bboard

Posted by hunterk
For anyone who knows: what size is the final framebuffer that's coming out? it's not still 512x480, is it? That is, is it scaling up with the mode7?

terminate called after throwing an instance of 'nall::array<nall::Natural<15u> [256]>::operator[](unsigned int)::out_of_bounds'

Thread 1 "bsnes" received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
__GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
50      ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007ffff61698bb in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
#1  0x00007ffff6154535 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
#2  0x00007ffff6570983 in  () at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#3  0x00007ffff65768c6 in  () at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#4  0x00007ffff65759d9 in  () at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#5  0x00007ffff65762d5 in __gxx_personality_v0 () at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#6  0x00007ffff6326e33 in  () at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1
#7  0x00007ffff6327391 in _Unwind_RaiseException () at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1
#8  0x00007ffff6576b27 in __cxa_throw () at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#9  0x000055555568bc6d in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::Line::renderMode7HD(SuperFamicom::PPUfast::IO::Background&, unsigned int) ()
#10 0x000055555568bfd5 in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::Line::renderMode7(SuperFamicom::PPUfast::IO::Background&, unsigned int) ()
#11 0x000055555568c7c3 in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::Line::renderBackground(SuperFamicom::PPUfast::IO::Background&, unsigned int) ()
#12 0x000055555568f79d in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::Line::render() ()
#13 0x000055555568fa90 in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::Line::flush() [clone ._omp_fn.0] ()
#14 0x00007ffff633de0f in GOMP_parallel () at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgomp.so.1
#15 0x0000555555689998 in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::Line::flush() ()
#16 0x000055555568ff67 in SuperFamicom::PPUfast::writeIO(nall::Natural<24u>, nall::Natural<8u>) ()
#17 0x00005555556966e0 in nall::function<void (nall::Natural<24u>, nall::Natural<8u>)>::member<SuperFamicom::PPUfast>::operator()(nall::Natural<24u>, nall::Natural<8u>) const ()
#18 0x000055555567722f in SuperFamicom::CPU::dmaRun() ()
#19 0x0000555555677af8 in SuperFamicom::CPU::read(nall::Natural<24u>) ()
#20 0x000055555574c56c in Processor::WDC65816::instructionResetP() ()
#21 0x000055555574e317 in Processor::WDC65816::instruction() ()
#22 0x000055555567572f in SuperFamicom::CPU::main() ()
#23 0x0000555555675907 in SuperFamicom::CPU::Enter() ()
#24 0x0000555555631420 in crash ()
#25 0x0000000000000000 in  ()

romrenamer path/to/some.dat source/files/ destination/

We’ll be building the kernel in house from the latest stable branch, based on the source available at kernel.org. In initial builds we will ship version 4.19 of the kernel.

Posted by sureanem
Mozilla considers themselves to be good (virtuous, moral), not only in the sense of making good browsers but also as a wider social mission (spreading open source, etc). So if Mozilla would have a monopoly (or, say, 80% control), they could for instance force projects like DRM to be dead on arrival. Thus, they, like any other organization in that position, do (and have the moral duty to) strive to obtain a position of monopoly, while vigorously claiming they don't, in order to easier obtain said monopoly.

Of course, Mozilla would never do this because they are controlled by Google and because they might even believe, as you suggested, that the means justify the ends. At any rate they seem conflict-averse (and according to the former Mozilla VP, incompetent), and as such would have no interest in improving things if it were to cause any conflict, and would rather just watch the slow decline of the web, look out for their own, and constantly point out that the choices they made were the virtuous ones.

I think that if one is interested in fostering competition in the browser market, the best choice would be to go with Brave, not because it is technologically any different, but because it at least attempts to secure new sources of funding for itself and is not too tightly bound to either project. That it's utter garbage doesn't matter so much, since it at some point in the future might improve and because Brendan Eich is CEO of it.

Posted by CaptainJistuce
Except with their ad network, where they've been hyping Chrome for years.

Posted by sureanem
But in retrospect, you'd agree it was a mistake to divert resources, yeah?
Mozilla clearly didn't have enough power to prevent DRM now, for instance. So it'd have been a much better idea to cut the ballast when the going got tough.

I don't think they need to find alternative funding sources. They earn half a billion a year. If they'd slim down their organization, they could save the excess and be independent in just a few years.

Also, Mozilla has rejected alternative funding sources. They started blocking cryptominers by default, which raises the question, why still allow ads? With cryptominers, there's no tracking or Google, just you, your CPU, and some incredibly shady company in Germany that at least doesn't track you. No website can get suspended from Monero mining, while websites can and do get suspended from AdSense due to pornographic content, political reasons, quarrels with Google, etc. This goes for the really sleazy ad providers too (e.g. the ones that the likes of The Pirate Bay use)

So... you're proposing that Firefox charge cryptomining companies to run miners or Firefox users' computers? Why bother doing mining in JS/WebGL then, when it could be built right into Firefox?

Of course, the real issue is that advertising costs users "attention", which is a nebulous, hard-to-measure thing so people can't get too annoyed about. Cryptomining drains users' batteries, which is very clearly measured in cents-per-kilowatt-hour. Battery power is already a scarce resource for most users, so they'd be doubly annoyed at Firefox consuming more than necessary.

The only answer I can come up with is that Google threatened them into cutting their competition out. I mean, they could at least cut a deal with whatever other ad providers that aren't Google there are (Yandex?) to allow them but block Google, ostensibly due to privacy reasons.

I think we've had this discussion before, but Google is just the middleman that rakes in the cash, there's a huge constellation of advertisers and advertising service providers and advertising industry organisations that would take a built-in adblocker as a declaration of war.

It's very tempting to say "this advertising ecosystem is poisoning the ecosystem, let's starve it to death so people will invent some healthier model" but even if Mozilla were big enough to make that happen, "carrot and stick" is always more effective than "stick" alone.

---

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.