When you say you don't like linux on Lemmy⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Eh, there’s plenty of community for projects like XLibre where that seems more likely, what with the “anti-woke” ideas.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dazzling!⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I, for one, value even this mundane history of low importance, and appreciate knowyourmeme for documenting the origin, development and variations of memes.

  It’s a shame peoples’ creations and ideas are stolen with no credit under the excuse of memes just being like that, but that’s not a fight I could win, so trying to document that information seems like the best we can do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨proportional reaction⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  The issue with Lua’s and/or in this context is that they don’t work if false or nil are valid values. In a and b or c, if b = false, the result is always c.

  I also love null-related operators like ?? and ?. for this, since they explicitly check for null, letting you handle any non-null values for optional/default values. The syntax can get a bit cursed, like maybeNull?.maybeMethod?.(args) in JS, but I still prefer that to writing out multiple field accesses in an if condition… And arguably the code is only less readable if you aren’t acclimated to it.

  All that said I do really appreciate Lua’s simplicity, as a language that provides tooling to create the features you want instead of building them into the language, though I wish it had some conventional regex instead of its own patterns.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Invest⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  What the fuck did I just witness? No, really, can somebody explain?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hollow Knight: Silksong Sparks Debate About Difficulty and Boss Runbacks⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I disagree, runbacks are as much difficulty as having to recover your currency after death, or even having to recover your items after dying in Minecraft. It’s a punishment for dying, and a way to make you treat it seriously.

  It can incentivise the wrong things, punish experimentation and make players stick with what they know, even if better options exist. You’re free to dislike it, and it has downsides, but dismissing it as “not difficulty” is just dishonest.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Well, shit.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m curious - was it also a checkbox that immediately applied when toggled, instead of not actually applying until you press save?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New Valve trademark for 'Steam Frame', looks like we're getting new hardware⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I really hope not, that feels like crypto all over again, with inconsistent payouts and varying electricity prices… And on top of that probably awful service since people tend to have the weirdest internet connections.

  Though if you remove the part where it’s used to stream games to other players, that sounds too niche to be viable, but could be cool. If going in that direction, I’d imagine it more likely to be gaming servers for businesses, like VR gaming spots, where they have multiple gaming computers hooked up to headsets.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hollow Knight: Silksong is out now on Steam - and it broke Steam servers for 15 minutes and counting now⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not a soulslike fan myself, but I don’t think hollow knight is very soulslike - the combat is very snappy, avoiding locking you into animations or making you consider your momentum, and I have the impression soulslikes also tend to be way more environmentally lethal, so to speak.

  It might have some of that visual/lore/exploration vibe though.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Little Pea Shooters⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So, the issue is, as far as I know the calculations are dead simple - you “enter” and “exit” the planet’s influence at the same distance from the planet, which means your potential gravitational energy didn’t change, so from the orbital mechanics point of view, from the planet’s frame of reference, your velocity should stay the same.

  As you “fall” in the orbit around the planet, you’re converting potential gravitational energy to kinetic energy, but as you “climb” you convert it back into potential gravitational energy, ending with the same amount of each kind of energy. The only change is that the velocity is redirected.

  With that in mind, it’s why, from my knowledge, the equations are really simple, with the only complications being trigonometry (to resolve the angles) and pythagoras (squaring, adding and getting the square root make the result unintuitive).

  Going back to your graph, if I were to do the math, according to my theory:

  • In A, let’s say you go in with 200 speed, and 0° angle (for simplicity). That means relative to the planet you have 100 speed.
  • In B, you gain some speed by converting potential energy to kinetic. We can’t say how much you gained, because we’re missing any real measure of distance and mass, but the neat thing is - it doesn’t matter, because:
  • In C, you turn that kinetic energy back into potential energy, and end up with the same speed you entered at, at the same distance. This means you now again have 100 speed relative to the planet, but aimed at a 60° angle. We can now add the velocity vectors of the planet and the velocity relative to the planet to get the velocity relative to the sun, using the planet’s velocity as one axis, getting a vector of [100+100*cos(60°); 100*sin(60°)], or [150; 86.6025], with magnitude of 173.2051, which is less than the 200 we went in with.

  If you want an intuitive example of what I’m referring to, consider a planet approaching you as you are stationary relative to the sun. If we assume ideal, presumably impossible, entry and exit angles of 0° and 180°, leaving the planet’s gravity field moving in the exact opposite direction than what you entered, you’ll note you’ll be gaining speed on exit either way, despite not moving towards the planet on the approach and “catching up”.

  The graph doesn’t really show anything other than illustrate your thoughts - but there’s absolutely nothing backing that as being true :/

  Either way, it does feel like we’re going around in circles, and I don’t want to be taking up your time unnecessarily. If you have something to disprove my math (maybe my understanding of orbital dynamics is wrong, and it’s not that simple), that’d be a starting point to try to figure out what’s wrong; if you’re interested, I could try to make diagrams, though I feel like they might kind of look the same, just with different numbers based on calculations.

