Not really. Besides the problems with ringing outlined in the post, the number of coefficients required to capture higher frequency detail grows quadratically, requiring not only more storage but also operations to evaluate. Which makes straightforward cubemap replacement impractical.
Author here. Please let me know if the sample code doesn't work for you. It's all single threaded dumb JavaScript which makes it very easy to read, but definitely not performant. I decided to stick with it for didactic reasons, but still worried that it may hang someone's browser.
I don't know, I'm not convinced with this argument.
The "ugly" version with the switch seems much preferable to me.
It's simple, works, has way less moving parts and does not require complex machinery to be built into the language. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but as it stands I'm not seeing any horrible problems with it.
no.
it was the first question I asked and was given a satisfactory explanation (along the lines of, "this adds things to your program that help it write text to the screen.")
mmap is not a language feature. it is also full of its own pitfalls that you need to be aware of. recommended reading: https://db.cs.cmu.edu/mmap-cidr2022/
Yeah I misused the term "token". What I really meant is that they should just be token separator and nothing more (i.e. once we encounter whitespace it means the current token has ended)
I have really just one wish when it comes to syntax: no syntactically significant whitespace. Space, newline, tab, etc. should ALL map to the same exact token. In practice this also means semicolons or something like them are needed as well, to separate expressions/statements. I dislike langs that try to insert semicolons for you, but at least it's better than the alternative.
the way python treats whitespace is a huge design mistake that has probably wasted like a century (if not more) worth of time across all users, on something really trivial.
she did not explicitly consent for that photo to be used in computer graphics research or millions of sample projects. moreover, the whole legality of using that image for those purposes is murky because I doubt anyone ever received proper license from the actual rights-holder (playboy magazine). so the best way to go about this is just common-sense good-faith approach: if the person depicted asks you to please knock it off, you just do it, unless you actively want to be a giant a-hole to them.
the "porn" angle is very funny to me, since there is nothing pornographic or inapropriate about the image. when I was young, I used to think it was some researcher's wife whom he loved so much he decide to use her picture absolutely everywhere.
it's sufficient to say that the person depicted has withdrawn their consent for that image to be used, and that should put an end to the conversation.
when you read this and its follow-up "driver" as a commentary on how capitalism removes persons from their humanity, it's as relevant as it was on day one.