AdrianTheFrog

I don't know much about them, it seems like they're failing at publicity though, I feel like basically no one's heard of them even though they have almost 100k members, including 6 members in Congress (who are in the democratic party as well, but they're still members)

I think they let basically any leftist in tho from what I've read on their Wikipedia page.

It’s not all that extreme but with an s of 30k someone who would be earning 20 million now earns 775k, you would also have to take into account benefits, stocks, etc I’m sure

I’m now leaning towards s*log2(x/s+2), it behaves a bit better towards the higher ends imo (280k at 20m and 381k at 200m)

If you want to decouple the starting income and income scale you could use s*logb(x/s+b)

here's a curve you can play around with, if you had a dataset with the number of people making each income you could balance it in whatever way would be ideal

It depends on the scaling threshold but where s=30k, it crosses over at around 50k

Its not of an income thing than a tax thing, if you earn no money you will still get an income of s$

prisons, MIC, rail, overuse of government contracting are all also worth addressing

What is the advantage over joining an existing organization like the Democratic Socialists of America?

personally I like the net income = s * sqrt(gross income / s + 1) curve as it provides a universal basic income, with an incentive to work, naturally guides incomes downwards, and all as a single easily configurable parameter you can use to fit to any arbitrary taxation amount, it might be better to get more granular control, but as far as 'janky patch solutions on top of capitalism' go I think it works well enough for how simple it is

antialiasing and denoising through temporal reprojection (using data from multiple frames)

it works pretty well imo but makes things slightly blurry when the camera moves, it really depends on the person how much it bothers you

its in a lot of games because their reflections/shadows/ambient occlusion/hair rendering etc needs it, its generally cheaper than MSAA (taking multiple samples on the edges of objects), it can denoise specular reflections, and it works much more consistently than SMAA or FXAA

modern upscalers (DLSS, FSR, XeSS) basically are a more advanced form of taa, intended for upscaling, and use the ai cores built into modern gpus. They have all of the advantages (denoising, antialiasing) of taa, but also generally show blurriness in motion.

"the garbage trend is to produce a noisy technique and then trying to "fix" it with TAA. it's not a TAA problem, it's a noisy garbage technique problem...if you remove TAA from from a ghosty renderer, you have no alternative of what to replace it with, because the image will be so noisy that no single-shot denoiser can handle it anyway. so fundamentally it's a problem with the renderer that produced the noisy image in the first place, not a problem with TAA that denoised it temporally"

(this was Alexander Sannikov (a Path of Exile graphics dev) in an argument/discussion with Threat Interactive on the Radiance Cascades discord server, if anyone's interested)

Anyways, it's really easier said than done to "just have a less noisy technique". Most of the time, it comes down to this choice: would you like worse, blobbier lighting and shadows, or would you like a little bit of blurriness when you're moving? Screen resolution keeps getting higher, and temporal techniques such as DLSS keep getting more popular, so I think you'll find that more and more people are going to go with the TAA option.

I think modern graphics cards are programmable enough that getting the gamma correction right is on the devs now. Which is why its commonly wrong (not in video games and engines, they mostly know what they're doing). Windows image viewer, imageglass, firefox, and even blender do the color blending in images without gamma correction (For its actual rendering, Blender does things properly in the XYZ color space, its just the image sampling that's different, and only in Cycles). It's basically the standard, even though it leads to these weird zooming effects on pixel-perfect images as well as color darkening and weird hue shifts, while being imperceptibly different in all other cases.

If you want to test a program yourself, use this image:

Try zooming in and out. Even if the image is scaled, the left side should look the same as the bottom of the right side, not the top. It should also look roughly like the same color regardless of its scale (excluding some moire patterns).

image and explanation

the context was one singular example of this happening btw, its still a bad take tho

see: the internet archive

for future reference, you can get local instance links these ways

[email protected]

/c/[email protected]