Hmm that might be nice actually. I like not conflating those two things, but as you say if the repo is already init'd then there's no chance it'll be used for the wrong purpose.
In any case the main thrust was just to avoid embeddings assumptions about branch names in your scripts :)
I've had essentially that - if a bit fancier to accept an optional argument as well as handle common "mainline" branch names - aliased as `git lint` for a while:
> Hourglass. A subject would fall into this shape category when there is a very small difference in the comparison of the circumferences of her bust and hips AND if the ratios of her bust-to-waist and hips-to-waist are about equal and significant (Simmons, 2002)
> Rectangle. A rectangular subject would have her bust and hip measure fairly equal AND her bust-to-waist and hip-to-waist ratios low. She would not possess a clearly discernible waistline (Simmons, 2002)
Over here (E.U) I'd say most women definitely would be "hourglass shaped" in some way more than any other shape - maybe some would be a tie with "rectangle" but I'm breaking the tie by saying it's fair to say hourglass does not mean wasp-waist either - so I couldn't reconcile my anecdotal observation from the stated facts until it dawned on me that this was U.S stats.
> One 2007 study found that half of women (49%) in the U.S. were considered rectangle-shaped. Only 12% of women had a true hourglass figure.
> Results from the 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 34.2% of U.S. adults aged 20 years and over are overweight, 33.8% are obese, and 5.7% are extremely obese.
And apparently it's worse for women (35.5% obese) than men (32% obese).
Anyway I'm not sure what "true hourglass" is supposed to even mean (wasp-waist?); according to the definition you got some waistline + balanced hip and shoulders => you're hourglass. If you start using "rectangle" as a fallback when in doubt then of course it's going to rate higher.
Funnily enough the very study linked is a comparison with another country (Korea):
For far too long I'm ashamed to admit, I would use vim with the adventure time theme on iterm2. Looking at it now I'm shocked my eyes didn't bleed more. I think the worst part was that visual mode was neon yellow bold text with neon pink bg. Relying on visual mode quite a bit while using vim I was self inoculating my subconscious with stills of a poor Jackson Pollock imitator while on multiple different amphetamines. Hopefully I find out my resistance soon.
I loved the Blades dashboard. Something about idly pressing the shoulder buttons to flip through the blades while talking to my friend with that goofy wireless "Xbox communicator" on my ear.
Because at some point it becomes cheaper to ship and destroy than to store and sell.
Inventory is "dead money" in accounting books!
Money has been converted to Obtainium and Obtainium just sits there until it is converted back to (hopefully more) money, taking valuable space that could be filled with more Obtainium as soon as it goes away.
At some point that Obtainium sitting there unsold just becomes un-space and destroying it becomes the cheapest move.
Probably you should really watch TNG first, lots of characters and lore that would be needed to fully appreciate a lot of things that would otherwise fall flat at best or be outright not understandable. I don't think they matter to understanding the main arc but then the main arc is only a small part of the show.
(Voyager is entirely optional but a much welcome addition that happens concurrently at later seasons; I would recommend it on its own anyway.)
For all these shows, let them grow on you, the first season of each can be a bit awkward but then things start to fall into place, both in terms of characters/lore/setting/story/world building as well as actors themselves getting the hang of characters.
And yes there are absolute duds of episodes, but don't let that make you miss the absolutely fantastic ones.
Not knowing the established history of some characters can actually be nice I think. The difference between a blank slate with conveniently made up background and a background that has already been told, in quite some detail, that difference tends to be very noticeable. No matter how "complex" the background made up on the spot is.
When the background has been told elsewhere, it's a legitimate challenge to the unprepared viewer's mind. But when it's made up on the spot, it's an arbitrary riddle. I know some viewers love that kind of stuff (e.g. everybody who made it through Lost I guess?), but to me that just feels annoying. If you want me to apply myself to the riddle, make it part of the story (like in a whodunnit), or don't keep me guessing.
But when it's organically grown background complexity from another story, I'm perfectly fine with it. Patrick Stewart's Gurney Halleck: he just pops up later with atomics, the "how" is not part of the movie adaptation. And neither is speculating about it. It's just an obvious indication that yes, there's more happening in this universe than the part squeezed into anamorphic cinemascope.
That being said, yes, watching TNG after DS9 wouldn't work well at all. It's hard enough watching early episodes after late episodes, because even the "adventure of the week" episodes have been told very differently later, but the universe is too much the same to really disconnect.
Starfleet's relationship with the Cardassians was established in TNG, and I think that DS9 failed to reiterate that properly in the first season.
