Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | buff-a's comments login

>Ray tracing involves projecting light from the "eye" towards the scene, whereas in real life the light is being projected from the scene towards the eye.

I can't write a decent reply to this without having terrifying flashbacks of late night cramming for third year physics exams. But basically, raytracing's idea that "if it didn't hit your eye, who cares" is somewhat backed up by theory =)

-----


You mean the law of reversibility?

-----


I was thinking more along the lines that without the eye, the idea of light being projected in any direction at all has no meaning =) And then we could get started on the concepts of time and ordering.

But since I'm no longer a third year physicist contemplating the nature of existence, I just simulate light statistically. And sometimes that means doing things like "Photon Mapping", which is precisely raytracing, but the kind of raytracing you get when you know how to optimize an algorithm implemented as a computer program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Delayed_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mech...

-----


http://www.meritnation.com/discuss/question/32137

principle of reversibility of light: "The principle that if a beam of light is reflected back on itself, it will traverse the same path or paths as it did before reversal. The principle of reversibility states that light will follow exactly the same path if its direction of travel is reversed."

-----


Any good hacker will code around bullshit.

-----


Of course there is evidence: the stock market wasn't invented until 1999. Before 1999, noone dared buy stocks because they were afraid they couldn't sell it later. Its historical fact.

-----


This [1] was a joke.

This [2] was for real.

  [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qi_AAqi0RZM#%21

  [2] http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/03/how-casual-sexism-put-sqoot-in.php

-----


#2 was not intended to be for real. It was intended as a joke poking fun at the brogrammer thing, but it backfired because too many people thought they were serious. That's what happens when you step over the line while attempting humor.

-----


#2 was 100% real. Yes, it was a joke, but it's only the kind of joke you make if you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of inviting female hackers to your event. The humor didn't cross the line, the being explicitly uninviting to women crossed the line.

-----


You are presuming to have intimate knowledge as to their thought process when they attempted the joke. By inserting your own psyche into their actions, you falsely assume to know that they were malicious in intent. Not everyone thinks the same way you do, or reacts the same way you do. On the other hand, I know Avand personally, and spoke to him shortly after the whole thing blew up.

Hanlon's razor is apt in this situation.

-----


I saw that Twilio brogramming thing live. While it was intended as a joke, and riotously funny at the time, clearly some attendees (or maybe just Youtubers watching) thought it was something to emulate.

-----


I think you hit the nail on the head. The number of brogrammer entrepreneurs out there is huge. They are equivalent to Big Jims Baha XTReme Racing Shop that slaps lifted suspension on other people's 2WD Tundras.

But then there are a few start-ups who are designing and building fuel efficient diesel engines, or fully electric cars built from the ground up. These guys will absolutely know thermodynamics etc.

So if someone built "mycollegematehavingsex.com" and got 40,000 sign-ups via launchrock, who fucking cares. If they made twitter-for-squirrels and got 10,000,000 active users before the Great Nut Famine of 2015 killed the company, then there may conversations to be had.

-----


Because its actually:

file.rb:

  require 'stuff'

  class foo
    def something
      alert = UIAlertView._alloc \
        ._initWithTitle _S("Hello"),
        :message, _S("I'm MobiRuby"),
        :delegate, nil,
        :cancelButtonTitle, _S("I know!"),
        :otherButtonTitles, nil
      alert._show
    end
  end
Instead of

file.h

  #import <stuff>
  @interface foo
    -(void)something:(BOOL)what andthen:(CGRect)thisthing
  @end
and then file.m

  #import <otherstuff>
  #import <yetmorestuff>
  #import "file.h"
  #import <oh shit is this in the right place?.h>
  #import <i think this is ok>
  #define SOME_HACK
  #import <this better come after that define up there.h>

  @implementation foo

  -(void)something:(BOOL)what butthen:(CGRect)thisthing
  {
   alert = [[UIAlertView alloc] 
                initWithTitle:@"Hello"
                message:@"I'm ObjC"
                delegate:nil
                cancelButtonTitle:@"I know!"
                otherButtonTitles:nil];
     [alert show];
  }
Fuck that.

1. Don't Repeat Yourself. Computer have more memory than 1986.

2. Don't forget to turn on warnings-as-errors, otherwise that code above will compile and then break because (of course you noticed) the method declaration doesn't actually match the declaration but the compiler doesn't care because its a brutal hack.

-----


Honda Civic 2015 EULA:

23.1.23.44 (Page 198 of 301) "Your use of this vehicle grants us your irrevocable and permanent consent to download, transmit, or otherwise obtain the information contained in the onboard data recorder, and to share that data with third parties, including but not limited to law enforcement (without a court order), and marketing companies."

