|
Xik posted:Does mock in the filename indicate that these were just mocks being used for tests or does it mean something else in the context of vulcan? I haven’t seen the spec, but putting a numbered footnote reference on another number seems ill-advised.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Zopotantor posted:I haven’t seen the spec, but putting a numbered footnote reference on another number seems ill-advised. Yep. https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.1-extensions/pdf/vkspec.pdf page 1425:  One of these is in fact an exponent... And no, footnote 8 isn't on this page.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Yep. https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.1-extensions/pdf/vkspec.pdf page 1425: wow
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
bahahaha that’s amazing I simultaneously feel bad for everyone involved and also how did nobody stop to ask?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Yep. https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.1-extensions/pdf/vkspec.pdf page 1425: Oh wow. I was gonna say before, if those xors were supposed to be exponents, surely they should change the values? Replacing 128^2 with 128 seems like its missing the intent, shouldn't it be 16384? (Which made me wonder, if you did 128 * 128 the compiler would pre-compute the value, but if you did like Math.Pow() would it be smart enough? Its a static method...) Buuuuut this explains it. They were never even intended to be exponents at all, they're goddamn footnotes. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Yep. https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.1-extensions/pdf/vkspec.pdf page 1425:  ok I retract my "how to read a spec" comment, because that is really dumb and open to misinterpretation. But c'mon it's definitely not common for ^ to be the exponent operator and you'd expect a dev tasked with implementing a new graphics api from spec to know the language they are writing it in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
Sooo, did they also fix the spec to not be stupidly confusing? Or just the code?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 09:47
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Yep. https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.1-extensions/pdf/vkspec.pdf page 1425: There are so many other ways to signify footnotes. Idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Yep. https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.1-extensions/pdf/vkspec.pdf page 1425: It helps a little bit that there is a space in front of the footnote superscripts and not in front of the exponent superscript, but in general that's pretty loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Oh wow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:do do Coding Horrors: do do
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
It should be pretty obvious that you don't really need to support zillions of instances of some resource at a time when the number is bigger than the actual memory space and you're limited to something like sixteen of them per stage anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:128^2 isn't an exponent either, despite being a reasonable number. The 2^31 is (that one is above the diff and is typed out as 2147483648). Did you seriously not read the second line of my comment where I said "they were never intended to be exponents at all" ??????? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
No, it's not 2 the power of 31, it's just 2, as is clearly explained in footnote #31.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
qntm posted:No, it's not 2 the power of 31, it's just 2, as is clearly explained in footnote #31. No, the number 31 is in fact a footnote and is not an exponent
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:No, the number 31 is in fact a footnote and is not an exponent There's no footnote 31 so the only rational explanation is that it's an exponent of 3 and footnote 1 applies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:Stack Overflow is melting down because they published a new code of conduct that has some stuff in it about pronouns and loads of people caught a case of the "what-ifs". I guess that's inevitable when you have a community that's so obsessed with petty rules-enforcement and process though. I was following this a bit as it unfolded. Basic timeline of events: - SE unveils a new "pronoun friendly" CoC for moderators to review/comment on. - Very well-regarded moderator asks some questions trying to clarify it ("What if I avoid the pronoun minefield altogether by referring to people by their username?", etc). She is told that not stepping into the pronoun minefield is, in itself, harassment and is abruptly fired, immediately before she leaves for an religious holiday. - Entire community goes loving nuts, mass mod resignations, very poor response from SE. It's all very silly. SE has a habit of being overreactionary and not trusting their community moderators, though, so this isn't a surprise. They pulled an entire site off of their "Hot Network Questions" sidebar after someone on Twitter threw a fit because there was a question that popped up there, about something that could vaguely be construed as offensive if you're actively looking for very minor things to be offended about. I forget the question, but I think it was something like "I got caught masturbating at work, is this sexual harrassment?"  The kicker is that this happened after months of the community talking about the potential problem with the HNQ sidebar and offering solutions (including removing the site from the sidebar!) and getting no response or action. [edit] Stack Overflow has in general gotten bafflingly touchy lately. I had a comment removed for being "mean" because I commented "Did you try Googling before you asked this? The first result for <the exact question title text> gives you this result that perfectly answers your question: <URL>". Telling people who are asking questions that are clearly answered in easily-discoverable documentation that they should try looking for the easily-discoverable documentation doesn't seem mean. Unless it's mean because it's implying that they're stupid for not knowing how to use Google... but, well... New Yorp New Yorp fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Oct 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:I was following this a bit as it unfolded. Ignoring everything except your last edit, you could have very easily given the same by answer by saying, "Here's a useful link" without the "learn to google" snark. You might have been considered less of an rear end in a top hat that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:There's no footnote 31 so the only rational explanation is that it's an exponent of 3 and footnote 1 applies. I wish there was a footnote 31 that said that it was 2 to the power of 31.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
