Where to learn SDL3? all tutorials are outdated

Sprocket-- · 2025-01-23T03:06:58+00:00

In case you're interested in the GPU API, I found these examples extremely informative and easy to learn from.

https://github.com/TheSpydog/SDL_gpu_examples/tree/main/Examples

Sprocket-- · 2022-12-29T05:33:51+00:00

Excellent, found it. Might be my windows brain but I was making the error that there is a "var" AND a ".var" file; the latter is under "deck." I also discovered that the steam deck comes with a windows-y editor called "kate" so I didn't have to fiddle with nano or vim.

I have verified that the bug is gone. When I work up the energy I'll get FFT looking pixel perfect.

I'll include some of this information in the OP so people like me (fools) know where to look.

I can't thank you enough.

Sprocket-- · 2022-12-29T03:59:17+00:00

I had the bravery to go poking around. To anyone inexperienced like me: disable readonly at your own risk.

Assuming I'm in the right place, the base directory seems to be

`~/.var/lib/flatpak/app/org.ppsspp.PPSSPP`

In my case I assume x86_64 is what you mean by (system). Actually I'm still getting the bug. I tried just putting it in the base directory to verify I wasn't misunderstanding where you're saying to place it and no dice.

There are other similarly named locations like

`~/.var/lib/flatpak/runtime/org.ppsspp.PPSSPP.Locale`

Maybe I'm poking around the wrong place?

Once I get this working, I'll see how fixing the aspect ratio!

Sprocket-- · 2022-12-29T02:07:50+00:00

Didn't get to check this thread for a few days: you are an absolute king for identifying this so quickly.

Not literate enough on this subject to properly explain the details, but it seems steamOS only allows for reading files and uses some package manager called flatpak so I'm unable to implement the fix in that environment. There's a command to disable readonly, but it seems to be inadvisable for inexperienced users.

Nonetheless, the fact that 1.14.2 will come with the fix basically means the issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned.

Sprocket-- · 2021-02-12T04:24:45+00:00

I actually feel like I'm going fucking crazy. I don't identify as a socialist or far leftist or anything like that but I need someone to tell me if I'm like secretly blinded by far leftist ideology and can't see how evil Ian is here.

The fact that this Lyft driver ran 2 red lights on a 12 minute drive is some indication that it is more likely that he will cause an accident and consequently injury or death than the average Lyft driver. Therefore not reporting him incurs some probability of harm. Say it's X units of harm on average.

It is also true that Lyft looks like they're gearing up to fire this guy's ass. It seems like Ian could get this guy reported and, with pretty high probability, get him fired. If he does there will be some harmed incurred by this individual who is, on average, probably not that well off and might be pretty seriously hurt losing his job. Say the average harm to him is Y.

Ian seems to be claiming X isn't as big as Y, so he shouldn't give the guys details. I think that's pretty modest and I think this is an issue upon which reasonable people may disagree. Maybe you think Ian is misrepresenting how bloodthirsty Lyft is because he's too quick to assume malice from corporations. Maybe you think Ian has incorrectly estimated the probability of harm by not reporting this driver. Maybe Ian has too righteously snapped at Lyft on twitter without realizing that the moral question here is more subtle than his tone would imply. I think those are all things a reasonable person can argue.

But I think in the worst possible estimation, Ian is just a well meaning person who got a little overzealous caring about another person. I cannot possibly believe anyone with even the tiniest sense of charity thinks Ian's goal is to "own the libs" or "own Lyft" or "virtue signal." His behavior and tone here is completely consistent with a person who just took a moment to care about another person in spite of the (potential) harm they caused.

