• 5 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle
  • Ig thats where most of my confusion comes from, to me saying sth is a “spectrum” always evokes sth along the lines of gay <--------------------> straight (ie one dimensional) with things mapping into this interval. But ig if you also include more than one axis in your meaning of “spectrum” there wouldn’t be as straight forward of an ordering for any given “spectrum”. + Like @saigot@lemmy.ca said technically even the 1 dimensional spectrum can have more than one order and the “obvious” one is just obvious because we are used to it from another context not because its specifically relevant to this situation.




  • It’s fixed in 6.8.10 and 6.9 if you have the ability to upgrade to those.

    Honestly idk how id even begin to do that lol, and id also maybe rather not start my first week of linux use by immediately trying to change the kernel version on my own XD (either down or up). I did hear about an issue with rdr2 and kernel 6.8.9 from a reddit post which i found through someone writing about problems with the game on its protondb page. But i thought i was fine as my game worked normally until i encountered the crash & because the reddit and protondb post say its solved by enabling rebar which (iirc) i already have.

    However idk if that reddit posts issue is the same/related to the one you linked. Since the rest of the game and my system seem to be mostly fine i think ill either just not play the game or specifically avoid the cutscene when i do (its in an optional quest luckily). And then ill maybe return to it after the updated kernel arrives on fedora to see if it solves the crash or not.





  • Ok so it seems like they don’t commute? I asked the question in part because i wanted to do something like:

    const base_transform : Transform3D = 
    
    func get_base_transform(node : Node3D) -> Transform3D:
        return node.transform * base_transform
    
    func set_base_transform(node : Node3D, transform : Transform3D) -> void:
        node.transform = base_transform.affine_inverse() * node.transform
    

    and i wanted to be sure that if i do set_base_transform(some_node, some_transform) i’d be guaranteed to get that get_base_transform(some_node) == some_transform afterwards. But when i tried it the above code did not work out, at least i didnt get the result i expected. But when i flipped it so that set_base_transform did node.transform = node.transform * base_transform.affine_inverse() instead it did work out. Its still not hard proof though, maybe something else was messed up the first time, or it only looks like it works now and i’ll discover the transform still isn’t what i wanted it to be. Or they do commute but only under some constriction like no scale on any axis or something and i just happened to fulfill it with all the ones i used in my test.

    So it would still be good to know for sure whether/when Transform3D’s commute.

    EDIT: I accidentally wrote the first line wrong, it said that they do commute. When actually the experience i had with it working only after both functions did their multiplications in a compatible order should indicate that they don’t commute.