DaTroof posted:Ignoring everything except your last edit, you could have very easily given the same by answer by saying, "Here's a useful link" without the "learn to google" snark. You might have been considered less of an rear end in a top hat that way. A useful lmgtfy link of course
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:I was following this a bit as it unfolded. That *is* harassment. Explicitly only using someone's username when you'd otherwise normally just use a pronoun is specifically othering them in a way that can be quite dehumanizing. A moderator of a community trying to be inclusive should be mature enough to either ask for people's pronouns or default to the singular "they". It's not hard and anyone acting like it is is not being honest about their motives
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
I haven't been following it closely but I think that is what the moderator in question was asking about - whether she could use username or 'they' as she was used to writing that way already or whether she had to use xir or what have you. I don't think there was an implication that English would get mangled to completely avoid pronouns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
jit bull transpile posted:That *is* harassment. Explicitly only using someone's username when you'd otherwise normally just use a pronoun is specifically othering them in a way that can be quite dehumanizing. Is this true if you don't use pronouns for anyone, and always refer to everyone by their username regardless of their choice of pronouns? That's a legit question, I'm actually unsure. For sure your average cis male is not going to feel harassed if you refer to them by their username instead of "he", but your average cis male also doesn't have to deal with people misgendering them all the time, so I can see how that different context might change things. (Regardless, I really really don't think that asking whether or not that's okay is a fireable offense, which is what seems to have happened).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
Why wasn't the coc update rolled out with a patch that shows preferred pronoun in that user box with their rep if they're going to police that poo poo so hard....
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:I wish there was a footnote 31 that said that it was 2 to the power of 31. The value is: 231 31 The value is 2. The "31" is a footnote mark referencing this footnote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 11:19
|
|
|
Xik posted:Why wasn't the coc update rolled out with a patch that shows preferred pronoun in that user box with their rep if they're going to police that poo poo so hard.... Also, how often are the usage of pronouns on a Q&A site anyway that just using a blanket they / @username isn't acceptable? SE the company though is bizarrely terrible at running a community and interacting its own moderators on super simple black-and-white stuff. For example, see the just blanket re-license of all content under CC-BY-SA04 retroactively with no follow-up interaction on if that was even legal in early September. They routinely make bad decisions that it's a miracle SE the site is as popular as it is. Master_Odin fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Oct 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
Master_Odin posted:Or a patch to set preferred pronoun anywhere on the site even. It's baffling because you hardly ever need to refer to people (at least, the person you're responding to) in the 3rd person when answering a question. Questions are asked in the form "I have this problem, what should I do about it?" (first person) and answered in the form "You can do X, Y and Z to solve your problem" (second person). But there's all these people working themselves up into a tizzy about "what if someone wants to be referred to as xir" or whatever and 1. that doesn't happen. Not really, not enough to worry about. I mean yes there are people who adopt those silly invented pronouns instead of conventional ones but there are so few of them that you're never actually going to find one in the wild. No one at Stack Overflow seems to be able to apply the principle of "let's cross that bridge when we come to it", or to put it in terms they might prefer, "you ain't gonna need it" 2. in the extraordinarily rare occasion you actually find one of those people and somehow are compelled to refer to them in a context where only a pronoun would be natural, just roll your eyes and type their stupid made-up pronoun in the text box. It's not going to cause you physical pain. 3. if you really hate it so much you can just structure what you say so that you don't need to use the pronoun but what you're saying still sounds perfectly natural. If you have the minimum of skill in phrasing what you say (which you should probably have in order to be effective communicating over a text-based medium) then that's easy. How is anybody on the moderation staff going to know that's what you're doing? They're not, it's a non-issue. In the same vein, you could just not answer the question or respond to their comment or whatever, and that's not something anyone can take action against you for, because no-one is going to know your reasons for disappearing from an online conversation or not entering it in the first place. In summary, none of it matters, all of these issues can be solved by just behaving like an adult, Stack Overflow people are bafflingly stupid for getting this upset about it, and I'm also just as bad for writing this post getting upset at them getting upset about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 11:48
