Originally posted by zanny
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 3
-
Originally posted by eydee View Post
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.
In both cases, you have to remember 2 numbers.
Also, why are you even looking at the version numbers? Who cares what they are?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by eydee View Post
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by CrystalGamma View Post
That'll take a few millenia though :S
Comment
-
Originally posted by kalrish View Post
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.
The critical difference between science and superstition is that science is testing its assumptions. This is actually what makes science so useful.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sethox View Post
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by log0 View Post
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by atomsymbolOne can choose any interpretation of reality that leads to results.
Originally posted by atomsymbol
Originally posted by atomsymbolThe distinction is based on the number of useful results delivered to mankind.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by kalrish View PostSciences are based on assumptions anyway,
Also, please fix your keyboard's return key.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by kalrish View PostTo 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).
All scientific assumptions are tested and validated by each and everything you build upon them and actually works in real life. Causality is tested and validated each time something works exactly as designed or a theory based on it shows proof it's describing the reality.
Non-scientific bullshit isn't even tested with a method that excludes bias, go figure how well it is validated.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment