4chan (https://4chan.org/) is the most famous [image board](image_board.md) and a place where a lot of [memes](meme.md) come to existence. As most image boards, 4chan has a nice, oldschool minimalist look, even though it contains shitty captchas for posting and the site's code is [proprietary](proprietary.md). The site tolerates a great amount of [free speech](free_speech.md) up to the point of being regularly labeled "right-wing extremist site" (although bans for stupid reasons are very common, speaking from experience).
For us the most important part of 4chan is the technology board known as /g/ (for technoloGEE). Browsing /g/ can bring all kinds of emotion, it's a place of relative freedom and somewhat beautiful chaos where all people from absolute retards to geniuses argue about important and unimportant things, brands, tech news and memes, and constantly advise each other to kill themselves. Sometimes the place is pretty toxic and not good for mental health.
For us the most important part of 4chan is the technology board known as /g/ (for technoloGEE). Browsing /g/ can bring all kinds of emotion, it's a place of relative freedom and somewhat beautiful chaos where all people from absolute retards to geniuses argue about important and unimportant things, brands, tech news and memes, and constantly advise each other to kill themselves. Sometimes the place is pretty toxic and not good for mental health.
2022 update: abandon ship, /g is officially unusable, a bunch of capitalist children arguing about brands, [productivity cult](productivity_cult.md), crypto, consumerism, "open soars", no trace of [free software](free_software.md). Not worth it anymore.
*Not to be confused with [anarchism](anarchism.md).*
So called "anarcho capitalism" (ancap for short, not to be confused with [anpac](anpac.md) or any form of [anarchism](anarchism.md)) is probably the worst, most retarded and most dangerous idea in the history of ever, and that is the idea of supporting [capitalism](capitalism.md) absolutely unrestricted by a state or anything else. No one with with at least 10 brain cells and/or anyone who has spent at least 3 seconds observing the world could come up with such a stupid, stupid idea. We, of course, completely reject this shit.
So called "anarcho capitalism" (ancap for short, not to be confused with [anpac](anpac.md) or any form of [anarchism](anarchism.md)) is probably the worst, most retarded and most dangerous idea in the history of ever, and that is the idea of supporting [capitalism](capitalism.md) absolutely unrestricted by a state or anything else. No one with at least 10 brain cells and/or anyone who has spent at least 3 seconds observing the world could come up with such a stupid, stupid idea. We, of course, completely reject this shit.
It has to be noted that **"anarcho capitalism" is not real [anarchism](anarchism.md)**, despite its name. Great majority of anarchists strictly reject this ideology as form of capitalism is completely incompatible with anarchism -- anarchism is defined as opposing any social hierarchy and oppression, while capitalism is almost purely based on many types of hierarchies (internal corporate hierarchies, hierarchies between companies, hierarchies of social classes of different wealth etc.) and oppression (employee by employer, consumer by corporation etc.). Why do they call it *anarcho* capitalism then? Well, partly because they're stupid and don't know what they're talking about (otherwise they couldn't come up with such an idiotic idea) and secondly, as any capitalists, they want to deceive and ride on the train of the *anarchist* brand -- this is not new, [Nazis](nazi.md) also called themselves *socialists* despite being the complete opposite.
It has to be noted that **"anarcho capitalism" is not real [anarchism](anarchism.md)**, despite its name. Great majority of anarchists strictly reject this ideology as any form of capitalism is completely incompatible with anarchism -- anarchism is defined as opposing any social hierarchy and oppression, while capitalism is almost purely based on many types of hierarchies (internal corporate hierarchies, hierarchies between companies, hierarchies of social classes of different wealth etc.) and oppression (employee by employer, consumer by corporation etc.). Why do they call it *anarcho* capitalism then? Well, partly because they're stupid and don't know what they're talking about (otherwise they couldn't come up with such an idea in the first place) and secondly, as any capitalists, they want to deceive and ride on the train of the *anarchist* brand -- this is not new, [Nazis](nazi.md) also called themselves *socialists* despite being the complete opposite.
The colors on their flag are black and yellow.
The colors on their flag are black and yellow (this symbolizes shit and piss).
It is kind of another bullshit kind of "anarchism" just like "[anarcha feminism](anarcha_feminism.md)" etc.
