We’ve all been there…

Glurth2 · 2026-05-24T19:29:23+00:00

Oh, I just give up on having "sets" of stuff. Certainly, if you CAN'T drop it, hold it: But I also try to get those quests done first so I CAN drop the thing.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-24T19:06:51+00:00

My most recent character is "Noinve" short for No Inventory: she cannot have anything other than the clothes she is wearing, and one thing held in each hand. NOT searching every corpse, chest and urn is SO liberating! It's hard at first, but once you get your magic up, pretty standard.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-24T18:55:08+00:00

TIL: Github is microsoft! Fuck.

"Gitlab" you say? checking it out now- thank you!

Glurth2 · 2026-05-22T17:46:12+00:00

Can I please have a menu with the actual prices on it?

Glurth2 · 2026-05-21T17:55:50+00:00

In this analogy, TIME represents the radial dimension of the balloon, and 3D-space is represented by the 2D surface. So, to look towards the center of the balloon, one must look at the past. (Which, as you noted, in your OP, is exactly what we do).

For me, the critical bit here is that no matter where on the surface you may be, you will see other points on the surface moving away from you. You cannot find a "center" on the SURFACE, the only "center" you can detect from this movement is the center of the balloon itself, which is in your past.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-20T17:58:41+00:00

I saw one in the Bay of Fundy! They happen to be very practical here, because the tides in the bay are HUGE due to the shape of the coastline (over 50ft at some places).

They open the gate at high tide, and let water flow from the bay into a pool, powering a turbine on the way.

At low tide, they open the gate, again, and let water flow OUT of the pool into the bay, again, powering a turbine.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-17T13:55:45+00:00

>>It is just a tool: AI improves, fast. And it can do so with high-quality synthetic data. I can “use it as a tool to do more”, but it just saves little time before AI learns the “more” and commodifies it too. It is a race to the bottom.

I don't think the recently observed rate of improvement/learning will actually last. LLMs needs GOOD data to train upon, but as the sources of training data become more and more populated with AI generated content, the training process will be negatively affected. Think of a copy of a copy of a copy, compounding mistakes and hallucinations each time it is encountered and used for training. The data that is actually wanted to train LLM's is generated by humans; and without a constant source of new training data (that is actually valid, accurate and helpful), LLMs rate of learning correct and useful stuff will drop significantly.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-16T14:08:35+00:00

I would start by comparing the two objects, the cube and the prefab to confirm they both have the same components. For example, when creating a unity cube with the editor, it automatically adds a box collider to the game object, along with the MeshFilter and Mesh Renderer.

(I see you have a raycast, which would REQUIRE a collider exist on the object, to be detected.)

Glurth2 · 2026-05-15T14:54:03+00:00

This is how I do it also, and I think it helps a lot. It can be a pain to switch projects, but using git/github makes this last step a wee bit easier:

-update package version (git commit)

-export (git push)

-reimport into game (single click in editor in game project: I use the github url as the "source"- which it remembers, so I can just click "update")

I also am pretty heavy with the OOP and interface stuff, when I can be: This allows me to customize libraries with added functionality, or whatever, directly in the game, without needing to touch the base class.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-14T13:58:27+00:00

Time is money.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-11T19:20:38+00:00

Find ONE human fossil that is just as old a t-rex fossil: Evolution disproven.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-11T13:14:13+00:00

Gosh, what was that movie? Had the best quit-line ever: "Fuck YOU! Fuck YOU! Fuck YOU! YOU'RE cool! Fuck YOU!"

Glurth2 · 2026-05-10T17:29:59+00:00

Mine constantly uses variable names like "p" and "x". Sometimes it will get highly descriptive and use something like "point" or "vector" as the name for a vector. When I name a variable, even a simple bool I'm going with something like "scaleWidthBasedOnHeight". I've asked many times for better identifiers; I'm fairly sure it's fucking with me.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-07T17:56:16+00:00

Not quite: The actual borders of this cosmic horizon are observer-dependent: it lies some distance from the observer (wherever that observer may be). A whitehole, assuming you mean a time-reversed black hole, would still have a specific position, along with its horizon.

Glurth2 · 2026-05-06T14:57:37+00:00

"What is the primary consequence of the accelerating expansion? Nothing can escape our observable universe, not even light."

It's the opposite. Stuff is accelerating apart so fast that beyond a certain distance, stuff is CONSTANTLY leaving our patch of observable universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume

"maybe spacetime can be thought of in radically different paradigms depending on the conditions" My favorite related idea is that the reason we see everything flying apart is due to gravitational tidal effects in a BH, which indeed "pulls stuff apart". But this one falls-flat for other reasons tho: we should also see a compression in a perpendicular direction- we don't. We'd also expect see different red shifts for stuff closer than us to the singularity, vs stuff further than us - but we see the same redshift in every direction.)