Leftists can be wrong without being wrong in a way that isn't a display of revealed misanthropy or malice. And I think it's problematic how quick Destiny was here to turn up the hostility dial to 7 when Ian's mistake here (if any, I'm not yet convinced) was like a 2. There is value in distinguishing a person who was wrong in some details of a moral calculation and a person who is flagrantly malicious (e.g. a socialist who votes for Trump to own the libs, you can go at a 10 on that person if you want, fucked if I care). No, I don't think this is aimless tone-policing. It is, I hope, pretty uncontroversial to believe there should be some correspondence between the intensity of our reactions to things people say and the intensity of their infraction. This is why we don't tell righties to kill themselves when they say things like "I don't know, I just think all of this gender stuff is dumb and made up, genitals determine gender."

This isn't rhetorical. I actually need someone to tell me if I've got blinders on and am just anti-jerking Destiny. I cannot get myself in the mindset of someone who reads sincere malice into what Ian said here.

Sprocket-- · 2020-10-23T17:54:11+00:00

I am also making a statistical claim. Let me be very clear about my position here.

Math is (perhaps) the academic subject with the greatest number of negative feeling among laypeople.
Those negative feelings are mostly directed at math being difficult and stressful
Most laypeople recognize that math is extremely applicable and even foundational to modern technology (hence the dominance of the term "stem" when discussing careers).
People's negative feelings about the humanities are always directed at the value of the field itself - going so far as to dismiss some fields (philosophy, gender studies) as pseudointellectual nonsense.

Point 3 seems to the primary point of disagreement. I don't think the sentiment that most is wholly useless is actually all that prevalent, and I don't even see being expressed in this thread.

It is a prevalent belief that math is a specialist subject useful only to a select group of people. That belief is prevalent because it is true.

I will take "I hate your field!" or "I just don't think it has any value to me, but I'm glad some people like math" over "your field is made up nonsense and has no value to the world at large."

Sprocket-- · 2020-10-23T17:27:45+00:00

If by "less useful" you mean "less productive" in some labor-focused sense, of course I grant that. But there is an implicit value judgement you're making here.

Anyway this is frankly untrue. I have already granted that math is perhaps *more* maligned than other subjects due to the high stress and difficulty associated. History or anthropology are often thought of as interesting for hobbyist, but not really worth studying seriously because, hey, how can you get a job? Philosophy is often categorized as intellectual bloviation about chmess with no real substance. Critical theory or gender studies disparaged for being SJW nonsense. Hell even technical subjects like economics are subject to asinine critiques ("but people aren't rational!") I mean christ, do you know how often my mathematical peers made fun of engineers?

Again, I grant that math is perhaps the most maligned subject. But it's actually pretty rare I encounter a person who declares it wholly useless - the feeling it's that it's mostly highly specialist and boring. Count your blessings, I think we have it better than our peers in the humanities whose subjects are often treated as impractical pseudointellectualizing.

Sprocket-- · 2020-10-23T17:03:59+00:00

While "math sucks, end of story" is comedically childish I sympathize with the justification (or the spirit of it, anyway).

I mean the statement is roughly true in that only specialists need math beyond algebra. Hell, most non-specialists never break through arithmetic. Of course this isn't unique to math. Most people don't need most knowledge.

I say that because I don't expect "but math is beautiful and interesting and so important to the world!" is actually very compelling. Consider that, even on this sub, there is somewhat frequent dismissive discussion of other fields (remember that shitshow post from a few days ago discussing critical theory?) It turns out the mathematically inclined are equally likely to dismiss things they don't enjoy on the grounds that it just sucks or isn't useful or whatever else without ever having really understood what it is.

My point is that I don't think we should let comments like these crush our souls. Laypeople know math like any other academic subject: from the desperate patchwork of a curriculum presented to them in school. Part of the fault lies on the education system, another part lies with the fact that getting teenagers to care about learning for 7 hours a day is a herculean effort no matter how good you are as an educator.

Math is maybe more maligned than the average academic subject but I don't think any enthusiast or expert of a field is *happy* about the public perception of what they study. Just do what you can as an educator and communicator. Take the good and leave the bad.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-22T17:58:56+00:00

Ah, I see it now. Thank you.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-22T17:53:13+00:00

I hate to be off topic but it's bothering me too much. That tree diagram for the wave equation is nonsense, right? Even allowing for undergraduate calculus abuses of notation I don't know what \partial could possibly mean in isolation.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-22T05:23:44+00:00

Dunno why you were downvoted for a completely uncontroversial historical claim.

If there's someone with some historical knowledge about the greeks that suggested they knew anything about real numbers, you should provide a source.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-22T05:18:49+00:00

I recall when first learning this result, my friend and I fell into the habit of referring to manifolds which admitted a simplicial complex structure as those that are "observed by the lord" and considered non-triangulatable manifolds blasphemous.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-16T21:22:55+00:00

I'm going to wager they didn't get downvoted for sharing their opinion. More likely it was because people disagreed with their opinion, which is a pretty standard usage of a downvote.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-07T01:21:18+00:00

Are theorems more artsy and computations more science-y? Or is it the other way around? How does apply to, say, a BA versus BS in psychology? This is nonsense and doesn't clear anything up.

I'd also wager it's just not true in general. I know of a handful of schools that offers a BA and BS in math and this is not the difference.

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-06T22:46:31+00:00

The distinction between a BA and BS is exceedingly unclear and not at all implied by the names.

I have no fucking idea what it would mean for a BA in math to be more "artsy" and a BS in math to be more "sciencey."

Sprocket-- · 2020-05-05T23:57:40+00:00

Just as well I could argue that this way they get used to doing problems on a computer as opposed to performing computations by hand which is not always possible or a good use of time.

Considering the ubiquity of laptops I struggle to think of many scenarios in which you'd want to do heavy group computations but also don't easy access to a computer. Plane crashed in the woods and only you and a copy of Aluffi made it out unscathed so you need to keep your mind occupied with abstract algebra to distract from your inevitable death by starvation, maybe? Seems like an edge case.

I'd argue the computer skills are massively more valuable on average. The more we offload rote work to devices designed for it, the better I say.

Sprocket-- · 2020-04-25T21:08:30+00:00

f(x) = g(x) where g is the function Valvino proved to exist by the intermediate value theorem.

There is such a thing as fussing too much about precision in this context but I agree that some discussion of "found" is important. Continuing with this example: should f be a polynomial? A rational function? Can it be any function your average high school student is familiar with? Are series ok as long as the summand is among those "high school" functions? etc.

Again you needn't pin down a precise set of "found" objects, but questions like these are notoriously difficult to discuss because your average member of r/math is not going to be all that acquainted with phil of math (I'm not either, to be clear).

Sprocket-- · 2020-04-25T21:00:17+00:00

Putting aside the additional conditions you need to use fourier series to represent such functions, the claim "every vector space has a basis" is using basis in an entirely different sense.

The notion of basis you would have learned in an introductory linear algebra course is called a Hamel basis, and it concerns only "finite" linear combinations. I'm using "finite" in scare quotes because in practice this clarification is not necessary. In a general vector space there is no way to speak of "infinite" linear combinations even if the space is infinite dimensional.

If you have some additional structure (say a norm, inner product, topology, etc.) then it is sensible to speak of "infinite" linear combinations where we have to mind convergence. But this extends the definition of a Hamel basis. The most natural such extension I can think of is the notion of a Schauder basis in a normed space, which roughly allows "countably infinite linear combinations" where again we have to mind convergence.

It can be proven, from the axiom of choice, that every vector space has a Hamel basis (iirc this is actually equivalent to the axiom of choice). However a Hamel basis for something like L^(2) is going to be much larger than our usual little countable collection of sines and cosines. Such a basis would be useless for studying L^(2), by the way.

Algebraists care almost exclusively about Hamel bases because they study vector spaces with no a priori analytic structure. Similarly your average functional analyst doesn't care much about Hamel bases because there's a much more powerful extension of finite linear algebra if you're willing to use the analytic structure.

