Kane Rogers-Wong

11.2K posts

Kane Rogers-Wong banner
Kane Rogers-Wong

Kane Rogers-Wong

@Kane_rogers

Unreasonably optimistic; probably the most enthusiastic person you'll ever meet. I spend most of my time colouring in triangles.

Melbourne Katılım Ağustos 2011
576 Takip Edilen433 Takipçiler
Kane Rogers-Wong
Kane Rogers-Wong@Kane_rogers·
@jamonholmgren Aw man, yeah this one sucks. If you’re going to be traversing large spaces, definitely makes sense to double down on the “render relative to the player” strategy. It’s slow going but I promise it’s worth it!
English
0
0
0
7
Jamon
Jamon@jamonholmgren·
Floating point precision gets pretty bad at 500 kilometers from the origin point 😅 Working on an origin shifting system, but it's slow going, given my terrain system doesn't support it and I'm having to do a bunch of C++ wrangling, compiling, reloading ... not the fastest feedback cycle
English
102
17
751
135.3K
Kane Rogers-Wong
Kane Rogers-Wong@Kane_rogers·
@awesomekling I live in the Rust bubble so I genuinely have no idea how we get perceived from the outside! What’s annoying about the community - smugness, preachiness?
English
0
0
0
8
Andreas Kling
Andreas Kling@awesomekling·
The Rust community is pretty annoying, but the anti-Rust community is on a whole other level of insufferable. Guys, grow up, there's more to life. 😅
English
66
33
1K
54.6K
Kane Rogers-Wong retweetledi
Adriksh
Adriksh@Adriksh·
Remember the first rule of memory safety in C is to have fun
Adriksh tweet media
English
25
189
2.6K
145.1K
Kane Rogers-Wong
Kane Rogers-Wong@Kane_rogers·
@SebAaltonen It’s really great to hear you say stuff like this. I don’t know if it’s real or imagine, but I feel a pressure to learn the “real way” with symbols and not “tools for children” like visuals or intuition.
English
1
0
2
73
Sebastian Aaltonen
Sebastian Aaltonen@SebAaltonen·
I really like visual/geometric proofs/intuition. Helps me to understand the problem better than cryptic math symbols. Same for derivatives. x^2 is a square. x++ adds one row/column. That's 2x (+1) pieces. x^3 is a cube, x++ adds three squares (x^2) on 3 faces = 3x^2.
Keenan Crane@keenanisalive

Here's a nice "proof without words": The sum of the squares of several positive values can never be bigger than the square of their sum. This picture helps make sense of how ℓ₁ and ℓ₂ norms regularize and sparsify solutions (resp.). [1/n]

English
5
10
119
8.8K
Nathan 🔎
Nathan 🔎@NathanpmYoung·
keep you friends close, keep your disagreeable reply guys closer
English
5
3
39
3K
brandonhare the cool and neat
brandonhare the cool and neat@double_bucket_·
trying to cut some scissors in half but I don’t have any other tools except the scissors
English
1
0
4
81
BioGrid
BioGrid@BioGridGame·
@MRidulPAncholi Good question. I think its mainly because the better and more complete a simulation is, the less it requires or even accommodates a player. I'm trying hard to avoid that trap.
English
5
0
40
669
Dave W Plummer
Dave W Plummer@davepl1968·
If you can spot the bug that causes this code to never return, you're a better coder than 99% of oil painters.
Dave W Plummer tweet media
English
168
42
743
75.5K
Kane Rogers-Wong
Kane Rogers-Wong@Kane_rogers·
@davepl1968 Hey, Dave! I love your videos and your content - it strikes me as very authentic which is quite rare. But for some reason I found the “1% dev” thing off-putting; seemed unusually clickbaity. Maybe you were just joking, but I thought you may appreciate the feedback.
English
0
0
5
507
Dave W Plummer
Dave W Plummer@davepl1968·
Are you a 1% dev? Can you explain the output?
Dave W Plummer tweet media
English
242
45
873
177.8K
Kane Rogers-Wong
Kane Rogers-Wong@Kane_rogers·
@NathanpmYoung I agree this is serious moral cowardice, but I’m not sure I agree with the capitalism part. Is this not a problem in any system? Party A has influence over Party B, Party B says the right thing about Party A. What is unique to Capitalism here in your mind?
English
0
0
1
60
Kane Rogers-Wong
Kane Rogers-Wong@Kane_rogers·
@fchollet @TobyPhln I think your argument does have some compelling points but this is a weak statement. Even with all the knowledge in the world about aviation, I don’t believe I could build a flying machine in 1500.
English
0
0
0
74
François Chollet
François Chollet@fchollet·
@TobyPhln From 1500 to 1900, the evidence was that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. It was attempted many times, it never worked. On the other hand, zeppelins and balloons empirically scale quite well...
English
16
17
491
21K
François Chollet
François Chollet@fchollet·
I believe that if you understood intelligence, you could build it in software form on a $1M budget, including training. It would not need to be trained on the entire Internet, nor on the thought process of thousands of experts.
English
271
237
3.6K
470.5K
Kane Rogers-Wong retweetledi
tanya
tanya@Tanya_Sabrinaaa·
i actually read the Odyssey in the original greek. complete waste of time, i have no idea what those symbols mean
English
179
7.1K
143.1K
11.4M