00:27 <+ddnet-discord> TIL you can fetch github pr's along with normal branches so you can easily check them out 00:33 <+ddnet-discord> RUS dead? 00:34 < ddnet-commits> [ddnet] Learath2 closed pull request #876: [?] Add condition variables (master...dd_pr_cond_vars) https://git.io/vdUKQ 00:36 <+Learath2> @Dr. Jekyll seems so 00:37 <+Learath2> deen: ^^ 01:14 <+Henningstone> I wonder is there any special reason for CRenderTools::RenderTilemapGenerateSkip being in CRenderTools? It doesn't access any of its attributes or methods, but it does access members of CLayers through a pointer passed to it. Wouldn't it make more sense to have this function in CLayers instead? 03:21 <+eeeee> layers waste so much memory, someone should figure out an encoding for them which has both compression and fast random access (for collision checks) 03:21 <+eeeee> and fast iteration for rendering (what that Skip function currently does) 04:46 <+Learath2> eeeee: why so happy that I'm moving fetcher into CEngine? 05:04 <+Learath2> eeeee: I think CFetcher is here to stay :/ 05:08 <+Learath2> It looks horrible in CEngine with the messy inheritence stuff 07:18 <@deen> eeeee: absolutely. memory is the main constraint. But I was afraid that switching to another representation would probably make cpu the bottleneck instead 07:33 <@deen> Since you guys were wondering about the RUS server. Just found in my spam folder: 07:33 <@deen> У нас произошёл технический сбой на коммутационном оборудовании. Работа сети восстановлена в течение 10-15 минут. К сожалению, нам необходимо в срочном порядке провести работы на сетевом оборудовании (обновление прошивки) для 07:33 <@deen> того, чтобы устранить некорректную работу. Работы будут проведены в 01:00. Сеть не будет доступна в течение 15 минут. Приносим свои извинения и надеемся на Ваше понимание! 07:38 <+ddnet-discord> otlichno moy drug, spasibo za informatsya 10:00 <+ddnet-discord> clearl we need a blockchain for ddnet records. every record comes with a teehistorian recording so everyone can verify that the rank is valid on that version of the map. so we can allow unofficial servers 10:02 <+ddnet-discord> as a replacement of the current centealized database 13:56 <@heinrich5991> bockchain! cloud computing! cyber! 17:29 <+ddnet-discord> in gameclient.cpp, do m_pMapLayersBackGround and m_pMapLayersForeGround always point at the same set of layers (unless using entitiy background replacement) 17:44 <+ddnet-discord> hmmmm actually, even using background entites, they both still point to the same set 19:51 <+eeeee> deen: nope, that's not enough for unofficial servers unfortunately. e.g. people can create servers which implement /r and splice the teehistorian record. 19:52 <@heinrich5991> true, TAS will be possible 19:52 <@deen> TAS is possible right now too 19:53 <@deen> just record it and replay it on an official server 19:53 <@heinrich5991> bit harder, needs automatic adjustment for ping problems 19:53 <@heinrich5991> but yes 19:53 <@deen> or a vps at the same hoster that we use 21:36 <@heinrich5991> deen: is there a way of asserting that two byte arrays are the same in gtest? 22:04 <+ddnet-discord> ok, so let's stop talking in the admin channel and move our conversation here 22:04 <+ddnet-discord> why should we be talking in the admin channel for stuff except bugs that can be exploited? 22:05 <+ddnet-discord> @snail @Learath2 22:10 <+ddnet-discord> @Ryozuki well @heinrich5991 apparently agrees with you 22:10 <+ddnet-discord> oh 22:10 <+ddnet-discord> this is literally i achieve a change in ddnet tbh 22:10 <+ddnet-discord> if this will be really done 22:11 <+ddnet-discord> this is literally the first time i achieve a change in ddnet tbh 22:11 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 said that there's not much that is discussed in the admin channel, so don't expect too much 22:11 <+ddnet-discord> this literally changes nothing because it is logically impossible to disprove a conspiracy 22:13 <+ddnet-discord> @Ryozuki please present 22:13 <+ddnet-discord> present? 22:13 <+ddnet-discord> I mean your argument 22:14 <+ddnet-discord> what are we discussing then 22:14 <+ddnet-discord> so we can all discuss this further and reach a fine conclusion 22:14 <+ddnet-discord> About admin discussion being open so that non-admin people can give opinion, except when the discussion involves ssh keys, passwords, exploits? 22:15 <+ddnet-discord> I would also make a open discussion for moderator applications 22:15 <+ddnet-discord> And discussions about who is no longer useful as ddnet staff 22:15 <+ddnet-discord> e.g afk people 22:15 <+ddnet-discord> moderator applications would turn into a popularity contest 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> If its highly moderated maybe not 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> chat-moderated 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> if it's highly moderated it's not a fair discussion 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> we could give each person a argument against or in favour 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> Wheres the point in making moderator shit public tho 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> arguments considered non-valid will be declined 22:16 <+ddnet-discord> I don't know how mod applciations are processed, but I guess these discussions usually happen in private 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> non-valid = stupid reasons 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> who decides what is stupid? 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> we would make a discussion about it too 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> set some list 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> as far as I saw before, every moderator application is hard. you have to trust that person, even if you don't really know them 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> with this, most i'm his friend i want him mod and +1 would be invalid arguments 22:17 <+ddnet-discord> is it mostly mod applications that you're after? 