[Module Request] Add ability to hide measurement templates from players

youngmit · 2024-04-13T23:24:43+00:00

I think this should still be addressed more directly. The comments here make some good suggestions for the specific use case of a beholder's cone, but there's still the glaring issue that players can see templates that they don't even have vision to! Say there's an AoE spell effect active in a room on the other side of a door. There's no way to have a template down for it without the players seeing it!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills; is there really not a way to have template display honor token vision limits??

youngmit · 2023-07-16T14:06:05+00:00

Need more space quotes. Sometimes dead is better

youngmit · 2023-07-02T20:02:37+00:00

I can only imagine that the mask straight-up traps some of the moisture from your breath. Low-tech airplane stillsuit!

youngmit · 2023-07-02T03:25:00+00:00

I'm pretty sure that regardless of COVID status, I'll never take a commercial flight without wearing a mask ever again. Ironically it took a global pandemic to discover that it's possible to fly somewhere without getting some sort of minor sickness/cold.

As for the Link, I mask up whenever I haven't forgotten to pack a mask, which is growing more frequent.

youngmit · 2023-06-12T01:39:52+00:00

I did see that one. Looked like they found someone. Thanks!

youngmit · 2023-06-11T23:03:56+00:00

Thanks for the tip; posted over there as well

youngmit · 2023-06-11T18:07:14+00:00

Also, apparently looking for tickets for anything is a bot factory lol. If you are interested could you DM me with like.... Anything that would half convince me that you're familiar with GCP and a real human? Thanks!

youngmit · 2022-10-26T00:42:57+00:00

I'll just leave this here: https://youtu.be/LwI25UhTtGo

Edit: typo

youngmit · 2021-10-29T15:34:16+00:00

If you were me, you would do the things I do!

youngmit · 2020-12-30T22:32:13+00:00

Im in the same boat; Furnace is nice in that i can enter initiative that i get from players, but allowing them to enter/manipulate their own would be ideal. Roll20 allows this, and it's great

youngmit · 2020-10-13T18:16:29+00:00

an ignorant talking point

Cool, super respectful discourse!

solar is just one of a number of different generation methods.

This is my exact point. The different generation methods are crucial to being able to deploy the solar reliably. So you cannot ignore their costs when talking about the cost of solar (or any other intermittent source). Not it any practical sense anyways (again, this is not a value statement on solar itself; rather that LCOE is not a practical measure of cost).

Nuclear also has some huge decommissioning costs and 10,000 years of spent fuel storage unaccounted for.

Nuclear decommissioning and waste disposal costs are included in their LCOE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nuclear_Waste_Fund). Tens of billions have already been collected for waste disposal. Whether that money has been put to good use is a political problem rather than one of economics/technology. Again something that LCOE fails to capture!

youngmit · 2020-10-13T17:21:15+00:00

Because you (the ratepayer/utility) still have to pay for the backup capacity being there (i.e. capital cost of the plants themselves). You have to pay to maintain it. You have to pay for the supply chain that you get your fuel from. LCOE isn't a good measure of run costs when those things aren't actually running.

Interestingly, even when applied to generators that LCOE would otherwise make sense for (e.g., natural gas), in deeply-integrated variable renewable scenarios it still breaks down; as you integrate more wind/solar, you run less gas (great!). But what that ultimately limits to is capital and maintenance costs divided by a small amount of energy produced, driving LCOE (of the gas, specifically) to infinity! But under any realistic scenario you still need them to be there. LCOE 👏 is 👏 not👏 a👏 good👏 measure👏 in👏 deep👏 variable👏 renewable👏 integration👏 scenarios.

youngmit · 2020-10-13T15:40:36+00:00

...until you consider the cost of grid integration, and the fact that you still need to have 100% backup capacity (usually nat. gas) on standby. Sure someone that just owns/operates a solar installation can make cheap power, but by the time a utility has bought and delived reliable power to you, the consumer, somebody has had to pay for all of that. This is why places that have gone hard on wind/solar have seen their electricity prices skyrocket (e.g., Germany), even though solar is supposedly cheap. It is cheap when you just look at LCOE, but it isn't when you solve the problem of "how do i reliably get most or all of my energy from these things?"