Demoscene is a [hacker](hacking.md) [art](art.md) subculture revolving around making so called [demos](demo.md), programs that produce rich and interesting audiovisual effects and which are sometimes limited by strict size constraints (so called [intros](intro.md)). The scene originated in northern [Europe](europe.md) sometime in 1980s (even though things like screen hacks existed long before) among groups of [crackers](cracker.md) who were adding small signature effect screens into their cracked software (like "digital graffiti"); programming of these cool effects later became an art of its own and started to have their own competitions, so called *[compos](compo.md)*, at dedicated real life events called *[demoparties](demoparty.md)* (which themselves evolved from *[copyparties](copyparty.md)*, real life events focused on [piracy](piracy.md)). The community is still centered mostly in the Europe (primarily Finland), it is underground, out of the mainstream; [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) says that by 2010 its size was estimated to 10000 people (such people are called *demosceners*).
Demoscene is a bittersweet topic: on one side it's awesome, full of beautiful hacking, great ideas and minimalism, on the other side there are secretive people who don't share their source code (most demos are [proprietary](proprietary.md)) and ugly unportable programs that exploit quirks of specific platforms (many times proprietary ones like [Windows](windows.md)). These guys simply try to make the coolest visuals and smallest programs, with all good and bad that comes with it. Try to take only the good of it.
The scene is perhaps a bit similar to the culture of street rap, except that there's less improvisation (obviously, making a program takes long) and competition happens between groups rather than individuals. Nevertheless the focus is on competition, originality, style etc. Individuals within a demogroup have roles such as a [programmer](programmer.md), visual artist, music artist, director, even [PR](pr.md) etc.
A demo isn't a video, it is a non-[interactive](interactive.md) [real time](real_time.md) executable (even though categories outside of this may also appear). Demos themselves aren't really limited by constraints (well, sometimes a limit such as 4 MB is imposed), it's where the programmers can show off all they have. However compos are often organized for **intros**, demos whose executable size is limited (i.e. NOT the size of the source code, like in [code golfing](golf.md), but the size of the compiled binary). The main categories are 4K intros and 64K intros, rarely also 256K intros (all sizes are in [kibibytes](memory_units.md)). Apparently even such categories as 256 byte intro appear. Sometimes also platform may be specified (e.g. [Commodore 64](c64.md), [PC](pc.md) etc.). The winner of a compo is decided by voting.
Some of the biggest demoparties are or were Assembly (Finland), The Party (Denmark), The Gathering (Norway), Kindergarden (Norway) and Revision (Germany). A guy on https://mlab.taik.fi/~eye/demos/ says that he has never seen a demo [female](female.md) programmer and that females often have free entry to demoparties while men have to pay because there are almost no women anyway xD Some famous demogroups include Future Crew (Finland), Pulse (international), Haujobb (international), Conspiracy (Hungary) and [Razor 1911](razor_1911.md) (Norway).
**On technological side of demos**: great amount of hacking, exploitation of bugs and errors and usage of techniques going against "good programming practices" are made use of in making of demos. They're usually made in [C](c.md), [C++](cpp.md) or [assembly](assembly.md) (though some retards even make demos in [Java](java.md) [lmao](lmao.md)). In intros it is extremely important to save space wherever possible, so things such as [procedural generation](procgen.md) and [compression](compression.md) are heavily used. Manual [assembly](assembly.md) optimization is common. [Tracker music](tracker_music.md), [chiptune](chiptune.md), [fractals](fractal.md) and [ASCII art](ascii_art.md) are very popular. New techniques are still being discovered, e.g. [bytebeat](bytebeat.md). The final executable is also compressed with [specialized executable compression](executable_compression.md).
@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ What we do NOT engage in is political correctness, censorship, offended culture,
### Why do you use the word Nigger so much?
To counter its censorship. The more they censor something, the more I am going to uncensor it. They have to learn that the only way to make me not say that word so often is to stop censoring it, so to their action of censorship I produce a reaction they dislike. That's basically how you train a dog.
To counter its censorship. The more they censor something, the more I am going to uncensor it. They have to learn that the only way to make me not say that word so often is to stop censoring it, so to their action of censorship I produce a reaction they dislike. That's basically how you train a dog. (Don't ask who "they" are.).
To ask who "them" is is absolutely stupid.
It also has the nice side effect of making this less likely to be used by corporations.