22:18 <+ddnet-discord> "And discussions about who is no longer useful as ddnet staff" 22:18 <+ddnet-discord> and any other admin discussion that takes places and not involve ssh keys exploits passwords 22:18 <+ddnet-discord> that can happen eventually 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> and any other admin discussion that takes place and not involve ssh keys exploits passwords 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> Isnt that kinda embarissing for the unuseful staff? 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> well organized, i think this can be achieved (the mod discussion part) 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> how would you kmow we are still not running some shady business manipulating the votes? 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> @Ezy and? 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> you obv don't trust us 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> and while hunting for the IRN infiltration we had to consider a few people 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> @Ryozuki dont fuck peoples tw life up man 22:19 <+ddnet-discord> don't you think it's rude to besmirch their reputation? 22:20 <+ddnet-discord> they besmirch or whathever it means their reputation themselves 22:20 <+ddnet-discord> if u want to keep ur reputation leave ur staff position if you go afk 22:20 <+ddnet-discord> I think discussions directly about people is probably a bad idea 22:21 <+ddnet-discord> https://forum.ddnet.tw/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5601 22:21 <@deen> @Ryozuki I'll be afk a few months soon. should I be kicked now? 22:21 <+ddnet-discord> Being inactive for longer than 1 month can result in a demotion. 22:21 <+ddnet-discord> @deen no, cause you are the one who pays the server. 22:21 <+ddnet-discord> @Ryozuki we don't always talk about people in staff, if you are staff you obv take that risk 22:21 <+ddnet-discord> discussing mods in public is very biased in the way that people wont be honest because they dont want the applicant to be mad at them, especially if they are friends but one doesnt think the other would be a good mod 22:21 <+ddnet-discord> i'll take that risk 22:22 <+ddnet-discord> imho u all should too 22:22 <+ddnet-discord> i think you don't want to discuss those things in fear of losing ur rank 22:22 <+ddnet-discord> and then it will be a popularity contest aswell 22:22 <+ddnet-discord> we all take that risk aswell 22:22 <+ddnet-discord> also if its not fair right now, why would it be fair when its the 10 discord active members deciding it 22:22 <+ddnet-discord> e.g. I pointed out your ssh key while hunting for Sajed 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> @snail more people better, always 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> and im, pretty sure it would be more than 10 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> @Ryozuki except when wrong things are said about people. ^^ 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> thats why i said highly moderated 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> and why we would set a invalid arguments filter 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> or smth like that 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> at which point you could claim we moderate it to get the result we want 22:23 <+ddnet-discord> no 22:24 <+ddnet-discord> but how do you distinguish wrong from right? 22:24 <+ddnet-discord> you would follow the rules decided by all people to moderate correctly 22:24 <+ddnet-discord> how do you verify that we follow the rules? 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> mm looking at the discussion 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> making a log of deleted messages by who 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> I can make parts of the discussion disappear without a trace 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> botted 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> audit log 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> is there a trusted person in the community who doesn't have any mod/admin/whatever rights? 22:25 <+ddnet-discord> which I could manipulate 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 vali 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> ok 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> there needs to be some trust 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> so you cant delete other chat 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 sp someone 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> but only with a bot 22:26 <+ddnet-discord> and that bot logs the stuff 22:27 <+ddnet-discord> nvm doesnt makes sense 22:27 <+ddnet-discord> now u will say who hosts it 22:27 <+ddnet-discord> and blah 22:27 <+ddnet-discord> you say and blah like the blah is nothing 22:27 <+ddnet-discord> i dont 22:28 <+ddnet-discord> you either need to place some trust or come up with a perfect way to manage a democracy 22:28 <+ddnet-discord> Well democracy has proven to be incredibly hard to do right, and even if you think you've got it right it's still not enough for some people and for others it's too much... I think the ddnet admins are well in the position to decide amongst themselves whom to trust and which application to accept... After all, it's in their own interest isn't it? And if the community starts complaining afterwards, 22:28 <+ddnet-discord> but sometimes you complain and nothing would happen too 22:28 <+ddnet-discord> I know of no country where democracy is perfect 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> if there's a trusted person in the community without any rights, we could appoint them to watch the admins 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> imho a democracy is better than oligarchy 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> I have responded to every piece of complaint I personally have received 22:29 <@deen> I propose SP|Someone 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> ^ 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> how about that, @Ryozuki 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> Democracy im ddnet? 50% would troll 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 about sp someone? xD 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> jk 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> if something was not responded to that thing wasnt shouted loud enough 22:29 <+ddnet-discord> why do the admins need to be controlled now? what happend? xd 22:30 <+ddnet-discord> Spain happened 22:30 <@deen> and who controls the controller? 