really flashy guns and there is a very intricate damage system that runs at least partially on the GPU.

Short opinion: no, CPU's can do that fine (possibly better) and it's a tiny corner of game logic.

Long opinion: Intersecting projectile paths with geometry will not gain advantages being moved from CPU to GPU unless you're dealing with a ridiculous amount of projectiles every single frame. In most games this is less than 1% of CPU time and moving it to the GPU will probably reduce overall performance due to the latency costs (...but a lot of modern engines already have awful frame latency, so it might fit right in fine).

You would only do this if you have been told by higher ups that you have to OR if you have a really unusual and new game design (thousands of new projectile paths every frame? ie hundreds of thousands of bullets per second). Even detailed multi-layer enemy models with vital components is just a few extra traces, using a GPU to calc that would make the job harder for the engine dev for no gain.

Fun answer: checkout CNlohr's noeuclid. Sadly no windows build (I tried cross compiling but ended up in dependency hell), but still compiles and runs under Linux. Physics are on the GPU and world geometry is very non-traditional. https://github.com/cnlohr/noeuclid

Supply-side Jesus (short animation) is a brilliant take on trickle-down economics and circular arguments about why the successful are successful and the poor are poor.

"Tax cuts will double our revenues and ensure that the empire never declines or falls!"

"Should you feed the lepers, Supply side Jesus?"
"No Thomas, that would just make them lazy."
"Then shouldn't you at least heal them Supply Side Jesus?"
"No James, leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing the lepers there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy"

I thought my monitor was broken -- the grey it tends to show looks like an LCD from a bad angle. If it were not for this Lemmy post then I'd never know it was a feature, not a bug.

It's much easier to watch with it off (it's really distracting). Settings icon (where you find video quality) -> Ambient Mode.

Have they tested this lignin+resin against a control of just resin? Does the lignin reinforcement add much in the way of advantages?

At the end of the day it's more resin than wood, so I think "transparent wood" is misleading. It's wood-reinforced resin.

As well as everyone else's answer here about bias power: it could also just be because a 3-pin TRS are cheaper/easier to buy and get assembly tooling for than 2-pin TRS. Economies of scale.

(For a good example of this: 3-axis accelerometers are cheaper than 1-axis and 2-axis ones. Everyone wants 3-axis for mobile phones, drones, human inputs and the like. You're better off buying a 3-axis chip and ignoring the extra channels)

Projects that attempt to put things in the road tend to fail to be economical or practical. It's almost always better putting the same (or less) investment into something equivalent that sits next to the road rather than inside it.

The key features of roads that make them so economically successful are:

1. They are very cheap per km to build
2. They are very cheap to maintain (they're fully recyclable, they get remelted during resurfacing).

Installing anything in the road surface completely voids these two points.

Detailed problems:

• You will need a pickup device on the bottom of your car. To make it efficient you will need it as close to the road surface as possible.
• Roads are dirty and covered in debris. Your pickup device will get torn and worn.
• You will need a LOT of road installed with this, which makes it intrinsically much more expensive than roadside chargers. 10 mins of charging at a standstill requires one charger, 10 mins of charging at 40kmph is about 7km of underroad chargers. Intersections might do better, but they're intermittent and provide unreliable charging opportunities. Even 1km (6kmph*10min) is silly expensive compared to a cluster of roadside chargers.
• The charging coils underneath the road will need to be as close to the road surface as possible (to make it efficient).
• Worn or buckled (from truck braking) road surfaces will require specialised work and extended road shutdowns to repair.
• You can't ignore this costly maintenance: exposed electronics (even if isolated) will have inconsistent traction and may damage tires.
• Under-road assets such as communication wires (even just for traffic lights, let alone internet infrastructure), power cables (11kV and up), water, sewage, stormwater and gas will be much more expensive, slow and complicated to install and maintain. More and longer road shutdowns will result.

The fundamental, core problem of all of these "put solar panels in roads" or "put chargers in roads" projects is that they are romantically and narratively attractive. Roads are ugly wasted space, but if we could put them to better use then wouldn't it be magic? Sadly this never works. Roads are ugly and wastes of space because nothing else works as well for transport infrastructure (other than railways).

Gah English.

"My sketches" as in "me using the AI software to draw pictures". It's not my podcast, I was trying to guess at what the presenters looked like based off the topics they discuss.

Absolutely gorgeous article.

I had no idea our sushi rolls and banh mi were so divergent. How long until "Australian Banh Mi" is a thing overseas?

N.B. to anyone reading this: ask your isp to "opt out of CG-NAT". Talking about IPv6 may confuse the staffer you're talking to, it's partially related but not the fully picture.

Public line: Cameras are because of theft. Theft is because of cost of living.

I feel that quite a bit is being glossed over. The sources for this article seem very one-sided, I'm also skeptical of the chosen union's line:

Gerard Dwyer, National Secretary of the Shop Distributive & Allied Employees Association, the country's main retail union, said while security technology was being upgraded it was up to the justice system to act as a deterrent by imposing tougher penalties.

I thought that stronger penalties didn't impact this sort of thing? Maybe I misheard.

I would never dob someone in for stealing food, especially if the penalties suddenly got worse, unless I knew a lot about exactly why they were doing it.

Other things worth considering:

(1) Is there a relationship between theft rates and self-checkout rates? They don't want to pay checkout staff, so if there is a correlation (which I suspect they would have researched in depth using their own store data) then it is unlikely they would be public about it. Instead they would only speak about other correlations that are not their fault, like the rising cost of living.

(2) Do these cameras provide other benefits to Colesworth? Better tracking of individuals? Saleable data?

I couldn't help stop laughing the moment I heard the opposition (was it Dutton specifically?) mention small modulars in a speech a few months back. They are more expensive forms of already expensive nuclear reactors.

I have a feeling that they don't GAF. They want to spruik nuclear and "SMR" sounds tasty, modern and "small" (like how they want their budget to sound) so they went with it. Woops, it's the exact opposite.

I signed up to Odysee the other day to upload a video. It was too hard and I gave up.

You need to be confirmed to upload. Their options were:

1. Do a test transaction ($1 to CC). Broken, not available at this time.
2. Pay some money (CC transaction). Also broken (I checked my bank history to make sure the money didn't get taken anyway. I would have been happy to pay a few dollars to host a video, I know it's not trivial)
3. Join their discord and say "Hi" to the verif bot. The bot said "message me with details of your IRL public social media accounts". I don't have those.

Nope nope nope. Made an account on Vimeo and uploaded there instead. Everything worked.

Maybe I'm just not the target audience? Bigger barriers to entry might only let the more profitable people pass? Not sure.