-----


Sounds like a reason not to buy a 2015 Honda.

Note that Honda (and most other manufacturers) were inevitably going to put event data recorders in cars anyways. They are too cheap and they make too much sense not to have.

So without the federal rules, what you'd have is market full of cars with event data recorders and no rules regarding data ownership or requirements to disclose (this bill requires full disclosure about the devices and their purpose).

But BGR doesn't want to tell you that, because their purpose here isn't to inform, it's to generate rageviews.

-----


>Sounds like a reason not to buy a 2015 Honda.

Ah yes, the "free market" in action. That has worked so well for us in protecting our privacy, as evidenced by the plethora of commercial software with EULAs that respects the user's rights.

Or are you saying Richard Stallman is going to build us a car next?

Here's how it works:

1. Government is constitutionally forbidden from collecting this information.

2. Government observes that private corporations can collect this information.

3. Government grants private corporations immunity from prosecution and civil liability if it collects this information and hands it to the government. Threatens prosecution and civil liability if corporations fails to collect information and "something bad happens".

4. US Supreme Court pretends this is acceptable by ignoring "intent" and "consequences" and then goes on to uphold "intent" and "consequences" in every other case before it.

-----


which might be true except for

> (2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed

also, you say

> Ah yes, the "free market" in action. That has worked so well for us in protecting our privacy, as evidenced by the plethora of commercial software with EULAs that respects the user's rights.

this bill is exactly the opposite of free market. it says everyone has to put recorders and cars and then explicitly forbids certain uses of them.

-----


It doesn't explicitly forbid use of them. Honda's EULA is lawful and binding under the new law. But the case could be made that without the new law, Honda wouldn't need a EULA (although having it probably cuts down on their legal bills).

Obviously, though: Honda's EULA is lawful and binding without the bill. This bill can only improve matters at this point. You can be irritated that it doesn't improve them enough, but that's not the case BGR is making.

-----


Yeah, if you had a car you might think about driving it across a state line and buy gas in another state, therefore it's interstate commerce or something, and thus the government can do whatever it pleases.

-----


their purpose here isn't to inform, it's to generate rageviews

"Rageview" may be my new favorite word. Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.

-----


WOW. That's a deal-breaker.

It would be interesting to get the whole way through the new car negotiating process, then strike this line right before signing. What would the reaction be? How badly does the dealership want to sell that car?

-----


Yes, this might cost a Honda dealership as many as 1 sale every 5 years.

-----


I didn't say that it would cost x sales in y time, or even that it would harm sales at all. My point is that it would be interesting to see the interaction between a car manufacturer's EULA, and a dealership's retail staff. I mean, do car salespeople even understand what a EULA is?

It's not like selling Windows 7 in Best Buy. The cashier at Best Buy does not care whether I hate the EULA or buy Windows. The car salesperson probably cares very much about whether I buy the car, and they probably don't care much about some random EULA term.

Granted: a bit off-topic perhaps. I would hope that such blanket permissions terms on sales contracts would be overridden by the protections written into the law. For instance I don't think health providers can undercut HIPAA protections no matter what their contractual terms say.

-----


pretty simple - they (the dealership) do not have the right to modify a EULA - it would be like Best Buy accepting a EULA change for a MS software product.

-----


  * A wiki.
  * Google Docs.
  * Assembla.
Passing around a word document via email (or shared folder) makes about as much sense as passing around a C++ file, or the text of a facebook status.

-----


Google Docs I can see, though it's basically "Word, but in your browser." (Hence "If not Word then almost certainly something very much like it.")

I've had some mild push-back from a few people when trying to get them to switch from Word, but it has the upside of you always knowing what the current version is, a problem the Wordists I've dealt with run into often.

A wiki, though, is a lost cause for many. I do not want to be the one having to teach people how to correctly format tables or embed images with the correct size and captions.

"Why do I have to learn all this stuff when we already know how to use Word?" is a common lament.

-----


"suffice it to say that among the people who actually design operating systems, the debate is essentially over."

A lesson for us all.

-----


Have to agree on Code Complete. The first edition was a load of waterfall bollocks and I couldn't believe anyone wrote code like that. It actively put me off a "proper" programming career. The second edition, apparently, reduced that shite, but by that point I wondered "if the author is just reproducing dogma, why bother?"

-----


Code Complete was published in 1993, so I think it can be forgiven its emphasis on waterfall development. It back its advice by citing real studies of software project, though the projects were from the 1960/70s at big companies like IBM.

-----


Like I said, its a book about dogma and cherry-picked studies. The dogma and studies were wrong. So if you want books about broken dogma and studies, read Code Complete.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: