Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by trek View Post
    fuckin philosophers, please go troll another forum!
    this thread was about radeonsi, so you can take all your superstition and science and put them up your...
    Lol, I don't mind philosophy or science. But your right.. I'm eagerly looking for peeps comments on the new mesa ogl 4.x work and had to skip through all that off topic bs.

    Anyway, getting back to these patches... Fantastic work. Things are really moving forward. I'm seriously considering going Vega 10 next year even tho Nvidia still have advantage in Linux games right now.
    ​​​​
    ​​​​

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by trek View Post
      <deleted vulgarism> philosophers, please go troll another forum!
      this thread was about radeonsi, so you can take all your superstition and science and put them up your...
      As my final statement in this discussion, I would like to note that, in mathematics and sciences, a useful result supports (verifies) an axiom and a non-useful result unsupports (disproves) an axiom. The process itself is very akin to back-propagation in artificial neural networks.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
        I've squashed these patches and one to enable OpenGL 4.5 on i965 on my mesa-9999 ebuild in the FireBurn overlay for those that want to test it on Gentoo
        Thanks man! I remember using your overlays for steam on Gentoo way back before we had ABI_X86 settings in portage. Hah, that was fun dealing with all those 32 bit libs!

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

          As my final statement in this discussion, I would like to note that, in mathematics and sciences, a useful result supports (verifies) an axiom and a non-useful result unsupports (disproves) an axiom. The process itself is very akin to back-propagation in artificial neural networks.
          Actually no, an axiom by its very definition can neither be proved nor disproved. An axiom is in fact an *assertion of truth*! That isn't as bad as it may sound though.

          This is actually a very interesting thing to think about carefully as it is the embodiment of "the problem" with modern mathematics and it has divided mathematics into two fundamentally apposed paradigms of thought. Mine is constructivism however I shall leave you to come up with your own thoughts and allow you to change them over time as your thinking evolves about the topic. A good place to start is perhaps the classic axiom of choice in set theory as an exemplification.

          btw, I would not go as far as to say these posts are trolling, I myself am a mesa developer and I only signed up to this forum because of this topic of the deep philosophy of the domains of logic!

          Comment


          • #45
            Well at least those "Reader's Digest" "Philosphy of science" trolls are a refreshing change from all the "BTRFS and SystemD are the Evulz !!!!" trolls as of late.
            Or all the Trump/Clinton astroturfing trolls that are currently polluting /.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
              Well at least those "Reader's Digest" "Philosphy of science" trolls are a refreshing change from all the "BTRFS and SystemD are the Evulz !!!!" trolls as of late.
              Or all the Trump/Clinton astroturfing trolls that are currently polluting /.
              absolutely, I was probably too tired to search something about the topic, sorry

              Originally posted by funfunctor View Post
              btw, I would not go as far as to say these posts are trolling, I myself am a mesa developer and I only signed up to this forum because of this topic of the deep philosophy of the domains of logic!
              sorry again, I should simply ignore what it is out of my scope, but in the future I would suggest to create a new topic on the "General Discussion" area to continue the discussion and simply post a link here

              my apologies!

              Comment


              • #47
                Most here won't recognise an idea unless it is backed by an authority, that is, one of the local gods (i.e. a developer) or a scientist (preferably American). Since there's already Edward for the former, let the later be represented by the chapter Why Science (Natural Philosophy) is Bullshit and the book Axioms it is part of, written by Robert G. Brown, an American physicist and programmer at Duke University. Lest such authorities as a Mesa developer and an American physicist be doubted, you'll swallow your arrogance and recognise I was right, won't you?

                And let's not rant about how discussions are driven by authority instead of truth and so are a socratic myth and, most of the times, a way of losing one's time and getting pointlessly irritated, nor about freedom of expression, which lets morons spread bullshit and thus thwarts freedom of truth.

                Comment

                Working...
                X