13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

[geearf]

Awesome news!
It feels strange to think that it's done, though Michael is right there are still the other extensions left and OES 3.2.

[eydee]

I bet someone doesn't want to advertise 4.5 yet because nobody wants to freeze Mesa on lucky number 13 for the next who knows how long. If you do 4.4 now and 4.5 in 3 months, you can get to call it Mesa 14 for the next several years!

They could just adopt the Google/Mozilla scheme and bump the number every 2 weeks. OGL 4.4 In Mesa 132 and OGL 4.5 in Mesa 645. Then just keep increasing the numbers to look cool. Switch to scientific notations at some point. Mesa 6*10^23 will be a good one for chemists.

[smitty3268]

They could just adopt the Google/Mozilla scheme and bump the number every 2 weeks. OGL 4.4 In Mesa 132 and OGL 4.5 in Mesa 645. Then just keep increasing the numbers to look cool. Switch to scientific notations at some point. Mesa 6*10^23 will be a good one for chemists.

So why is version 52 worse than version 5.2?

In both cases, you have to remember 2 numbers.

Also, why are you even looking at the version numbers? Who cares what they are?

[atomsymbol]

So... Mesa 14 then ?

It depends on the kind of people you want to sell the product to. If both the author/producer and the audience/consumers do not like 13 the author should avoid 13.

[CrystalGamma]

They could just adopt the Google/Mozilla scheme and bump the number every 2 weeks. OGL 4.4 In Mesa 132 and OGL 4.5 in Mesa 645. Then just keep increasing the numbers to look cool. Switch to scientific notations at some point. Mesa 6*10^23 will be a good one for chemists.

That'll take a few millenia though :S

[atomsymbol]

Sciences are based on assumptions anyway, so they don't yield truths in the sense of absolute truths.

It is true that physical laws last for just a few billions of years. The atoms comprising our bodies (arm, hair, ...) didn't exist a few billion years ago.

Physics, for example, has traditionally assumed –among other things– that there is a single reality (i.e. objectivity) composed of individual substances (used to be the atoms; then came subatomic particles, the quarks and, since relativity, things have got more complicated) and that these substances interact (i.e. causality).

One can choose any interpretation of reality that leads to results.

Thus, the ‘truths’ of sciences are as valid as the result of assuming, for example, that there's an almighty deity and that such great will will reward or punish one according to how one behaves (this is roughly destiny, and it appears in many ancient cultures) or upon doing some things (what's now called ‘superstition’, like fearing walking under a ladder will bring one bad luck).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

What happens is that this irritating liberal tradition which everyone in the Anglosphere buys into made a distinction between science and superstition on false grounds and glorified the thus wrongly-distinguised sciences.

The distinction is based on the number of useful results delivered to mankind.

The only difference between science's basic assumptions and any other assumptions one could make is really that they seem more reasonable to the majority nowadays.

If somebody said something 3000 thousands years ago, and believed it to be unquestionably true, it is allowed for the said statement to be superseded by a better one.

The difference doesn't lay in their nature, but in how they are perceived. And since when is a sensation of the majority a proper ground or method for us to reach knowledge? Certainly not until recently, with the rather irritating English philosophy. They even have tricks to turn their axioms («axiom» is another word for «assumption» they use to hide the fact they make assumptions and the astonishing quantity of them)

It is true that theoretical mathematics has limited applicability in people's lives.

and openly-recognized assumptions (like the principle of non-contradiction)

The rule the mathematicians use when the principle of non-contradiction is violated: Raise the abstraction level and increase complexity (such as: put the contradicting numbers in a set).

into objective or cuasi-objective principles, like the old psychologism or the "you are discussing, therefore you abide by these assumptions" bullshit, related to the inter-subjectivity concept, which is yet another theoretical trick to save the annoying legacy of modern phylosophy. Long story short: sciences are overrated.

In my opinion, whether a person believes that science is overrated partially depends on who were her/his teachers and on the books he/she read.

[caligula]

That'll take a few millenia though :S

Not necessarily. In the windows world they announce some build numbers that are pretty large, up to 5-6 digits. Now that node.js style micro imports are coming and people make shorter git commits, the development speed (in terms of version numbers) should increase once more by an order of magnitude.

[log0]

Sciences are based on assumptions anyway, so they don't yield truths in the sense of absolute truths. Physics, for example, has traditionally assumed –among other things– that there is a single reality (i.e. objectivity) composed of individual substances (used to be the atoms; then came subatomic particles, the quarks and, since relativity, things have got more complicated) and that these substances interact (i.e. causality). Thus, the ‘truths’ of sciences are as valid as the result of assuming, for example, that there's an almighty deity and that such great will will reward or punish one according to how one behaves (this is roughly destiny, and it appears in many ancient cultures) or upon doing some things (what's now called ‘superstition’, like fearing walking under a ladder will bring one bad luck). What happens is that this irritating liberal tradition which everyone in the Anglosphere buys into made a distinction between science and superstition on false grounds and glorified the thus wrongly-distinguised sciences. The only difference between science's basic assumptions and any other assumptions one could make is really that they seem more reasonable to the majority nowadays. The difference doesn't lay in their nature, but in how they are perceived. And since when is a sensation of the majority a proper ground or method for us to reach knowledge? Certainly not until recently, with the rather irritating English philosophy. They even have tricks to turn their axioms («axiom» is another word for «assumption» they use to hide the fact they make assumptions and the astonishing quantity of them) and openly-recognized assumptions (like the principle of non-contradiction) into objective or cuasi-objective principles, like the old psychologism or the "you are discussing, therefore you abide by these assumptions" bullshit, related to the inter-subjectivity concept, which is yet another theoretical trick to save the annoying legacy of modern phylosophy. Long story short: sciences are overrated.

ROFL. If there is one thing you post conveys, it is your scientific illiteracy.

The critical difference between science and superstition is that science is testing its assumptions. This is actually what makes science so useful.

[kalrish]

Dude, Science is just another tool in life. However it's used it's on the people's action, not the tool itself.

It's like saying it's the hammers fault for being a weapon because it's deadly if you hit someone with it real hard.

It seems you didn't understand anything. What this was all about was that atomsymbol made a distinction between science and superstition as though they were radically different, that is, of different nature, and I argued that's not the case, for both, and any form of knowledge for that matter, are based on assumptions. To assume that events cause other events (causality), which is one of the assumptions of physics, is not any less an assumption than to assume that everything happens at God's will (which appears, though not as an assumption, in e.g. Malebranche).

[kalrish]

ROFL. If there is one thing you post conveys, it is your scientific illiteracy.

The critical difference between science and superstition is that science is testing its assumptions. This is actually what makes science so useful.

Assumptions cannot be tested. If you actually believe science tests its assumptions, the illiteracy here is yours. And its scope is quite broader than just sciences.