x1f604

7 ms·

1.
by x1f604 7mo ago
BAR runs fine on low end CPUs...until you have like 2,000 units on speed metal
2.
by x1f604 7mo ago
This is one of the problems that BAR solves beautifully - a player could leave and rejoin later and the game would continue running just fine. An existing player can choose to take their stuff or not, or take it and give it back when the pl
3.
by x1f604 7mo ago
I feel like the issue is more that their pathing algorithm is very inefficient. Not sure why using multiple cores would solve the problem if the cause of the lag is that their pathing algorithm is cubic time or something
4.
by x1f604 1y ago
> Demis Hassabis has recently given an estimate of human-level AGI in 5 years He said 50% chance of AGI in 5 years.
5.
by x1f604 2y ago
It is not rare for flash storage devices to lose data on power loss, even data that is FLUSH'd. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38371307 There are known cases where power loss during a write can corrupt previo
6.
by x1f604 2y ago
From the book: (Warning: Spoilers ahead) > The next day I told Parry that I was flattered but would not make pentaborane. He was affable, showed no surprise, no disappointment, just produced a list of names, most of which had been crosse
7.
by x1f604 3y ago
I don't think it's a register allocation failure but is in fact necessitated by the ABI requirement (calling convention) for the first parameter to be in xmm0 and the return value to also be placed into xmm0. So when you have an a
8.
by x1f604 3y ago
Based on my reading of cppreference, it is required to return negative zero when you do std::clamp(-0.0f, +0.0f, +0.0f) because when v compares equal to lo and hi the function is required to return v, which the official std::clamp does but
9.
by x1f604 3y ago
Even with -march=x86-64-v4 at -O3 the compiler still generates fewer lines of assembly for the incorrect clamp compared to the correct clamp for this "realistic" code: https://godbolt.org/z/hd44KjMMn
10.
by x1f604 3y ago
Even with -march=znver1 at -O3 the compiler still generates fewer lines of assembly for the incorrect clamp compared to the correct clamp for this "realistic" code: https://godbolt.org/z/WMKbeq5TY
11.
by x1f604 3y ago
Yes, you are correct, the faster clamp is incorrect because it does not return v when v is equal to lo and hi.
12.
by x1f604 3y ago
I think the libstdc++ implementation does indeed have the comparisons ordered in the way that you describe. I stepped into the std::clamp() call in gdb and got this: ┌─/usr/include/c++/12/bits/stl_algo.h─
13.
Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min(max,std:max(min,v))(1f6042.blogspot.com)
174 points by x1f604 3y ago|142 comments
14.
Advice to my younger self and you after 20 years in programming(medium.com)
2 points by x1f604 3y ago|4 comments
15.
by x1f604 3y ago
Medium recommended me this article. Reading it made me realize that I've wasted my youth on useless side projects that don't generate revenue and that realization filled me with dread, despair, and self-hatred - I hate myself for
16.
by x1f604 3y ago
I don't know exactly how Backblaze does it, but in the normal case, reconstruction is not computationally expensive because the 17 data shards are just pieces of the original file that can be served directly to users. It's only wh
17.
by x1f604 3y ago
> Consider a company that stores users’ emails in the cloud — that is, on a vast array of servers. You can think of the whole collection of emails as one long message. Now suppose one server crashes. With a Reed-Solomon code, you’d need
18.
by x1f604 3y ago
Do people understand code by line-by-line reverse-engineering what the code is doing, or do they understand it by relating it to what they've written before? If the latter is the case, then you get better at reading code by writing cod
19.
by x1f604 3y ago
> The subject seems to be completely non linear Is this not the nature of learning in general? Why is it supposed that learning things in the linear A-B-C-D fashion is even possible for most humans, rather than supposing that most people
20.
by x1f604 3y ago
> At 7% annualised, those $38K would deliver around $33M over 100 years. I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. If you invest that $38K then you will have $33M after 100 years time. If you paid that $38K to Wordpress then yo
21.
by x1f604 3y ago
Sorry, I don't understand how the plan becomes cheaper after factoring in inflation. Wordpress is asking you to make a one-time payment of $38k NOW. Not in the future. Inflation means $38k right now is worth a lot more than it will be
22.
by x1f604 3y ago
> Fastest Should be "Fastest on my machine" (where file hashing is IO-bound rather than CPU-bound) > faster than cat to /dev/null Should be "slightly faster than cat to /dev/null" Not sure wheth
23.
b3sum: Fastest possible file read using io_uring, faster than cat to /dev/null(1f604.blogspot.com)
3 points by x1f604 3y ago|2 comments
24.
by x1f604 5y ago
> being top 80% in two areas is much easier (and potentially more profitable)than being top 1% in one very narrow field. Did you mean to say "top 20%" instead of "top 80%"?
25.
by x1f604 5y ago
Primitive iron smelting was done with charcoal, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
26.
by x1f604 5y ago
Here are the results of the benchmark that I did: https://imgur.com/a/2lCktTO It didn't look quite right to me so I didn't post it. Here's another benchmark that I did where you can clearly see that some
27.
The time complexity of the libc++ deque push_front implementation is O(log n)(1f604.blogspot.com)
80 points by x1f604 5y ago|54 comments