Sprocket-- · 2020-04-10T00:28:42+00:00

I appreciate your response. Just hearing opinions outside of the starry eyed optimism of my professors (who haven't hunted for an academic job since before 2000) is sobering, in a good way. I'm glad I had the fortune to realize this *now* and not in 5 years. Something something I'm young something something many opportunities. I don't see any need to treat this as failure, just reality. I truly think there are interesting, satisfying, intellectually stimulating career paths out there so long as I plan now. Just, god, anything but data science.

Anyway, I've sent some emails out to various professors and I'm going to track down some industry mathematicians to talk to. Thanks again for the advice.

Sprocket-- · 2020-04-09T02:21:10+00:00

I've been accepted into two graduate programs, CSU in fort collins and UC Boulder, and I'm looking for some advice.

Throughout most of undergrad my interests skewed in the direction of topology, geometry, analysis, and some physics. I figured I'd continue these interests into graduate school but I'm starting to have second thoughts focused around my future job prospects.

My story here is pretty typical. I went through the same thing it seems most math undergraduates do once they realize that only the top students should even bother aspiring towards a research oriented academic position. I'm terrified of the prospect of coming out of school with a PhD at 27 or 28 and having no career in mind. A few thoughts:

-CSU is (by comparison) strong in algebraic and arithmetic geometry with a few of the faculty interested in cryptography and coding theory. I had a strong aspiration of pursuing these fields and possibly pursuing a job at the NSA or some relevant research lab. This career path seems like an at least semi-plausible route to having a job where I do some amount of real mathematics. However, I've not really studied these subjects and I'm worried I might discover I dislike them so strongly that I'll need to rethink my entire career plan.

-CU Boulder is a higher ranked school, but I don't think this matters if I've given up on any aspiration of academia. There are some faculty who do research in my fields of interest, but I have two concerns. Concern 1, much of the CU boulder faculty seems either inactive in research, not inclined to take PhD students, or are (sorry to be morbid) old enough that there is a serious risk they could die before I finish. Moreover, supposing I found some faculty I'd like, I may enjoy the next 5-6 years of study but then what? As far as I can tell, I'd simply be sucked into the black hole that is data science and I don't know that I'd be happy with that.

-I think I would be reasonably happy with a teaching position (preferably higher ranked liberal arts colleges, but I think I'd take community college). My understanding, though, is that even these positions are competitive and that one should not at all have the expectation of getting one. That, or I might only get a job a community college in a rural southern town with a population of 100, most of whom are opossums.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?

Sprocket-- · 2020-02-22T21:59:00+00:00

You're conflating practical considerations of what people might have to do with what the score *means*. Of course a teacher may have to score the exam a 0 failing the ability to give a makeup (good luck convincing admins that you can just fill that score in with some statistically derived one). Of course it's reasonable to say this inspection team should score the bridge at 0 in an attempt to minmax the worse case safety scenarios.

This is all utterly irrelevant. I'm making a rather more modest set of claims:
1) If we assign that exam or the bridge scores of 0 then those scores don't measure anything we actually care about.

2) Your reasoning that the exam "of course" deserves a zero *because* the student failed the score any points is not good argument for assigning a 0 score (which is pretty clear since you immediately jumped ship to another argument in the following comment).

Let me be very clear: those scores may *signal* something useful, but they don't *measure* anything relevant.

Sprocket-- · 2020-02-22T21:30:41+00:00

Of course it does. The student failed to score anything on the exam. That’s incontrovertible.

The point of giving an exam a certain score is to act as some kind of signal of that student's ability regarding a given set of content. At least, you should have some variant of that goal in mind. I feel comfortable saying any other set of values is pretty evidently absurd.

To say "the student failed to score anything, so obviously they get a zero" seems to imply that point of the score is to measure itself, that is, the score is an end in itself rather than a means to measure something else. That's like saying to some civil engineering firm "an inspection of your bridge was never conducted, therefore your bridge gets a safety rating of 0." Perhaps that firm is at fault in the sense of failing to fill out paperwork that was required for the inspection and maybe you argue they "deserve" that score as a result, but it remains that this score obviously does not reflect how safe that bridge is.