  I guess one last thing I can offer is a video somebody replied to me with elsewhere in the thread, explaining this idea: youtube.com/shorts/kD8PFhj_a8s

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Little Pea Shooters⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, relative motions are more intuitive to me - they make sense, and I can use calculations for them.

  In the first example, you presented 101 speed - this means only 1 speed relative to the planet, and that’s all that’s getting redirected (in the planet’s frame of reference your enter and exit velocity should be the same, since that’s how orbits work). The number is just too small, but your velocity would be planet velocity + 1 on a different vector, which will be less than 101 total.

  If we estimate the angle on the picture is about 50 degrees from the velocity vector, and the speed to be 100+v1, the speed from the planet’s frame of reference is v1 - so, the exit velocity will have components of (100+v1cos(60°)) and (v1sin(60°)), so the final speed relative to the sun should be

  sqrt((100+xcos(60°))^2+(xsin(60°))^2)

  Wolfram alpha suggests this simplifies to sqrt(x(x+100)+10000), and comparing the equation by appending <x+100 gives the solution of x>0

  This means, if my math is correct, with an entry angle of 0° and exit angle of 60°, you always lose speed.

  I could try replacing the angle with a variable and setting a constraint of x>0 and see if the free version of wolfram alpha would spit out something, but just replacing the 60 with y is spitting out some convincing solutions, since in those x is never greater than 0.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Little Pea Shooters⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m sorry, but this comment thread genuinely makes me feel like I’m going insane. You seem to have explained exactly the same thing as me, with the same example, and none of it includes the “fall for longer before you catch up” bit.

  As for the orbit not curving, yeah, I think you’re right - the obvious case is if you’re sitting stationary on the planet’s orbit, but the curious case is if you’re approaching from the sun, with the planet’s velocity plus velocity away from the sun. If I’m not mistaken, in that case you’d end up with the same velocity (minus what you might have lost to the sun’s gravity), but on the other side of the planet’s gravity well, which means you still gained energy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Little Pea Shooters⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ayy, I’m not crazy, that sounds like exactly what I described… The only question is, is the explanation of “you spend longer falling” is bs, or if it makes sense if you conceptualize it differently?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Little Pea Shooters⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Right, but as I explained, it’s the how that doesn’t make sense to me - the explanation that you “fall for longer” doesn’t make sense, since 1. with how orbits work, it takes the same energy and time to “fall” as it does to ascend, and 2. at these scales you can use the planet as an inertial frame of reference, so the angle of approach doesn’t matter for how “long” you “fall”, it’ll be the same regardless of whether you’re moving towards or away from the planet.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Little Pea Shooters⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m confused, but this doesn’t make sense to me.

  It shouldn’t matter whether you’re moving in the same direction or not for this, because ultimately it’s all relative - if you set the planet as the frame of reference, the direction you come in from doesn’t matter - just the velocity and angle.

  What I can see working is calculating the in and out angles - if the exit velocity is at a sharper angle relative to the planets velocity than the entrance angle, then your exit velocity “gains” more of the planet’s velocity than the entrance velocity “loses”.

  If you were completely stationary, from the planet’s point of reference, you’re moving with the velocity of the planet. If you then did half an orbit, exiting in the other direction (theoretically), from the planet’s point of reference you have the same speed, just in the other direction - but from the sun’s point of reference, you’re now moving at the planet’s speed on top of the planet’s own speed, thus gaining double the velocity of the planet.

  The issue is, of course, I have no idea if I’m making sense, or missing the point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon is a gamer⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Isn’t Teardown fully raytraced? As in, all rendering being raytracing? I don’t have a source, but remember it being talked about.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO! I don't want to download your app and set up an account. Leave me alone⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think it’s a joke, though it’s not universal, but many services probably either don’t process the image, or use libraries that support webp, and naively limit formats before feeding them in - in those cases, renaming the file can bypass those crappy filters, and other software will probably figure out the filetype based on the actual data.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨7,818 titles on Steam disclose generative AI usage, or 7% of Steam's total library of 114,126 games, up from ~1,000 titles in April 2024⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What? It shows up as a footer under the description, and inside is the game developer’s description of how they used AI. Look at Stellaris for example, I remember they claim to use it minimally (in very vague words), but they certainly get to say their piece.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dik Piks⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Obligatory Tom Cardy

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Scifi question about time travel:⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I would assume they sent them after the number was drawn, to before the number was drawn, which means the future self doesn’t need their own message to learn the numbers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨So me⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No, wiping it over the machine like a cloth won’t make it work better.

  Ironically, doesn’t it? If you don’t know where the reader and chip are (sometimes it’s not clear), keeping the card close and moving it all over will eventually hit the spot ;D

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Statement on Stop Killing Games - VIDEOGAMES EUROPE⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, but the point is to be realistic and not put undue weight on the developers, right? Binaries can generally be much more permissive than source code when proprietary dependencies are involved, and easier to release “clean” than source code.