I want to see that shader. How is sloshing implemented? Is the volume of the bottle computed on every frame?
Clearly, there's some sort of a physics simulation going on there, preserving the volume, some momentum, and taking gravity into account. That the result is being rendered over the shader pipeline rather than the triangle one doesn't make it any more or less "real" than the rest of the game. It's a lie only if the entire game is a lie.
Is it really doing any sloshing though? Isn't it "just" using a plane as the surface of the liquid? And then adding a bunch of other effects, like bubbles, to give the impression of sloshing?
> The area covered by 100 one dollar bills measures 11.13 square feet.
comes out to about $9/sq. ft., about 9 times as expensive.
But 1USD=90RUB today, and the lowest denominated note is 5RUB, coming out to 1USD=18notes. Each note is 137 mm × 61 mm, coming out to about 0.09 sq. ft. (if I'm not mistaken). Then 1USD=1.62 RUB sq. ft., so it costs
$0.62/sq. ft.
to have a green wall of ~~current~~ obsolete Russian currency.
What's surprising is that you can afford it even if you live in Russia. According to Obi and this roll of wallpaper:
the price per area isn't that different, coming out to about $2/sq. ft., meaning that if you have a clever way to paste all the single notes easily and know how not to get in any potential trouble with the law, it makes economical sense to get your wallpaper at the bank.
EDIT: according to Wikipedia, the note has been replaced by coins, and the next one is almost but not quite 10x as expensive by area.
Those two operations are not related to each other. It's more intuitive if you treat .indexOf() as .startOf(). Then "asdf"[0..x] is "as" for x=2, and ""[0..x] is "" for x=0.
"Reasonable" is an unfortunate word IMO. An assumption doesn't come out of reasoning. We can't even estimate the probability of this assumption being right because we can't see the future.
The best way this word fits is that we can reason towards the conclusion that whether laws will change or not is an assumption.
Those are not necessarily examples of lifting. Those could as well be explained by the contribution of not pressing on the opposite pedal (to keep the foot from sliding).
And not pressing doesn't shine any light on the force of lifting.
The foot doesn’t slide with clipless peddles. The foot is locked in position. And you can absolutely use lifting and pushing combined - I have done this many times on long sportives (~100 miles); it can give respite to the ‘pushing’ muscles
So you obviously have never used clip in bike pedals before. Why are you trying to argue this point if you know nothing about what you're talking about?
If you're clipped in, why would you keep feet from sliding?
Preventing sliding by pushing is how effort is wasted and is a possible explanation why a cyclist might feel much stronger when clipped in and no longer has to push - while attributing the lower effort to the upstroke pull.
They are, and this is trivially
demonstrable by literally just trying it on a bike. Seriously. Go put a road bike in the highest gear and try to get up to speed from a standstill. Not only will you be pulling up on the rear pedal, but you’ll be using your arms to try and wrench the handlebars off the stem too.
Go climb a steep hill. Same thing occurs. It’s not like this is subtle. The contribution of your rear leg very clearly contracting will be impossible to miss.
Yes, there are tons of these sorts of circuits. It's something that is often needed, and these sorts of circuits have been used before ultra-cheap microcontrollers were a thing. A turing-complete computer is serious overkill for this sort of application.
I'm not sure if there is a single-chip solution (although I'd be a bit surprised if there isn't), but the fundamental circuit isn't that ambitious. Using a very low-end microcontroller is likely less expensive, though.
Our society is geared -- at all levels -- towards minimizing expense regardless of the impact on quality or even on society in general. We're all racing to the bottom.
Giving people raises for automating things is minimizing expense.
Suppose Alice is making $40,000/year and comes up with a way to automate a third of her job. So you start paying her $50,000/year and give her some other work to do. Then Bob and Carol each find a way to automate a third of their own jobs, so now they all make $50,000 and have made Don redundant.
The company is now paying $150,000 in total salary instead of $160,000 and only has to pay insurance and provide office space for three employees instead of four. Meanwhile the workers who found ways to improve efficiency are making more money and have the incentive to do it again and get another raise.
Companies may not actually do this, but those companies are mismanaged and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
> they realize they’re all potential future Dons if these automations continue.
That isn't how the economy works. Bob, Carol, Alice and the boss are now collectively making $40,000+/year more than they did before. Where does this money go? To buy something they couldn't previously afford, made by Don at his new job somewhere else, which was created to meet the increase in demand caused by the increase in productivity.
The only way automation reduces employment is if it makes goods cost less and then people choose to work less because working less still allows them to buy everything they want. But in general people don't do that. Given the choice between having the same stuff they have now and working fewer hours or having more stuff than they do now and working the same number of hours, they pick the second one.
It is not entirely correct to describe the social contract within a corporation as capitalist if you are salaried and compensation is indirectly tied to performance.
Clearly, there's some sort of a physics simulation going on there, preserving the volume, some momentum, and taking gravity into account. That the result is being rendered over the shader pipeline rather than the triangle one doesn't make it any more or less "real" than the rest of the game. It's a lie only if the entire game is a lie.