Then you have Obrian's history with the Cardassians - quite significant for his new assignment and without this context the character feels like a fake tough guy. The acting and directing was brilliant, because we could feel the restrain, but without understanding this it comes off cocky. It's like watching Travolta's character dance poorly in Pulp Fiction - if you didn't know who Travolta was, the scene comes off poorly acted. Or Robin Williams playing a gay man playing straight. Some background of the character is important to actually enjoy the acting mastery that we are witnessing.
Interesing, there's more here including HL1 (a.k.a "valve")
Funnily enough the looks of this HL2 through this engine makes it flow more with HL1 than I could expect; an interesting reverse Half Life: Source / Black Mesa / demake of sorts.
Even simple Half-Life 1 mods built on textures and models from Half-Life 2 look much closer to 2 than one would expect. For example this mod, but not only:
You won't confuse it with modern Half-Life 2, but the original HL2 engine had far worse graphics than the latest version. Makes you realize how much of the difference between HL2 and HL1 is due to different textures and level design.
edit: there is also the fact that map compilers for gold source games have advanced far beyond what they could do back in 1999. The lightmaps and light sources alone can be far more intricate nowadays than what you would get from the official valve ones in 1999.
The other thing though is that Original Quake Back In The Day ran on a Pentium 75 (needed the maths co-processor) with a dumb framebuffer. All the rasterising of polygons was pure software, as was all the geometry processing. Running GLQuake was a huge improvement but it required an expensive add-in card that piggybacked onto your VGA card, and a whole different binary.
Now you can just kind of pile it into a block of RAM, aim a chunky ASIC at it, and pull the trigger every frame.
In the late 90s a mate of mine did a phenomenal video of a Quake demo (you could record all player movements and camera positions as a "dem file") that he'd rendered out, raytraced in POVRay. I printed it to VHS for him as part of a showreel, and never thought to keep a copy myself.
While lighting is important, not using halflife.wad and going above the
original budget of 500 polys per "scene" is what makes modern works look much
better.
Most of the original textures are under 128×96 px and some suffer from awful
palletisation artefacts with purple and orange halos.
We still cannot use more than 8 bpp but we can use 512×512 textures and do a
better job at reducing to 256 colours. I use pngquant for that.
In GoldSrc lightmaps cannot get more intricate though, they're tied to the
texture scale so you cannot get a finer lightmap unless you also make larger
textures and scale them down, and these two combined will wreck your
"AllocBlock" budget in which all your textures and lightmaps must fit.
ericw-tools and its dirtmapping are still welcome improvements over the
"traditional" *HLT compilers.
> In GoldSrc lightmaps cannot get more intricate though, they're tied to the texture scale so you cannot get a finer lightmap unless you also make larger textures and scale them down, and these two combined will wreck your "AllocBlock" budget in which all your textures and lightmaps must fit.
AFAIK some of the improvements include much better light bouncing techniques, transmission of surface colors like source does, more accurate lights, spotlights that emulate what source spotlights does and faster compilation (computers also got faster and MT support helps a lot). That alone allows level designers to be more ambitious by taking advantage of faster iteration and place even more lights.
I do agree that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of reasons why maps can and usually do look way better today than what could be done in the past. Hell, even level designer proficiency with the tools as time goes is also surely a reason.
I used to do a bit of mapping back then (nothing that survived to this day, thankfully); as I recall, practically nobody used official map compilers. As it often happens, the community wrote replacements that were much faster for debug "-O0" builds, and generated lightmaps of a significantly higher quality for the release "-O2" builds.
It was either ZHLT or VLHT, or something like that; looks like more alternatives have been written since then.
The lighting is one of the main area's that really improved a lot.
For standard Q1 mapping ericw tools [0] is great (the page has some nice previews).
This project seems to use Nuclide for building which by default uses vmap compiler [1][2]. Which is really Q3 but I think FTE handles that well internally as the newer format has some more modern features.
> Powerful BSP compiler. Use VMAP to bake levels like you're used to from similar engine technology, with high quality lightmaps, cubemap-based environment mapping and adjustable vertex colors on spline-based meshes.
There was a similar path with Unreal3. The early games (2006) lighting looks quite harsh by modern standards, one of the highlights of Mirror's Edge (2008) was DICE using third party Illuminate's "beast" lighting, then Epic moved to "lightmass" around 2009 with the public UDK toolset.
A shame to only now learn of Victor Antonov's passing. His work on HL2 and Dishonored remain some of my favorite examples of video game world building of all time. These places felt real and lived in, in a way few other video games have matched for me.
Yeah Cry of Fear really pushed the GoldSource engine to its limits (I think it implemented a custom renderer but the models just push the base engine's limits with regards to maximum polygons and texture sizes).
I mean, while useless in terms of `git init` because the repo's already init'd, this works:
And if you have `init.defaultBranch` set up already globally for `git init` then it all just worksreply