Critically, VRChat works on desktop (though it's an inferior experience), and you can incrementally enhance your experience with it by doing things like webcam face/hand tracking instead of buying an expensive headset.

It's also very highly customisable without being monetized out the wazoo, allows you to host your own servers, and in general avoids the incredibly bland corporate image that meta projects.

(Meta, I think, fails to understand that the people that most want a virtual space to interact with, to the point of putting up with the limitations of VR tech, mostly want to not look like regular people in that space, because they keep pushing a vision that seems to be a uniform 'normality' even more extreme than the real world)

Examples that demonstrate why lockdown hurts ease-of-use and therefore non-intrinsically hurts community. Meta or Apple may not realize people want on desktop want to use VR software; they may want people to spend more (although a smaller community may generate less overall revenue); they may want people to have the “true” experience (their idea of what the users want, instead of what they actually want); they may not want to spend the budget and expertise to develop webcam face/hand tracking.

If they released a cheap or impressive enough VR headset, I doubt desktop or face-tracking would matter. But I think the next best thing, a decent headset with an open platform that enabled such things, would’ve saved them.

VRChat is also consistently active with people making new worlds/maps, avatars, etc. There also used to be a client modding scene with e.g. melonloader but that got cracked down on around 2022. The "metaverse" however, does it even exist? Is there a vrchat-like, meta-built social vr environment available on quest hardware?

Looking at the css, there's a .text-gray-600 CSS style that would cause this, and it's overridden by some other style in order to achieve the actual desired appearance. Maybe the override style isn't loading - perhaps the GP has javascript disabled?

Thanks! Relayed.

javascript is enabled but I don't see the problem on another phone, so yeah seems related

In VB, True was 0xFFFFFFFF - bitwise not 0 - instead of logical not 0 (1).

An incrementing global counter is a pretty common scenario if your goal is to have guaranteed-unique IDs assigned to objects within a process, especially if you want them to be sequential too. I've got counters like that in various parts of code I've shipped, typically incremented using atomics.

Is that global counter really the only dependency? No database connections or anything that would warrant some proper dependency injection?

It is a pretty common scenario if you don’t follow almost two decades worth of best practices and suggested alternatives and advice

Can you show us some of this advice?

... Not using globals? Pass the value around, use recursion, and keep state as local as possible.

I'd like you to show:

How to write Python code with no globals

And a source other than you saying you should do it this way

For some skill sets the non-games options to work in are comparatively 'soulless' or 'soul-crushing' (not my words, but ways I've heard people describe it). For example:

If you're a literature expert, do you really want to do copy-editing for doordash when you could be writing interactive narratives?

If you're a UI designer, are wireframes for the latest AI chat app even 25% as exciting as designing the HUD for a new video game?

And then some skill sets are just not really transferable at all. Game design leans on skills that are transferable but 'game designer' doesn't really map to other fields at all, and it is a real specialization that some people have decades of time spent honing.

> Moreover, type systems can track that a list was previously sorted and maintained it's sorted status making the assumption reasonable to state.

This is true, but if you care about correct execution, you would need to re-verify that the list is sorted - bitflips in your DRAM or a buggy piece of code trampling random memory could have de-sorted the list. Then your formally verified application misbehaves even though nothing is wrong with it.

It's also possible to end up with a "sorted" list that isn't actually sorted if your comparison function is buggy, though hopefully you formally verified the comparison function and it's correct.

You already have hardware level bit flip verification, you don't need to recheck the list

That only works up to some level of bit flips, like all error correcting codes. It works for our maybe even two bit flips, but not more than that.

Only if you have ECC RAM, and even then it’s not perfect.

> The financial distress the company now finds itself in can be traced back to early August, when it was seeking to raise another $6 billion in loans. Through that process, investors started to raise questions about the numbers being presented.

> In early September it was reported that Apollo Global Management had amassed a short position against the debt of First Brands Group, meaning that it stood to profit if the auto parts maker failed to continue paying its debt.

> The news caused a rush for the exit and the value of its debt started collapsing, before a bankruptcy process was initiated to bring some order to what appeared to have become the equivalent of a bank run. First Brands said that its Chapter 11 cases pertain solely to US operations and it expects its global operations to continue uninterrupted.

Makes me think of the subprime mortgage crisis. Everyone seemed to agree that it was fine to issue loans to an auto parts company so it accumulated multiple billions USD worth of loans before anyone finally noticed that it might not be able to repay the money it was borrowing.

Shorts are people pointing out bad activity in the market and making it public. I’d prefer the bad actors get called out

I think you're confused about causality. When an investor takes a short position on a company that doesn't impact the company's balance sheet. First Brands Group isn't a bank.

Their thermodynamic bound is finite either way.

It's important for the victim not to get anything, I guess.

To draw lines instead of a geometry shader you can use instancing, since you know how many vertices you need to represent a line segment's bounding box. Have one vertex buffer that just contains N vertices (the actual attribute data doesn't matter, but you can shove UVs or index values in there) and bind it alongside a buffer containing your actual line information (start, end, color, etc). The driver+GPU will replicate the 'line vertex buffer' vertices for every instance in the 'line instance buffer' that you bound.

This works for most other regular shapes too, like a relatively tight bounding box for circles if you're drawing a bunch of them.

In my experience, drawing quads with GL_POINTS in OpenGL was way faster than drawing quads with instancing in DirectX. That was noticable with the DirectX vs. OpenGL backends for WebGL, where switching between the two resulted in widely different performance.