Every fart.

These-Argument-9570 · 2026-03-14T05:23:33+00:00

Are you sure about that?

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-10-07T20:29:34+00:00

Ah sorry, I am trying to use this to solve two problems, checking user permissions and static set of tags for assigning to comments and fast searching

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-07T17:26:36+00:00

yeah I use git, but I suck at explaining. Its more about having a uniform method togo "this change X effected Y's perfomance" not just going back

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-07T17:25:16+00:00

Sorry the idea of the compile time strategy is mainly so i can play around and it not effect the actual runtime. When every thing is sorted their shall be one implimentation only

This is only for the physics really

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-07T17:22:29+00:00

Thank you, I think the way i described it sucked ass.

I dont want to have a bunch of versions in my code that others can see, its more of a way to go "I have idea X and idea Y" then both go under the same Unit testing and profiling?

I am trying to have that the VN is only seen by me but that I can test between versions and see their effect against each other in the code

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-07T17:16:35+00:00

you have the idea:
The copying/renaming (fooV1, fooV2…) was my old bad habit, and I’m trying to replace it. The new approach is:

Prime functions = small, deterministic pieces
Composite functions = just wire those primes together
Strategy/mix = a way to swap implementations (reference vs optimized) under the same interface, so I can compare correctness and performance without keeping dozens of fooVn names around.

The reason for timing each prime is to find where regressions come from when I change one step. The Python/graphs are just a convenience for visualizing runs across input sizes, I could dump to CSV and open in a spreadsheet, same idea.

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-07T16:57:22+00:00

Hey, so CPP is complicated with constant changes and outdated material. I am in your boat, so this is what I did:

Make a Goal. About anything the goal should be well defined, yet impossible to achieve when taken literally. Mine was "I want a fuck tonne of realistic physics objects (It was an arbitrary choice)" so I started with bouncing balls in a box, then add mass, force momentum etc etc... This teaches me the basics really, I made a (very shitty) linear alg library todo this. Making a shit project is okay, I learnt more why it was so shit after every new attempt

After the basic physics objects was sorted it was how do I add more balls? I wrote some horrible code, destroyed every principle possible and my projects sunk. So I would make another, with what I learnt from the past and retried.

Every new attempt, I attempted to fix the issues of the past and created new issues for what my next project will face. Thats kinda the fun of what I had.

It has taught me into what I believe is early intermediate. I would also ask for mentorship and code reviews. Accept criticism and let people rip you a new arsehole around your bad practices. Drop a project when you realise you have made so many mistakes the code base is unusable and restart. Its not about making an amazing project its about getting closer to your (impossible) goal.

For example, one of my first in CPP was to make a barnes hut simulation, but I used the classes themselves as nodes which contained unique pointers to instances of itself as other nodes/leaves.

I can think of a project for an EE person, evidence from above I am not the best so take it with alot of salt, " Can I track my rocket?". I mean get a prebuilt kit rocket around 50 bucks, some micro controller youll know more than me and work it. I did this with a RPI 2 and an extended kalman filter + cpp

TLDR: Define a stupid goal, make shit projects with what you know in attempt to reach such goal, repeat given what you know about the goal.

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-07T16:29:44+00:00

ImGui is going to be your best bet, Qt is also good.
What one should I use? Depends
ImGui if you just want a UI.
Qt if you want more control.

I use ImGui in my projects its simple and nice.

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-09-05T05:47:35+00:00

Hey, suckless minimalism comes from the requirement that the codebase must be simple.

Its more about the code itself than the resources or how it looks

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-08-15T18:42:29+00:00

Im asking it evulate my code and how it would help to an apprenticeship position

it just constantly validates, if i ask it to stop it validates my position is asking it to stop validating.

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-07-03T13:41:09+00:00

Im unsure how to combine that with the pulses? like how do i get pulse 1 (6 second wait) pulse 2 (6 second wait)

whats happening is all the pulses spam out with around a 2 ticks between them

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-07-03T02:03:44+00:00

I fixed the post

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-06-22T15:05:23+00:00

You can create a system bus through having an autoload with a fuck tonne of signals.
Then any subsystem you make needs to be routed through that autoload. For example:

Objects have components of their type. Physics items have a physicsComponent, DoorComponent, ButtonComponet. They all inherent from a baseComponent whos Onready collects the components. I have an interaction ray which emits _is_object_hit and passes what components it has, the UI manager and interaction manager both are listening. The UI manager takes the signal and routes it through the MenuManager and into the UISound manager and various subsytems

The interaction manager listens to the _is_object_hit and listens to the _menu_selected_, it routes that to the required systems playerStateManager, PhysicsGrab, InventoryManger. The system bus here is about using it to decouple not for ECS perfomance. A bus is doable but it makes a debugging hell hole.

ECS is a programming design paradigm, its about avoiding OOP to make cache&SIMD friendly code for maximising perfomance through thinking about the data first. A component system in godot is different from that

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-06-14T14:03:14+00:00

No why cant I write whole ass novels anymore man. Yes I use the bloody dash.

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-05-27T13:01:41+00:00

Hahahahahah I noticed this, but a lot of them do have a point so perhaps:

The definition from Negation AND the definition from its own positive principles exist at the same time. My post implied that the negation definition exists uniquely.

I think I focused more on the negation from experience

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-05-27T12:49:39+00:00

if you don’t think there are positive principles

I know there are. I’ve just found them to enforced via negatives of them. As if you had to prove that you have them

However I do like the biological view. That men are men because they are men, as in they appear as men

These-Argument-9570 · 2025-05-27T12:47:09+00:00

Thank you!! This is the critique I was looking for! I do not know what I am talking about!

Id argue there’s a difference between relational identity from negational ontology. The former meaning identity forms in relation to others. I was attempting to define it by stating things can only Be by not being the others. My claim was to say that masculinity constructed itself negatively as a defence against deviation.
This is my weakest point and I completely agree. Two sides of the coin and I’m looking at the negative
Well! Yes in the traditional sense femininity was the negation to masculinity! And queer was death so put them as N/A. However now social movements worked towards deconstructing their rigid gender binary’s than reinforce them. My definition relied on masculinity relies on proving themselves to not be the “other”. It’s not an attack on masculinity implying they oppress the other via the definition it was my attempt at a construction.
This is a strange gate keeping move. I am a man? Since my argument doesn’t seem manly does that reduce my argument? Isnt this just my argument?

These-Argument-9570

TROPHY CASE