### How can you say you love all living beings and use offensive language at the same time?
@ -4,20 +4,20 @@ The field of formal languages tries to [mathematically](math.md) and rigorously
A **formal language** is defined as a (potentially infinite) set of strings over some alphabet (which is finite). I.e. a language is a subset of E* where E is a finite alphabet (a set of *letters*). (* is a *Kleene Star* and signifies a set of all possible strings over E). The string belonging to a language may be referred to as a *word* or perhaps even *sentence*, but this word/sentence is actually a whole kind of *text* written in the language, if we think of it in terms of our natural languages.
**For example**, given an alphabet [a,b,c], a possible formal language over it is [a,ab,bc,c]. Another, different possible language over this alphabet is an infinite language [b,ab,aab,aaab,aaaab,...] which we can also write as a*b. We can also see e.g. English as being a formal language equivalent to a set of all texts over the English alphabet (along with symbols like dot, comma etc.) that we would consider to be in English as we speak it.
**For example**, given an alphabet [a,b,c], a possible formal language over it is [a,ab,bc,c]. Another, different possible language over this alphabet is an infinite language [b,ab,aab,aaab,aaaab,...] which we can also write with a [regular expression](regex.md) as a*b. We can also see e.g. English as being a formal language equivalent to a set of all texts over the English alphabet (along with symbols like space, dot, comma etc.) that we would consider to be in English as we speak it.
**What is this all good for?** This mathematical formalization allows us to classify languages and understand their structure, which is necessary e.g. for creating efficient compilers, but also to understand computers as such, their power and limits, as computers can be viewed as machines for processing formal languages. With these tools researches are able to come up with proofs of different properties of languages, which we can exploit. For example, within formal languages, it has been proven that certain languages are uncomputable, i.e. there are some problems which a computer cannot ever solve (typical example is the [halting problem](halting_problem.md)) and so we don't have to waste time on trying to create such algorithms as we will never find any. The knowledge of formal languages can also guide us in designing computer languages: e.g. we know that regular languages are extremely simple to implement and so, if we can, we should prefer our languages to be regular.
**What is this all good for?** This mathematical formalization allows us to classify languages and understand their structure, which is necessary e.g. for creating efficient compilers, but also to understand computers as such, their power and limits, as computers can be viewed as machines for processing formal languages. With these tools researches are able to come up with [proofs](proof.md) of different properties of languages, which we can exploit. For example, within formal languages, it has been proven that certain languages are uncomputable, i.e. there are some problems which a computer cannot ever solve (typical example is the [halting problem](halting_problem.md)) and so we don't have to waste time on trying to create such algorithms as we will never find any. The knowledge of formal languages can also guide us in designing computer languages: e.g. we know that regular languages are extremely simple to implement and so, if we can, we should prefer our languages to be regular.
## Classification
We usually classify formal languages according to the **[Chomsky](chomsky.md) hierarchy**, by their computational "difficulty". Each level of the hierarchy has associated computational models (grammars, automatons, ...) that are able to compute **all** languages of that level (remember that a level of the hierarchy is a superset of the levels below it and so also includes all the "simpler" languages). The hierarchy is more or less as follows:
We usually classify formal languages according to the **[Chomsky](chomsky.md) hierarchy**, by their computational "difficulty". Each level of the hierarchy has associated models of computation ([grammars](grammar.md), [automatons](automaton.md), ...) that are able to compute **all** languages of that level (remember that a level of the hierarchy is a superset of the levels below it and so also includes all the "simpler" languages). The hierarchy is more or less as follows:
- **all languages**: This includes all possible languages, even those that computers cannot analyze (e.g. the language representing the [halting problem](halting_problem.md)). These languages can only be computed by theoretical computers that cannot physically exist in our universe.
- **type 0**, **recursively enumerable languages**: Most "difficult"/general languages that computers in our universe can analyze. These languages can be computed e.g. by a **[Turing machine](turing_machine.md)**, [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md) or a general unrestricted [grammar](grammar.md). Example language: all strings encoding a [Game of Life](game_of_life.md) run which ends in finite time. { At least I think :) ~drummyfish }
- **type 1**, **context sensitive languages**: Computed e.g. by a linearly bounded non-deterministic Turing machine or a context sensitive grammars. Example language: a^(n)b^(n)c^(n), n >= 0 (strings of *n* *a*s, followed by *n* *b*s, followed by *n* *c*s).
- **type 2**, **context free languages**: Computed by e.g. non-deterministic pushdown automata or context free grammars. (Deterministic pushdown automata compute a class of languages that is between type 2 and type 3).
- **type 3**, **regular languages**: The *easiest*, *weakest* kind of languages, computed e.g. by [finite state automata](finite_state_automaton.md)s or [regular expressions](regexp.md).
- **type 3**, **regular languages**: The *easiest*, *weakest* kind of languages, computed e.g. by [finite state automata](finite_state_automaton.md)s or [regular expressions](regexp.md). This class includes also all finite languages.
Note that here we are basically always examinig **infinite languages** as finite languages are trivial. If a language is finite (i.e. the set of all strings of the language is finite), it can automatically be computed by any type 3 computational model. In [real life](irl.md) computers are actually always equivalent to a finite state automaton, i.e. the *weakest* computational type (because a computer memory is always finite and so there is always a finite number of states a computer can be in). However this doesn't mean there is no point in studying infinite languages, of course, as we're still interested in the structure, computational methods and approximating the infinite computational models.
Note that here we are basically always examining **infinite languages** as finite languages are trivial. If a language is finite (i.e. the set of all strings of the language is finite), it can automatically be computed by any type 3 computational model. In [real life](irl.md) computers are actually always equivalent to a finite state automaton, i.e. the *weakest* computational type (because a computer memory is always finite and so there is always a finite number of states a computer can be in). However this doesn't mean there is no point in studying infinite languages, of course, as we're still interested in the structure, computational methods and approximating the infinite models of computation.
**NOTE**: When trying to classify a [programming language](programming_language.md), we have to be careful about what we classify: one things is what a program written in given language can compute, and another thing is the language's [syntax](syntax.md). To the former all strict general-purpose programming languages such as [C](c.md) or [JavaScript](javascript.md) are type 0 ([Turing complete](turing_complete.md)). From the syntax point of view it's a bit more complicated and we need to further define what exactly a syntax is (where is the line between syntax and semantic errors): it may be happen that syntactically the class will be lower.
**NOTE**: When trying to classify a [programming language](programming_language.md), we have to be careful about what we classify: one things is what a program written in given language can compute, and another thing is the language's [syntax](syntax.md). To the former all strict general-purpose programming languages such as [C](c.md) or [JavaScript](javascript.md) are type 0 ([Turing complete](turing_complete.md)). From the syntax point of view it's a bit more complicated and we need to further define what exactly a syntax is (where is the line between syntax and semantic errors): it may be (and often is) that syntactically the class will be lower. There is actually a famous [meme](meme.md) about [Perl](perl.md) syntax being undecidable.
@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Fractals can of course also exist in 3 and more dimensions so we can have also h
## Fractals In Tech
Computers are good for exploring and rendering fractals as they can repeat given rule millions of times in a very short time. Programming fractals is quite easy thanks to their simple rules, yet this can highly impress noobs.
[Computers](computer.md) are good for exploring and rendering fractals as they can repeat given rule millions of times in a very short time. Programming fractals is quite easy thanks to their simple rules, yet this can highly impress noobs.
3D fractals can be rendered with [ray marching](ray_marching.md) and so called *distance estimation*. This works similarly to classic [ray tracing](ray_tracing.md) but the rays are traced iteratively: we step along the ray and at each step use an estimate of the current point to the surface of the fractal; once we are "close enough" (below some specified threshold), we declare a hit and proceed as in normal ray tracing (we can render shadows, apply materials etc.). The distance estimate is done by some clever math.
@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ Expert computer users normally frown upon GUI because it is the "noobish", ineff
GUIs mostly use [callback](callback.md)-based programming, which again is more complicated than standard polling non-interactive I/O.
## How And When To Say Yes To GUI
## When And How To Do GUI
GUI is not forbidden, it has its place, but today it's way too overused -- it should be used only if completely necessary (e.g. in a painting program) or as a completely optional thing build upon a more [suckless](suckless.md) text interface or [API](api.md). So remember: first create a program working without GUI and only then consider creating an optional GUI [frontend](frontend.md).
GUI is not forbidden, it has its place, but today it's way too overused -- it should be used only if completely necessary (e.g. in a painting program) or as a completely optional thing build upon a more [suckless](suckless.md) text interface or [API](api.md). So remember: first create a program and/or a [library](library.md) working without GUI and only then consider creating an optional GUI [frontend](frontend.md). GUI must never be tied to whatever functionality can be implemented without it.
Still, when making a GUI, you can make it [suckless](suckless.md) and lighthweight. Do your buttons need to have reflections, soft shadows and rounded anti-aliased borders? No. Do your windows need to be transparent with light-refraction simulation? No. Do you need to introduce many MB of dependencies and pain such as [QT](qt.md)? No.
@ -18,4 +18,4 @@ The ergonomics and aesthetic design of GUIs has its own field and can't be cover
- Things must be intuitive, i.e. behave in a way that they normally do (e.g. main menu should be at the top of the window, not the bottom etc.).
- Just use your brain. If a button is important and often used, it should probably be bigger than a button that's used almost never, etc.
The million dollar question is: **which GUI framework to use?** Ideally none. GUI is just pixels, buttons are just rectangles; make your GUI simple enough so that you don't need any shitty abstraction such as widget hierarchies etc. If you absolutely need some framework, look for a suckless one; e.g. [nuklear](nuklear.md) is worth checking out.
The million dollar question is: **which GUI framework to use?** Ideally none. GUI is just pixels, buttons are just rectangles; make your GUI simple enough so that you don't need any shitty abstraction such as widget hierarchies etc. If you absolutely need some framework, look for a suckless one; e.g. [nuklear](nuklear.md) is worth checking out. The suckless community sometimes uses pure [X11](x11.md), however that's not ideal, X11 itself is kind of bloated and it's also getting obsoleted by [Wayland](wayland.md). The ideal solution is to make your GUI **backend agnostic**, i.e. create your own very thin abstraction layer above the backend (e.g. X11) so that any other backend can be plugged in if needed just by rewriting a few simple functions of your abstraction layer (see how e.g. [Anarch](anarch.md) does rendering).
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Holy war is a perpetual passionate argument over usually two possible choices. T
- **[window managers](wm.md)**
- **[Metric](metric_system.md) vs [Imperial](imperial_units.md) units** (metric)
- **Star Trek vs Star Wars**, and other franchise wars
- **Pepsi vs Cola**, and other brand wars
- **Pepsi vs Coca Cola**, and other brand wars
- **[Quake](quake.md) vs Unreal Tournament**, and similar gaming shit
Things like cats vs dogs or sci-fi vs fantasy may or may not be a holy war, there is a bit of doubt in the fact that one can easily like both and/or not be such a diehard fan of or the other. A subject of holy war probably has to be something that doesn't allow too much of this.
Things like cats vs dogs or sci-fi vs fantasy may or may not be a holy war, there is a bit of a doubt in the fact that one can easily like both and/or not be such a diehard fan of one or the other. A subject of holy war probably has to be something that doesn't allow too much of this.
In [mathematics](math.md) linear algebra is an extension of the classical elemental algebra ("operations with numbers/variables") to [vectors](vector.md) and [matrices](matrix.md). It is a basic tool of advanced mathematics and [computer science](computer_science.md) and at least at the very basic level should be known by every [programmer](programmer.md).
In [mathematics](math.md) linear algebra is an extension of the classical elemental algebra ("operations with numbers/variables") to [vectors](vector.md) and [matrices](matrix.md) ("arrays of numbers"). It is a basic tool of advanced mathematics and [computer science](computer_science.md) (and many other sciences) and at least at the very basic level should be known by every [programmer](programmer.md).
Why is it called *linear* algebra? Basically because it deals with [linear equations](linear.md) which is kind of about proportionality, function plots being lines etc. A mathematician will probably puke at this explanation but it gives some intuition :)
## The Basics
In "normal" algebra our basic elements are [numbers](number.md); we learn to to add then, multiply then, solve equation with them etc. In linear algebra our elements are [vectors](vector.md) and [matrices](matrix.md) and we learn to perform similar operations with them, even though they sometimes behave a bit different.
In "normal" algebra our basic elements are [numbers](number.md); we learn to add then, multiply then, solve equation with them etc. In linear algebra we call these "single numbers" [scalars](scalar.md) but also add more complex elements: [vectors](vector.md) and [matrices](matrix.md) and we learn to perform similar operations with them, even though they sometimes behave a bit differently.
Vectors are basically sequences ([arrays](array.md)) of numbers, e.g. a vector of length 3 may be [1.5, 0, -302]. A matrix can be seen as a [two dimensional](2d.md) vector (a 2D array of numbers), e.g. a 2x3 matrix may look like this:
@ -13,6 +15,6 @@ Vectors are basically sequences ([arrays](array.md)) of numbers, e.g. a vector o
|24 -3 0 |
```
Why work with vectors and matrices? Because these can represent certain things we encounter in math and programming better than numbers, e.g. vectors may represent points in space and matrices may represent transformations.
Why work with vectors and matrices? Because these can represent certain things we encounter in math and programming better than numbers, e.g. vectors may represent points in space or velocities with directions and matrices may represent transformations.
With vectors and matrices we can perform similar operations as with normal numbers, i.e. addition, subtraction, multiplication, but there are also new operations and some operations may behave differently. E.g. vectors have two kinds of "multiplication": [dot product](dot_product.md) and [vector product](vector_product.md), and matrix multiplication is non-[commutative](commutativity.md). We can also solve equations with vectors and matrices.
With vectors and matrices we can perform similar operations as with "normal numbers", i.e. addition, subtraction, multiplication, but there are also new operations and some operations may behave differently. E.g. when dealing with vectors, there are multiple ways to "multiply" them: we may multiply a vector with a scalar but also a vector with vector (and there are multiple way to do this such as [dot product](dot_product.md) and [cross product](cross_product.md)). Matrix multiplication is, unlike multiplication of real numbers, non-[commutative](commutativity.md) (A times B doesn't necessarily equal B times A), but its still [distributive](distributivity.md). We can also multiply vectors with matrices but only those that have "compatible sizes". And we can also solve equations and systems of equations which have vectors and matrices in them.
NPC (non-player character) is a character in a video [game](game.md) that's not controlled by a player but rather by [AI](ai.md). NPC is also used as a term for people in [real life](irl.md) that exhibit low intelligence and just behave in accordance with the system.
Physics engine is a [software](software.md) (usually a [library](library.md)) whose purpose is to simulate physical laws of mechanics, i.e. things such as forces, [rigid](rigid_body.md) and [soft](soft_body.md) body collisions, particle motion, fluid dynamics etc.
{ When it comes to classic 3D rigid body physics engines, they're extremely hard to make, much more than for example an advanced 3D rendering engine, especially when you want to make them [LRS](lrs.md) (without floating point, ...) and/or general and somewhat physically correct (being able to simulate e.g. the Dzhanibekov effect, satisfying all the conservation laws, continuous collision detection etc.). Good knowledge of mechanics and things like [quaternions](quaternion.md) and 3D rotations is just the beginning, difficulties arise in every aspect of the engine, and of those there are many. As I've found, 32 bit fixed point is not enough for a general engine (even though it is enough for a rendering engine), you'll run into precision problems as you need to represent both relatively high and low energies. You'll also run into stability issues such as stable contacts, situations with multiple objects stacked on top of each other starting to bounce on their own etc. Even things such as deciding in what order to resolve collisions are very difficult, they can lead to many bugs such as a car not being able to drive on a straight road made of several segments. Collision detection alone for all combinations of basic shapes (sphere, cuboid, cylinder, capsule, ... let alone general triangle mesh) are hard as you want to detect general cases (not only e.g. surface collisions) and you want to extract all the parameters of the collisions (collision point, normal etc.) AND you want to make it fast. And of course you'll want to add acceleration structures and many other thing on top. So think twice before deciding to write your own physics engine.
A sane approach may be to write a simplified engine specifically for your program, e.g. many times you get away with creating an engine that doesn't work with rigid bodies but some simple meshes made of spheres connected by springs. That's super simple, doable and probably [good enough](good_enough.md). ~drummyfish }
Physics engine is a wide term even though one usually imagines the traditional 3D rigid body engine used in games such as [GTA](gta.md). These engines may nevertheless have different purposes, features and even basic paradigms, some may e.g. be specialized just for computing precise ballistic trajectories for the army, some may serve for simulating weather etc. Some common classifications and possible characteristics of physics engines follow:
- **[2D](2d.md) vs [3D](3d.md)**: 2D engines are generally much more simple to implement than 3D, for example because of much more simple math for rotations and collision detections.
- **[real time](real_time.md) vs [offline](offline.md)**: Real-time ones are mostly intended to be used in the entertainment industry, i.e. [games](game.md), movies etc. as they can compute somewhat realistic looking results quickly but for the price of dropping high accuracy (they use many [approximations](approximation.md)). Scientific engines may prefer to be offline and taking longer time to compute more precise results.
- **[rigid body](rigid_body.md) vs [soft body](soft_body.md)**: Rigid body engines don't allow bodies to deform while soft body ones do -- in real life all bodies are soft, but neglecting this detail and considering shapes rigid can have benefits (such as being able to consider the body as a whole and not having to simulate all its individual points). Of course, a complex engine may implement both rigid and soft body physics.
- **paradigm**: The basic approach to implementing the simulation, e.g. being [impulse](impulse.md)-based (applying impulses to correct errors), constraint-based (solving equations to satisfy imposed constraints), penalty-based (trying to find equilibriums of forces) etc.
- **[discrete](discrete.md) vs [continuous](continuous.md) collision detection**: Discrete collision detection only detects collisions at single points in time (at each engine tick) and are simple than those implementing continuous collision detection. Discrete engine are less accurate, consider e.g. that a very fast moving object can pass through a wall because at one instant it is in front of it while at the next tick it is behind it. Continuous collisions won't allow this to happen, but are more difficult to program, may be slower etc. For games discrete collisions are usually [good enough](good_enough.md).
- **features: fluid, cloth, particles, [ragdoll](ragdoll.md), [inverse kinematics](inverse_kinematics.md), [GPU](gpu.md) acceleration, [determinism](determinism.md), [voxels](voxel.md), ...**: These are a number of additional features the engine can have such as the ability to simulate fluids (which itself is a huge field of its own) or cloths.
A typical physics engine will work something like this: we create a so called **physics world**, a [data structure](data_structure.md) that represents the space in which the simulation takes place (it is similar to a [scene](scene.md) in rendering engines). We then populate this world with physics elements such as rigid bodies (which can have attributes such as mass, elasticity etc.). These bodies are normally basic geometric shapes such as spheres, cylinders, boxes or capsules, or objects composed of several such basic shapes. This is unlike with rendering engines in which we normally have triangle meshes -- in physics engines triangle meshes are extremely slow to process, so for the sake of a physics engine we approximate this mesh with some of the above basic shapes (for example a creature in a game that's rendered as a hi-poly 3D model may in the physics engine be something as simple as a plain sphere). Furthermore the bodies can be **[static](static.md)** (cannot move, this is sometimes done by setting the mass to infinity) or **[dynamic](dynamic.md)** (can move); static bodies normally represent the environment (e.g. the game level), dynamic ones the entities in it (player, NPCs, projectiles, ...). Making a body static has performance benefits as its movement doesn't have to be calculated and the engine can also precalculate some things for it that will make e.g. collision detections faster. We then simulate the physics of the world in so called *ticks* (similar to [frames](frame.md) in rendering); in simple cases one tick can be equivalent to one rendering frame, but properly it shouldn't be so (physics shouldn't be affected by the rendering speed, and also for the physics simulation we can usually get away with smaller "[FPS](fps.md)" than for rendering, saving some performance). Usually one tick has set some constant time length (e.g. 1/60th of a second). In each tick the engine performs a **collision detection**, i.e. it finds out which bodies are touching or penetrating other bodies (this is accelerated with things such as [bounding spheres](bounding_sphere.md)). Then it performs so called **collision resolution**, i.e. updating the positions, velocities and forces so that the bodies no longer collide and react to these collisions as they would in the real world (e.g. a ball will bounce after hitting the floor). There can be many more things, for example **constraints**: we may e.g. say that one body must never get further away from another body than 10 meters (imagine it's tied to it by a rope) and the engine will try to make it so that this always holds. The engine will also offer a number of other functions such as casting rays and calculating where it hits (obviously useful for shooter games).
## Existing Engines
One of the best and most famous [FOSS](foss.md) 3D physics engines is [Bullet](bullet_physics.md) ([zlib](zlib.md) license), it has many features (rigid and soft bodies, GPU acceleration, constraints, ...) and has been used in many projects ([Blender](blender.md), [Godot](godot.md), ...). [Box2D](box2d.md) is a famous 2D physics engine under [MIT](mit.md) license, written in [C++](cpp.md).
Productivity cult is one of [modern](modern.md) [capitalist](capitalism.md) religions which praises human productivity above everything, even happiness, well being, sanity etc. Kids nowadays are all about "how to be more productive", they make daily checklists, analyze tables of their weekly performance, give up sleep to study some useless shit required by the current market fluctuation. Productivity cult is all about voluntarily making oneself a slave to the system.
