526

Original Apollo 11 code open-sourced by NASA — original Command Module and Lunar Module code repos are now public domain resources (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 2 days ago by monica_b1998@lemmy.world to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Remarkable that you can copypaste all that and still can't comprehend what was done in 1984 and what was done in 2014.

If you find a way to represent our existing Milky Way galaxy with a procedural algorithm and a seed that can be run in a reasonable time on any current computer or even a cluster (say, running for a few dozen years), you're welcome to claim the Nobel prize.

[-] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Champ, re-read the thread. The comment was a joke - "in a cave, with a box of scraps" is a meme. The point was that Braben demonstrated procedural generation compresses galaxy-scale data into almost nothing, which is directly relevant to starman's napkin math about storage per star. Nobody claimed a seed perfectly reproduces the real Milky Way. You invented that claim and then dunked on it.

Also, you confidently told me Elite Dangerous was from 2014 when I was clearly citing Elite (1984) and Elite Dangerous (2014).

Maybe ease off the "can't comprehend" akshually.

[-] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

How about you reread the thread instead, see that it's about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.

[-] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How about you reread the thread instead, see that it’s about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.

The sub-thread is about the minimum storage to hold a 3D model per star. Starman defined a 2-byte tetrahedron and multiplied. That's storage math, not astrophysical reproduction.

Nobody at any point said "accurately reproducing existing stars."

Procedural generation is relevant because it's the canonical example of compressing astronomical-scale data into almost nothing - which is what Braben did in 1984, on the machine I cited, which you initially corrected me on incorrectly.

You've now moved the goalposts twice: first from Elite to Elite Dangerous, now from "minimal storage per model" to "accurately reproducing existing stars."

At some point it's easier for you to just re-read the thread than to keep inventing new arguments to lose.

Go away.

[-] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Wow, it's really a damn mess in your head.

[-] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Three replies deep and you've been wrong every single time. Confused Elite with Elite Dangerous. Invented a claim nobody made. Moved the goalposts thrice. Failed to comprehend both jokes and basic geometry.

And now that you've run out of thread to misread, you're resorting to ad hominems and hoping nobody scrolls up.

They will.