|
|
|
jit bull transpile posted:That *is* harassment. Explicitly only using someone's username when you'd otherwise normally just use a pronoun is specifically othering them in a way that can be quite dehumanizing. A moderator of a community trying to be inclusive should be mature enough to either ask for people's pronouns or default to the singular "they" (emphasis added). It's not hard and anyone acting like it is is not being honest about their motives But that's the whole point. The mod who got fired apparently is a professional technical writer of some sort, so they spends all of their time writing in the third person, and when responding to someone while referring to someone else either refers to the third person by name or refers to 'their' comment or 'their' answer, rather than 'his' or 'hers'. It is 100% perfectly grammatically correct, and even politically correct to refer to someone in the third person in a gender-neutral fashion by referring to them by name or by 'they' or 'their'. If you're a 'he' who gets upset by being referred to as 'she', then that's fine and understandable if someone continuously refers to you as 'she' even after you've made your preferred pronoun known. But if you're referred to as 'they', it's not at all dehumanizing unless you are the only person referred to as 'they' by this particular mod, which doesn't appear to be the case. This is not about referring to everyone else as 'he/she' but picking on some people with preferred pronouns as 'they'. It's about referring to everyone as 'they' indiscriminately. Also, from what little I've read, the mod was fired by Stack Exchange because they were asking for clarification about the policy and whether they would be violating it by always using gender-neutral third-person pronouns, or if they'd be forced to refer to people by their preferred pronoun. It doesn't appear to be in response to a specific event or complaint. And this entire post was written without referring to the mod in question as a 'she', but it's grammatically correct, and not at all dehumanizing to her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
It is telling that so many Stack Overflow users' response to this code of conduct is not "does this affect anything I do or that I was going to do? no? ok" but rather "how do I interpret this code of conduct as officiously as I possibly can"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:It is telling that so many Stack Overflow users' response to this code of conduct is not "does this affect anything I do or that I was going to do? no? ok" but rather "how do I interpret this code of conduct as officiously as I possibly can" It tells that Stack Overflow people are like most people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
beuges posted:But that's the whole point. The mod who got fired apparently is a professional technical writer of some sort, so they spends all of their time writing in the third person, and when responding to someone while referring to someone else either refers to the third person by name or refers to 'their' comment or 'their' answer, rather than 'his' or 'hers'. It is 100% perfectly grammatically correct, and even politically correct to refer to someone in the third person in a gender-neutral fashion by referring to them by name or by 'they' or 'their'. That's not quite what happened: the moderator in question refuses to use singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun (supposedly calling the idea "nauseating" at one time), and would rather not use pronouns at all. She asked if the rule that says "you must use people's preferred pronouns" applies when you are not using pronouns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
DaTroof posted:Ignoring everything except your last edit, you could have very easily given the same by answer by saying, "Here's a useful link" without the "learn to google" snark. You might have been considered less of an rear end in a top hat that way. It is extremely common for the SO question itself to become the top result when you Google that question. When this happens, if the answer to the question is "you should have Googled it", the answer is now wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Master_Odin posted:SE the company though is bizarrely terrible at running a community and interacting its own moderators on super simple black-and-white stuff. Not surprising at all seeing how its cofounder acted when coming to e.g. SA to "solicit advice" on how to run a community. Bad ideas and no willingness to reconsider. I believe that said cofounder has moved on, but I assume they left their mark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
jef fatwood of snack overflow
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Ola posted:It tells that Stack Overflow people are like most people. You got that right ShimaTetsuo posted:That's not quite what happened: the moderator in question refuses to use singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun (supposedly calling the idea "nauseating" at one time), and would rather not use pronouns at all. She asked if the rule that says "you must use people's preferred pronouns" applies when you are not using pronouns. Lmao, gonna go all Spartacus to avoid having to learn people's pronouns. Code buggy! Take curly brace from function!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Not surprising at all seeing how its cofounder acted when coming to e.g. SA to "solicit advice" on how to run a community. Is this actually a thing that happened? Which idiot cofounder was it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
NtotheTC posted:Is this actually a thing that happened? Which idiot cofounder was it? Yes, it was Jeff Atwood. It's in the archives somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
I think you can just google Jeff Atwood something awful to find it
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
I remember that thread. It was back when Atwood was making the Discourse forum software, and for some reason he was very interested in input from SA forum users. IIRC it turned into a very unproductive debate about the merits of gamification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:49
|
|