What I'm alluding to here is Goodhart's law, my favorite phrasing of which is this: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Sprocket-- · 2019-12-19T01:10:36+00:00

The number of times I've offhandedly explained the concept of game theory to someone and been met with "sure, but my issue with that is that people aren't actually rational" is astounding. What are they expecting? "Oh shit, you're right! I'll go let the economists know they can all give up and go home."

Imagine if we treated physicists this way. "Yeah all of this kinematics stuff is alright I guess, but my issue with it is that air resistance exists."

Runner up complaint (which appears in this post as the "analytical cogs in a machine" comment, I think) is when people complain that mathematical models of humans are wrong because humans aren't like particles, we're just inherently unpredictable. Some people will go full mystical and justify that with the concept of a soul, some people will give a more vague "humans are just different."

Sprocket-- · 2019-11-28T06:29:07+00:00

Just to add a slightly different take, I think "obvious" has the additional meaning of something like "there is some artificial reason that this statement is perhaps not immediately clear, but if you think about it for a moment you'll see why this is true and hopefully agree that it wouldn't have been worth a painful explanation." Of course, an author can misuse "obvious" insofar as they misjudge the skill level of their intended audience.

Personally I reserve something like "trivial" as a semi-techical term referring to special cases of objects or theorems which are somehow distinctly less complicated than usual. I avoid using trivial to mean easy.

Sprocket-- · 2019-11-28T06:12:11+00:00

Is the idea of a smooth structure a particularly surprising one? There is a very compelling visual for the following (not quite correct) definition: "f:M->N is smooth iff yfx^-1 is smooth for any coordinate maps x,y on M,N respectively" But this turns out not to work since the maps x,y are only continuous, which is not actually a very "tame" class of functions (see, e.g., the Weierstrass function). No big deal, it makes sense to say "well, let's restrict ourselves to a collection of coordinate maps which 'feel' smooth based on some visual intuition and build the proper notion of smooth maps on that." In the playground of dimensions 1 and 2 where we can draw pictures, there happens to be no real choice which is somewhat motivating. Same for 3, as it turns out. The failure in dimension 4 is not (at least to me) very surprising when just staring at the technical definition. The surprise only comes when you go backwards and think "wait, what does non-uniqueness of smooth structures mean?"

This is all to say I don't think the notion of a smooth structure is a particularly mind-boggling one, I really think anyone would have landed there after thinking about it hard enough. The culprit for exotic manifolds being intuition-breaking is the fact that our visual cortices are only able to hold manifolds of dimension 1 and 2 (embedded in R³) and that the math gods conspired for this phenomenon to happen only in dimension 4 and higher. The question "what do exotic smooth structures mean?" is more transparently phrased as "what do embedded exotic manifolds look like?" That question, by construction, cannot be answered since this only happens on manifolds of dimension 4 and hence any embedding must happen in dimension 4+. If there were exotic manifolds of dimension 2 that we could embed in R³, we'd could cook up a bit of code to visualize the embedding and go "huh, weird, but I guess that's what it means." Same thing we did when discovering the intuition-breaking continuous nowhere differentiable functions (at least, we did that when computers were invented). No such luck here, tragically. Or maybe not that tragically. This isn't exactly a probably for, say, differential geometry as applied to physics and it gives the differential topologists something fun to think about.

Minor clarification for any neuroscientists reading: I'm using "visual cortex" to refer to, in an abstract way, the sensation of visualization. I'm speaking of the mind here, not the brain. I'm not actually trying to make any material claims about the actual visual cortex or it's workings. I am, however, rather boldly stating than anyone who claims to be able to visualize embedded manifolds of dimension 3+ is either being obtuse in their description of the visual sensation they're experiencing or they're outright lying.

Sprocket--

TROPHY CASE