You’re really displaying some ignorance here. Star Trek has always has a political slant.

The basic premise is about a bunch of people living in a progressive sci-fi utopia with UBI. The show is constantly preaching unity and openness. It is explicitly anti-Fascist in many episodes.

It has a multiracial cast with a flamboyant “closeted” gay actor.

And most importantly, it famously had the first interracial kiss on television. The show was banned (or, more minorly, the specific episode was banned) in several places in the South because of that.

No I am not. They had politics, yes. But not anywhere to the point to breaking the audience out of escapism and mapping their politics to the politics of the time. They kept it realistic enough people could associate with it but not to the point of implementing current politics and identity politics.

The basic premise is about a bunch of people living in a progressive sci-fi utopia with UBI.

Yes. And you do realize wars and the level of dystopian hell they had to go through to reach that point right? It's not like they just decided to implement UBI. Over 600 million people died before that was realized and I am leaving out a tremendous amount of pain and suffering. It was a very long period before they entered into a post-scarcity era and even then money was still used and still a problem within some cultures that were cannon.

And most importantly, it famously had the first interracial kiss on television.

Again, I never said anything about race or gender. Woke as it is today covers many other facets including but not limited to "The Patriarchy" which they are trying to depose in Starfleet meaning they never actually watched or understood the show before they bought it.

I never said that you did. But you did propose, and you continue to double down on, the idea that the original Star Trek was not very political.

> They had politics, yes. But not anywhere to the point to breaking the audience out of escapism and mapping their politics to the politics of the time.

Yes, the interracial kiss was VERY MUCH the politics of the time. That's why it was the FIRST interracial kiss on network television, nearly 40 years after TV networks came about. That's why it was protested/banned and the episode not shown in Southern markets.

Can you give any examples of network TV that were more political than Trek?

These are good examples of TV pushing the envelope on societal norms, but if you are discussing "pushing a political view", they rank far below "Trek's first interracial kiss".

> A key difference here is you are citing one episode.

That's true, but...

> These shows we are discussing are entirely centered around modern IDPol issues. It's rammed down our throats through every episode.

I have not seen the new shows. I liked reconnecting with old characters in the first few episodes of Picard S1, but didn't even finish the first season.

So I can't comment on those specifically.

But, I can comment on this:

> I know when I can no longer enjoy a show because it's creators are ripping me out of the experience and away from the fictional setting

This is the EXACT SAME COMPLAINT that the people who were upset about Star Trek in the 60s had.

And it extended a lot farther than the interracial kiss. That's just a very easy and obvious landmark example to point out.

Star Trek first aired in 1966. Less than 10 years after crowds of people were held back by the National Guard, but still managed to throw rocks at and spit on little girls because of forced integration in schools.

Star Trek had a multiracial and flamboyant cast, and was frequently communicating messaging about being non-prejudiced, when the Civil Rights Act had just passed.

Trek also frequently communicated messaging about being non-interventionist and only using violence as a last resort, while the Vietnam War was ongoing and a hot-button political issue.

These were ABSOLUTELY complained about as "woke propaganda" (though not in those terms) by the conservatives of the time.

I could definitely be wrong, but I think C++ style "virtual dispatch" (ie, following two pointers instead of one to get to your function) doesn't really cost anything anymore, except for the extra pointers taking up cache space.

Don't all of the Windows DirectX gaming interfaces use COM? And isn't AAA gaming performance critical?

Yes, on both counts. You will also, on average, be making fewer calls to ID3D12CommandQueue methods than one would think - you'd submit an entire vertex buffer for a model (or specific components of it that need the same pipeline state, at least) at once, allocate larger pools of memory on the GPU and directly write textures to it, etc.

This is the entire design behind D3D12, Vulkan, and Metal - more direct interaction with the GPU, batching submission, and caching command buffers for reuse.

When I'm talking about "critical sections" of code, I mean anything with a tight loop where you can reasonably expect to pin a CPU core with work. For a game, this would be things like creating vertex buffers, which is why all three major API's take these as bare pointers to data structures in memory instead of requiring discrete calls to create and populate them.

Where are all the Racket personal projects?

N.B. I say this as someone who personally contributed small fixes to Racket in the 90s (when it was called mzscheme) and 00s (when it was called PLT-Scheme).

There's nothing wrong with an academic/research language like Racket, Oberon, and Standard ML.

Anyway, I like the language. Felt great writing a few Advent of Code puzzles in SMLNJ.

https://joeldueck.com/projects.html

What does it even mean to "believe the answer is yes", but "in a way that somehow means" the direct contradiction of that is not wrong?