Productivity cult is one of [modern](modern.md) [capitalist](capitalism.md) religions which praises human productivity above everything, even happiness, well being, sanity etc. Kids nowadays are all about "how to be more productive", they make daily checklists, analyze tables of their weekly performance, give up sleep to study some useless shit required by the current market fluctuation. Productivity cult is all about voluntarily making oneself a robot, a slave to the system.
The name of the cult itself [says a lot about it](name_is_important.md). While a name such as *efficiency* would probably be better, as efficiency means doing less work with the same result and therefore being happier, it is not a surprise that capitalism has chosen the word *productivity*, i.e. producing more which means working more, e.g. for the prize of free time and mental health.
Productivity is such a big deal because **programmers are in fact actually getting exponentially less productive** due to overcomplicated buggy [bloat](bloat.md) and billions of frameworks needed to get basic thing done nowadays -- this has been pointed out by [Jonathan Blow](jonathan_blow.md) in his talk *Preventing the Collapse of Civilization* in which he refers to the video of [Ken Thompson](ken_thompson.md) talking about how he developed the [Unix](unix.md) operating system in **three weeks**.
Productivity is such a big deal because **programmers are in fact actually getting exponentially less productive** due to overcomplicated buggy [bloat](bloat.md) and billions of frameworks needed to get basic thing done nowadays -- this has been pointed out by [Jonathan Blow](jonathan_blow.md) in his talk *Preventing the Collapse of Civilization* in which he refers to the video of [Ken Thompson](ken_thompson.md) talking about how he developed the [Unix](unix.md) operating system in **three weeks**.
A considerable number of people are attracted to [suckless](suckless.md) software due to its positive effects on productivity. These are mostly idiots who just try to exploit anything they encounter for [self interest](self_interest.md) without ever aiming for greater good, they don't care about Unix philosophy beyond its effects on increasing their salary. Beware of them, they poison the community.
LOL this idiot tries to take some kind of ownership of ideas in a video called *14 science fiction stories in under 6 minutes* (iQGl-ffVtaM), he just comes up with story ideas and says people have to have his permission for commercial use, even though it's probably not legally possible to own ideas like this. Fucking fascist. Do not support.
@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ A woman (also femoid or succubus) is one of two genders of humans, the other one
Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as [chess](chess.md). Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (Just as of this moment in the FIDE database there are 19 living male players rated better than the best woman ever was; also none of them is [black](nigger.md), only one is Indian). Of course one might argue that worse performance of women in chess is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there is fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. This may be partially true even though genetic factors seem at least equally important and it may equally be true that not so many women play chess simply because they're not naturally good at it; nevertheless the fact that women are generally worse at chess than men stands, regardless of its cause.
But of course there exist exceptions, even though rare. The issue is women are very often involved with a cult such as the feminists who waste their effort on fighting men instead of focusing on study and creation of real technology, and on actually loving it. They don't see technology as a beautiful field of art and science, they see it as a battlefield, a political tool to be weaponized to achieve social status, revenge on society etc. They can't understand the pure joy of [programming](programming.md), the love of creation for its own sake, they think more in terms of "learning to code will get me new followers on social networks" etc. You will never find a basement dweller programmer of female gender, a hacker who is happy existing in a world of his own programs without the need for approval or external reward, a woman will never be able to understand this.
But of course there exist exceptions, even though rare. The issue is women are very often involved with a cult such as the feminists who waste their effort on fighting men instead of focusing on study and creation of real technology, and on actually loving it. They don't see technology as a beautiful field of art and science, they see it as a battlefield, a political tool to be weaponized to achieve social status, revenge on society etc. They can't understand the pure joy of [programming](programming.md), the love of creation for its own sake, they think more in terms of "learning to code will get me new followers on social networks" etc. You will never find a basement dweller programmer or [demoscene](demoscene.md) programmer of female gender, a hacker who is happy existing in a world of his own programs without the need for approval or external reward, a woman will never be able to understand this.
# Women in Tech
# Women In Tech
Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of [modern](modern.md) tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was [Elizabeth Holmes](elizabeth_holmes.md) who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. [Grace Hopper](grace_hopper) (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages. [Ada Lovelace](ada_lovelace.md) cited by the feminist propaganda as "the first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, probably more on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such [cancer](cancer.md) as [COCs](coc.md) and are not even worth mentioning.
Miloslav Ciz
2 years ago