I'm surprised no one really has answered the implied question. Wireless protocols are hard for VR not because of bandwidth, but because of latency. Head tilt motions have to be processed extremely quickly to not be nauseating. Even with wired systems, the headset often ends up doing all kinds of motion prediction to process motion and shift the image before the game has time to process it, because engines aren't going to round trip input to video output at 120fps/8ms (double buffering doubles your latency!).
Of course, that multiplies with bandwidth requirements, which are also quite extreme at 4k 120fps.
It doesn't seem to me like you've described concepts that are all that different, loading from global memory is slow on the CPU too because often it requires some kind of barrier or lock. All techniques require you to pre-arrange memory, just in different sized blocks. And sharing data between "lanes" is always to be minimized. Different amount on different platforms ofc, but the ideas seem similar.
Doesn't this break if the child uses a VPN, or some other software to spoof? For this to really work Windows would have to lock down all HTTP, and really all networking, only allow approved software/browsers, etc. Is there a reason this wouldn't be the case?
Why would this be true? The way "single instance mode" usually works is by taking a global mutex or making a lock file. What makes this not possible for TUI apps? Isn't it just culture?
My guess is that is because a TUI can’t give focus to the existing instance. When a GUI application realizes that an instance is already running, it can ask the windowing manager to unhide and focus the running instance.
For a TUI to do the same, it wouldn’t just need to find and focus the window, but would need to trace it through the myriad ways that a TUI can be displayed. I may run a TUI inside a docker container, as part of a tmux session, over ssh. If a TUI somehow managed to focus the existing instance through those layers of wrapping, I would be very surprised, disgusted, and impressed.
So I think it’s that the end goal of “redirect user to existing instance” is infeasible, so nobody bothers to enforce a single instance, since the rest of the steps aren’t possible.
It's an interesting thought, but hard to imagine how this would be implemented system wide. The clipboard would need to remember the source application, and have some kind of unique identifier to issue a delete to the source application.
I see your point, but this isn't exactly true, it only takes a single person to bias a model by deleting specific training data or over training on certain facts.
I'm not sure what the situation is here, but on many sites making alt account to avoid bans can result in a lifetime ban. A high profile figure who's been banned from a service advertising that they still have access to it might be a risk.
Also, these companies (or data brokers) likely share ban and alt account lists, ban evading could hurt the reputation of all your accounts.
These are some pragmatic reasons not to evade bans.
This is a general problem with destructors, you can't "batch delete" objects. To free a lot of stuff you're required to go pointer by pointer through the tree to clean up each object. To get real performance gains from pools you can't have per-object/subobject custom cleanup code.
This is way too absolute a point. There's services like water and internet service you're effectively subscribed too that don't get worse. There's obvious efficiencies that can be gained from regularizing demand with subscriptions. Amazon Prime is another example of a something I've been subscribed to for over a decade and I don't feel has gotten worse.
Of course, that multiplies with bandwidth requirements, which are also quite extreme at 4k 120fps.
reply