Do "believe", "yes", and "no" have definitions?

...

This rhetorical device sucks and gets used WAY too often.

"Does Foo have the Bar quality?"

"Yes, but first understand that when everyone else talks about Bar, I am actually talking about Baz, or maybe I'm talking about something else entirely that even I can't nail down. Oh, and also, when I say Yes, it does not mean the opposite of No. So, good luck figuring out whatever I'm trying to say."

Opinion

Another example: when I hear the famous "Yanny or Laurel" recording (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) I hear "Laurel". I can understand how someone hears "Yanny". Our perceptions conflict, but neither of us are objectively wrong, because (from Wikipedia) "analysis of the sound frequencies has confirmed that both sets of sounds are present".

The single word "opinion" is not an answer to the question I asked.

> Another example: ... "Yanny or Laurel"

This is not remotely the same thing.

> I can understand how someone hears "Yanny">

So can everybody else. Everyone I have heard speak on this topic has the same exact experience. Everyone "hears" one of the words 'naturally', but can easily understand how someone else could hear the other word, because the audio clip is so ambiguous.

An ambiguous audio recording, which basically everyone agrees can be interpreted multiple ways, which wikipedia explicitly documents as being ambiguous, is very different from meanings of the words "yes", "no", and "believe".

These words have concrete meanings.

You wouldn't say that "you believe the recording says Laurel". You say "I hear Laurel, but I can understand how someone else hears Yanny".

It would be rational for things to work that way, but personalities and emotions are not very rational.

There are some people who seem like they have everything in life going for them, and they're still pessimists, their narrative of the world is petty and ugly, or cruel.

Conversely, there are other people who have suffered tragedies that I might consider literally unbearable (i.e. suicide-worthy), and they are still optimists.

I think these are more fundamental personality traits. You can see it in siblings that grow up in essentially identical conditions, but one has a "sunny disposition" and another is anxious and worried.

I wonder if maybe it can't even use hydrants that are too near each other in the plumbing graph.

There's a lot of variables in that equation. For example, say you have a "dead end" main that ends somewhere near the fire. If you connect to the last hydrant on the main and start flowing water, there's a good chance you won't get a lot of additional water by connecting to the next hydrant up the street. But if you connect to a hydrant that's on a main that is part of a loop, there's a better chance you'll be able to get more water by doing that.

And without getting into too much detail that would be boring to non-firefighters (probably)... there's actually two big variables for a given hydrant: the maximum volume of water it can supply (in GPM) and the pressure available at the hydrant. And those two things are related. Anyway, net-net, you can have a hydrant that is capable of - in principle - flowing, let's say 2000 GPM. But the pressure at the hydrant is only, say, 40 psi. That means you only have 20 psi (approximately) available[1] to overcome the friction loss in the supply hose between the hydrant and the engine. And that friction loss in turn is a function of the hose size and the flow rate.

Anyway, that results in a situation where you might have a hydrant that could supply you 2000GPM, but if your fire is, say, 1500 feet away, you might effectively only be able to take advantage of maybe 500GPM of that.

And that in turn leads into stuff like using a "four way" or "hydrant assist" valve, or having a relay engine sitting right on the hydrant (to minimize friction loss between the hydrant and the engine) and then using its pump to boost the pressure going to the attack engine. By using multiple engines like that, you can get closer to achieving that hypothetical 2000GPM (or whatever) flow.

It gets pretty complicated, but fortunately fires in urban areas where the municipal water system is the limiting factor seem to be relatively uncommon (but not unheard of!) in this day and age.

[1]: because you don't want to pull the residual pressure down too low or it can damage the water system, supply hose or your pump.

What kind of purity test bullshit rhetoric are you using here? Whenever you find yourself saying, “you need to explain yourself”, step back and question things.

Have you tried reading the thread instead of jumping on a guy for wrongspeak?

The Soviet connection is really not that hard to follow. They were discussing development cycles. Whether China, which is a communist country with a “5 year economic plan”, is successful due to that 5 year plan.

So it’s very relevant to mention the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a communist country, it “invented” the 5 year economic plan, and it failed spectacularly.

Every command that you issue to the ssd returns a response. It would be nice to have a bunch of performance counters that tell us where the time went with each of the commands we give it.

GPUs have this already.

Hydrogen gas also has very low energy density. To store enough of it to be useful, it has to be pressurized/liquified, which requires the expensive storage solutions.