Agreed. It is impossible to make an interface that works well for smaller screens with touch input, and larger screens with pointer input. You will always end up sacrificing information density and precision on the larger screen.
Or just have the interface autoscale itself like context menus on W10, if you trigger one with your mouse, it has compact mouse padding, if you trigger it with touch, it has bigger touch padding.
That's why I'm dreading the upcoming touchscreen MacBooks.
They already defaced macOS in Tahoe. It's a bit better in Golden Gate but still a massive regression that I only foresee getting worse as every UI will have to be built with "can this be used with someone's fat finger?"
Well, there are separate events for touch input and mouse input on native software. You can actually handle both if you actually have time to hone that to perfection...
Real players know you us the coarsest mipmap level the whole time, so every texture is something like 4 pixels. And 320x200 and directmouse. It's the smooth movement, high fps and direct control that provides the sense of "being there". Not the graphical fidelity.
I think you've almost exactly described my Counter-Strike setup 25 years ago.
Friends at LAN parties complained how ugly it was and my rebuttal was usually: "I'm afraid it stays unless you can buy me a better video card." The fact that the CRT slowly drifted to a yellow tinge on everything didn't help the asethetics--especially on de_dust. The GPU at the time might have been a Riva 128 ZX.
Of course you can but I think author’s point is to actually test/evaluate maximum performance of true software rendering on modern machines, and this is fine and refreshing exercise, even with filtering.
It’s 100% software rendering on CPU just multithreaded. But no metal/direct3d just framebuffer and rest is yours routines… and I actually added bilinear filtering…
Still fun project to do and remind yourself about fundamental algorithms behind elementary 3D graphics
Yeah, when glquake and the Voodoo1 came out, I was actually initially disappointed because I'd seen demos of vquake on the verite and its texture mapping was closer to the original. But you couldn't complain about the framerate of the 3dfx.
Holy crap that was dope. The music, the colors, the pacing.. just an absolute work of art by 2swap - and from the sounds of the end of the video, many many collaborators!
I understand the sentiment, but in a world where these kinds of problems (And problems at work) that can trivially be solved by LLMs; what kind of value can I provide?
That itself is a learning experience. What is even the point of technical interview questions or take home questions? This means that I am now open to hiring completely non-technical person, as long as they have a good personality and management skills more than a competent developer.
"I understand the sentiment, but in a world where these kinds of problems (And problems at work) that can trivially be solved by LLMs; what kind of value can I provide?"
This is sad conclusion. Maybe you're more right than wrong, but my answer to the "value" question would be:
Solving even harder problems based on lessons from solving easier ones? Pretty similar to the trajectory in this blog post. Perhaps aided additionally by llms and other tools that can solve the subproblems so you can focus on the less obvious/automatable aspects of the problem?
But note the tension, only by being involved in the problem solving to some extent do you become better at it. So if your default is to say "An LLM can or will soon be able to solve it, why bother?", then your situation will become more desperate and your outlook more negative in a self-reinforcing way.
no, Windows still leaves that to the program. Usually handled by the msvc runtime for argv/argc, but the base windows API is GetCommandLine, giving you a single string.
reply