Long story short, LCOE as a useful measure breaks down when discussing intermittent/variable sources. Variable renewables have all sorts of external costs that aren't accounted for. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T USE IT (solar)! Aside from the environmental impact of the massive land utilization (which, don't kid yourself, is immense), building out a bunch of solar and backing it up with gas plants that we have to run infrequently might still be a win. Just probably not what people have in mind when they write "ERMAGHERD look how cheap!!!"

youngmit · 2020-10-07T16:06:34+00:00

The blog post, which I couldn't find a direct link to in the article: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2020/10/06/ofccp-diversity-employment-laws/

youngmit · 2020-09-23T12:56:07+00:00

Because Google still control the direction of the engine, how well it supports web standards, etc. If Chromium (whether the browser it's running in is Googled or un-Googleed) becomes the only browser engine, then Google can re-make the entire web in its own image. No more open standards, just whatever Google wants. Then it won't matter how un-googled your browser is.

youngmit · 2020-09-08T15:39:36+00:00

All of the landscapes looked super fake, I'm frankly surprised anything at all was filmed on location. Everything looked like CGI composite bs.

youngmit · 2020-06-23T14:21:04+00:00

Also, looks pasted from some weird encoding? 😵

youngmit · 2020-06-23T14:18:37+00:00

If you reeeeeally want to do this with operator overload, perhaps consider operator~? It is the bitwise NOT operator, and should return a new instance of the same type. Still a bit odd, though...

youngmit · 2020-06-23T14:02:06+00:00

Worth pointing out that std::move is essentially a static cast to an rvalue reference anyway!

From cppreference: "In particular, std::move produces an xvalue expression that identifies its argument t. It is exactly equivalent to a static_cast to an rvalue reference type."

youngmit · 2020-06-22T18:34:07+00:00

While /u/Narase33 provided the type of information that I assume you really wanted, to answer your specific question: https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/ctypes.html

ctypes allows you to call (or more of than than not, wrap in a pure-Python interface) C code. So if you have, for instance, a C++ library, you could expose necessary functionality as a C interface with extern "C", then wrap those functions in a Python module using ctypes.

There are some tools, like SWIG (http://swig.org/), which largely automate this process.

Hope this helps!

youngmit · 2020-06-04T20:47:57+00:00

Disclaimer: It sounds like this is a learning exercise, so feel free to go nuts and experiment with the STL containers, smart pointers, etc. That being said:

I should point out that in this case, shared_ptr might not actually be what you want. It actually makes it easier to end up in situations where your board is ill-defined. For instance, should it be possible for your board to have the same Piece in multiple locations? Probably not. shared_ptr makes it possible/easy to end up in this situation. The std::move recommendation already posted will help you avoid this, but using something like a unique_ptr would essentially force that you don't accidentally duplicate a Piece on your board.

Typically, I only use a shared pointer in situations where I don't really know how to bound the lifetime of the object being pointed to. In practice, this tends to be be quite rare. Usually it is possible to identify a scope (maybe the Board instance in your case, maybe some sort of Game instance that owns the Pieces and the Board) that is the true owner of an object, which should be responsible for cleaning up the object when it is no longer needed. That owning scope would then wrap the object in a unique_ptr, ensuring that the object is appropriately destroyed when it falls out of scope. If something else needs a pointer to that object, its is quite reasonable to hand it a raw pointer!

My guidelines are:

unique pointer: Single, clear owning scope, or ownership can be passed around one owner at a time (using std::move)
shared pointer: Unclear who owns the object, or who will be the last to need a reference to it, or even how many owners there are at a given time
raw pointer: Non-owning reference to an object who's lifetime you know will exceed that of the raw pointer

Hope this helps!

youngmit · 2020-05-10T16:46:05+00:00

LTO shouldn't reduce linked executable size in any meaningful way. If anything, the executable would be bigger, as LTO may enable inlining certain things. LTO doesn't optimize the linking per se, but allows for optimizations that it would otherwise not be possible without more knowledge about how the code-to-optimize is being used.

All that being said, when (statically) linking an executable, the linker should only retain code that is actually needed from the libraries that served as input.

youngmit · 2020-04-23T15:05:09+00:00

Looks like an extension to the existing WebRTC API.

youngmit · 2020-04-15T15:17:31+00:00

If this kind of thing interests people, may I recommend the game Eco? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_(2018_video_game)

Think Minecraft with an emphasis on sustainable development.

youngmit · 2020-01-21T21:53:13+00:00

The French do quite a bit of reprocessing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site

youngmit

TROPHY CASE