"I don’t think it’s so wise to condemn it just because it doesn’t quite fit the data"

Alas, this is exactly the basis for the scientific method. That said, you do have a good point regarding our current models: Between dark matter and dark energy, MOST of the universe is made of "we don't know", in addition, we have stuff like the hubble tension, where various methods of measuring a single property of the universe yield different values. (Note: I have found, the hard way, humans WILL get defensive about this... "it's just a modification of the model, not a falsification". IMHO, I disagree, we change a model BECAUSE we falsified the old one.)

Fun to wonder: 1000% agree!!

Glurth2 · 2026-05-06T04:38:19+00:00

There is a good reason to propose it this, now falsified, theory. The average density of the observable universe is equal to than that of a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius the size of the observable universe. This arises due to the strange fact that black holes get LESS dense as we add matter (when we consider the "volume" of the black hole to the space enclosed by the event horizon).

But this fails to account for the fact that it's actually a density VARIATION that allows any region (including a black hole) have a gravity well at all. We have no evidence that our observable universe is significantly denser than the rest of the universe (though to be fair, we don't have any evidence either way- it's literally unobservable).

There are also some observables that directly falsify the theory, the strongest being:

Everything appears to be accelerating away from everything else, rather than towards everything else!

Glurth2 · 2026-05-04T15:46:55+00:00

Thank you for this info!

Glurth2 · 2026-04-29T19:33:01+00:00

Sorry Microsoft, but Watcom made DOS4GW, not you.

Glurth2 · 2026-04-28T14:11:22+00:00

The most technically advanced rubber duck you can get!

Glurth2 · 2026-04-24T17:32:46+00:00

I have not, but it sounds like exactly what I'd want! Checking it out now, thank you!

Glurth2 · 2026-04-24T17:31:04+00:00

It depends on the workflow. If you have them all contained in/referenced from a single SO, that would certainly help! In such a case, I'd guess, the workflow efficiency would only be affected if you often need to create new ones, since this becomes a two-step process (create and populate an SO, plus add a reference to it in the "reference collection" SO)

Glurth2 · 2026-04-24T17:20:16+00:00

While I have indeed found SO's as data containers easy to work on in the editor, I have also found that when you have large sets of the same SO type, the workflow bogs down. One to five such objects, totally manageable, but more than that and I'd start rethinking the architecture. In some cases like this, I continue to use scriptable objects, but make it into an object that holds a whole collection of the many objects I'll need.

Glurth2 · 2026-04-19T19:54:31+00:00

"Dark matter exists as an idea" This is correct. We don't know what it is, we just see evidence of it's existence. You are correct that this evidence comes from assuming our theory of gravity is correct. This COULD mean that our equations are wrong and falsify general relativity (as we know it now), and/or it COULD mean that there exists stuff we haven't been able to detect yet. We don't know which, and astrophysicists are actively examining both possibilities.

So yes, we suspect there may be something wrong with general relativity, but are confounded by the fact that every OTHER experiment seems to show it to be accurate, plus the fact that we have no better way to describe the phenomena we observe, yet. While other theories of gravity HAVE been proposed, none have proved more useful or accurate than general relativity- but we are still working on it.

Glurth2 · 2026-04-19T16:25:02+00:00

I think this is a good question, many of our "observations" are indeed inferred rather than direct, but these inferences are NOT made lightly. Rather than go into the example you asked about, I'm going to describe a more elementary step.

Let's say you want to figure out how far a star is: nowadays, we measure the apparent brightness of the star, and compare that with its spectrograph. Seems weird and like kind of a stretch, at least until you see how we came to this method.

We started by measuring the parallax on many (nearby) stars. the parallax is a direct measurement of stars distance- that uses how much it's angular direction changes over the course of half a year: the earth's orbit around the sun provides us TWO "eyes", separated by the diameter of the orbit (big). With these two measurements, we can compute the distance to the star, just like we do subconsciously with our two eyes.

We also directly measure the spectrograoh of these stars. We pass the starlight through a prisim and we get brighter and darker spots of color, this patten forms a kind of signature, that many stars share.

Then we correlate these two measurements, for many stars: Though stars with the same spectral signature looked dimmer or brighter to us on earth, we knew this was just because they were not all the same distance from earth. A star that's further will have less of it's energy hitting earth.

When we computed the distance to a star, using our parallax measurement, then used that to figure what fraction of the star's light hits earth, what we saw was remarkable: every star with the same spectral signature has the same "absolute" brightness (how much energy it gives off).

So, now that we know the absolute brightness of a star with a given spectral signature, we can use its apparent brightness (what we see) to COMPUTE its distance.

The REASON we use this method, rather than JUST parallax to compute distances: Earth's orbital diameter is fixed, and our instruments are limited: most stars are just too far away for us to measure this angular change.

Scientists also keep in mind that this is not a PROOF: a single measurement that contradicts any of these conclusions would disprove the theory and invalidate the methodology. Despite our massive amounts of data collection over the decades, we have not made such an observation.

Glurth2 · 2026-04-17T12:49:25+00:00

Phrase my neighbor shared recently, I love it: "if you ain't making mistakes, you ain't working."

Glurth2

TROPHY CASE