I've been playing around with reviving radiosity for incremental GI for low-poly scenes, and this sounds very similar (and probably much better). I put a camera on each lightmap texel, rendered the scene, then summed the pixels (roughly) in the render to get the light. I chose the "slow" approach, where lighting took several seconds, but was done idly. And then once the lightmap had a certain amount of stability I'd stop the light calculations until the scene changed.
It sounds like the advantages here are:
- Optimized sampling, rather than just every lightmap texel. My idea was to tie the lightmap to LOD, but I feel like this is much smarter.
- Optimized light accumulation, dedicating more resolution to high-light areas to reduce noise
It seems like it has a more advanced "stability" calculation.
Things that are the same:
- Lighting is still incremental - when they e.g. change the light direction, even with optimizations, there's still some ghost light that slowly moves over so I'm not sure how this would work in really dynamic situations (car traffic)
Things that are different:
- It looks like the light data is cached based on the current view. I store light for the whole scene, so there's no light fluctuation when doing camera movement/rotation. I think the tradeoff here is the view-relative caching is probably more optimized (light detail is view invariant) - I think that's mostly important for HD-style assets.
Limitations of both, IIUC:
- Reflections, water, etc. Radiosity is diffuse lighting only. I think you can combine it with other hacks like screen space reflections though
How useful is it though if it doesn't resemble what it will sound like when actually played? IIUC the difference between this and a human playing is to some degree subtle. But the audio difference between different violin designs will also be subtle.
I think you're saying that there are businesses that rely on cheap air transportation that are very valuable, but at the same time couldn't afford higher air fees.
But that's a contradiction. If they are valuable, their customers would pay more for their services - that's the definition of valuable. And if their customers would pay more, they could afford higher air fees.
No, all I’m saying is that air travel is so different than any other kind of travel, that it is very special, and borderline magical. Saying something like “nothing magical about air travel, things and people would still travel around the globe” is very reductive. I’m not giving my opinion on subsidies.
Person 1. "Airline service is more valuable than people will pay for, it's a genuine force multiplier that is unaffordable without being subsidized"
Person 2. "Airlines are not magical, people and goods will move another way, so it doesn't need subsidy".
You: "Airlines are magical. Those things cannot happen another way."
There's three conclusions for what you think: 1) that airlines are special and magical and doing something which cannot be done another way, but that has no value and airlines can go away. That's incoherent. 2) Airlines are both affordable and profitable. That doesn't seem to be true and needs some supporting. 3) Airlines are doing something uniquely 'magically' valuable, they are not profitable, then they need subsidising.
Your point 3 is a non sequitur. If air travel is magical and valuable, that doesn’t automatically mean it needs subsidizing. We sometimes allow magical and valuable things to go away if we find them not to be popular enough to garner widespread political support.
My statement is correcting a fact (descriptive) not proposing what to do about it (I.e. not prescriptive).
It’s very hard to imagine what the world would look like without subsidized air travel. I have to think long and hard to figure out if subsidies would actually be sensible for something like this. I can be convinced either way right now, but it would take a lot of good historical data on something very similar, perhaps has to be specifically air travel in countries that do and don’t subsidize it, and their economic outcomes, controlled for other factors.
But saying that air travel is somehow the same in kind as other kinds of travel is incredibly shallow and reductive. We get to travel orders of magnitude faster and to places we wouldn’t even be able to reach otherwise.
I don't think GP was criticizing you for liking decaf. Just pointing out that the decaf process may have affects on the beneficial compounds that aren't caffeine.
I was curious seeing this thread, and I just looked and don't get it either. AFAICT the CP/M references could have been entirely omitted and nothing in the narrative about TMP and TEMP would change.
Except that DOS was made to have its first programs ported from CP/M, so it’s relevant to explain that there were no environment variables to inherit from CP/M and no developer habits or program standards to inherit from CP/M programs.
Multics had envars in the 1960s and Unix in the 1970s, why were they ‘added’ to DOS when it was so close to an older OS, why didn’t it inherit them from CP/M? Did it get TMP from CP/M and introduce TEMP because computers were bigger but then?
Around 2014-2020 I feel like there were lots of companies hiring worldwide online remote.
In the last couple years it seems like the tides moved way back out, and companies are terrified of hiring remote contractors. My impression is that it seems mostly about misclassification risks, but maybe there's another part I haven't seen.
1. Is this a real risk? I've looked it up in a few areas but AFAICT misclassification is strictly about same country relations. I know there's some edge cases (like if a foreign worker isn't actually residing outside the country...) but IIUC the laws are mostly to protect the employees and government from bad companies, so as long as the company doesn't try to do that it's not an issue. The bindings of international contracts are limited and both sides know about that.
2. Is this a real trend? Do you have any idea where it comes from? My gut feeling is that Remote.io and Deel who are in this business are spreading FUD because they're in the business of selling protection. I've heard of multiple companies rejecting candidates with like "Oh Deel doesn't have a contract for your country so we can't hire you" etc. But maybe there was some big case that put everyone on their toes?
This is outside my area. All I can say is that anecdotally I still see our clients hiring remotely although often at the same time they are looking for ways to employ their remote contractors in the U.S.
I took parent's message to be asking why the standard library fs primitives don't use `at` functions under the hood, not that they wanted the `at` functions directly exposed.
> why the standard library fs primitives don't use `at` functions under the hood
In this case it wouldn't seem to make sense to use `at` functions to back the standard file opening interface that Rust presents, because it requires different parameters, so a different API would need to be designed. Someone above mentioned that such an API is being considered for inclusion in libstd in this issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120426
It sounds like the advantages here are:
- Optimized sampling, rather than just every lightmap texel. My idea was to tie the lightmap to LOD, but I feel like this is much smarter.
- Optimized light accumulation, dedicating more resolution to high-light areas to reduce noise
It seems like it has a more advanced "stability" calculation.
Things that are the same:
- Lighting is still incremental - when they e.g. change the light direction, even with optimizations, there's still some ghost light that slowly moves over so I'm not sure how this would work in really dynamic situations (car traffic)
Things that are different:
- It looks like the light data is cached based on the current view. I store light for the whole scene, so there's no light fluctuation when doing camera movement/rotation. I think the tradeoff here is the view-relative caching is probably more optimized (light detail is view invariant) - I think that's mostly important for HD-style assets.
Limitations of both, IIUC:
- Reflections, water, etc. Radiosity is diffuse lighting only. I think you can combine it with other hacks like screen space reflections though
reply