22:30 <+ddnet-discord> shh 22:30 <+ddnet-discord> its not because that 22:30 <+ddnet-discord> deen: if you're serious, I can work with that 22:30 <@deen> actually I thoguht my function is to watch the admins 22:30 <+ddnet-discord> i just made a complain and exposed arguments, now its good u heard me, its up to you if u want to do smth, part of it or nothing 22:31 <+ddnet-discord> see you say that as if doing nothing is a bad thing, sometimes the status quo turns out to be the best for the majority 22:31 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 make a high sophisticated AI to filter invalid arguments xD 22:31 <+ddnet-discord> or he could just filter the arguments himself :P 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> what about deen as a watcher, @Ryozuki ? 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> @Henningstone doesn't work unless you implicitly trust @heinrich5991 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> i would be fine with it 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> I thought deen doesn't want to deel with admin complaints? 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> deal* 22:32 <@deen> yeah, i don't 22:32 <@deen> i watch from very far away 22:32 <@deen> so it's all very quiet 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> yep thats what i thought 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 I consider both least @deen and @heinrich5991 as unquestionable trustable 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> and why i didnt proposed before 22:32 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 I consider both @deen and @heinrich5991 as unquestionable trustable 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 you also have a really good judgement too 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> and you really know how to keep calm 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> and how to express things 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> in a no offense way 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> i find that rly good 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> @Henningstone everyone has to for this while thing to be unquestionable 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> yeah @heinrich5991 is pretty good at neutral arguments 😃 22:33 <+ddnet-discord> ❤ 22:34 <+ddnet-discord> that smiley smiles too much... : ) is what I want 22:34 <+ddnet-discord> 🙂 22:34 <+ddnet-discord> :tw_twinbop: 22:34 <+ddnet-discord> ^ cute 22:35 <+ddnet-discord> Wait 22:35 <+ddnet-discord> So why do you even want to change things like mod applications in public? 22:36 <+ddnet-discord> deen, you could also host teesmash :) https://github.com/timazuki/TeeSmash 22:36 <+ddnet-discord> ok, I admit that I don't watch mod discussions etc., I bet deen doesn't either 22:36 <+ddnet-discord> @snail or I follow it most of the time 22:37 <@deen> @Ryozuki I'm lazy, but some admin can run it 22:37 <+ddnet-discord> np 22:37 <+ddnet-discord> why do we need to eat all of tw? 22:37 <+ddnet-discord> if someone else hosts this, it's fine, no? 22:37 <+ddnet-discord> unique already hosts this 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 we need a new era of communism 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> HEIL @FluffiexD 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> oh no... 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> I think 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> Great idea 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> We should do a 2nd tournament @Ryozuki 22:38 <+ddnet-discord> who deleted my chat? 22:39 <+ddnet-discord> @FluffiexD Heinrich 22:39 <+ddnet-discord> @deen I promise you one, your ddnet will go down in the next month 22:39 <+ddnet-discord> no what you want is bound to turn into anarchy as t->\+inf 22:39 <+ddnet-discord> Nah actually it was prob @jao undercover 22:39 <+ddnet-discord> someone put him the troll role 22:40 <+ddnet-discord> so he can't talk here 22:40 <+ddnet-discord> I think we should open a different channel to discuss these highly philosophical questions, maybe we can come up with our own new system that would finally though surprisingly work and make the whole world a better place? The world could use that... 22:40 <+ddnet-discord> @Henningstone xD 22:40 <+ddnet-discord> this channel is linked to irc 22:41 < vali> faggot 22:41 <+vali> adkw 22:41 <+vali> dkw 22:41 <+vali> ak 22:41 <+vali> dwak 22:41 <+ddnet-discord> nice 22:41 <+vali> dwa 22:41 <+ddnet-discord> Haha 22:41 <+vali> kwad 22:41 <+Henningstone> Nimda best troll xD 22:41 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 !lockdown yes? 22:41 <@heinrich5991> it is already lockdowned 22:42 <+ddnet-discord> Lockdown tournament 22:42 <+ddnet-discord> @Ryozuki I have one more argument against public mod discussions 22:42 <+ddnet-discord> people can be judged for their vote 22:42 <+ddnet-discord> what means that 22:43 <+ddnet-discord> you want to make votes anonymous? 22:43 <+ddnet-discord> fine with that 22:43 <+ddnet-discord> we would need our own chat system then 22:43 <+ddnet-discord> yeah but how to secure voting system? 22:43 <+ddnet-discord> at which point you can't guarantee non repeated votes 22:43 <+ddnet-discord> hmmm 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> anonymous voting is impossible, which is why we still have normal votes in elections 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> votes in my country are pretty anonymous 😃 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> U live with erdogan tho 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> in mine too, you cant know what he votes 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 yet i'm sure you don't vote from home 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> you just separate identity from the actual vote 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> but i live in a pesudodictatorship so 22:44 <+ddnet-discord> yes 22:45 <+ddnet-discord> pseudo* 22:45 <+ddnet-discord> anoynmous votes over the internet is impossible 22:45 <+ddnet-discord> or neo is better maybe 22:45 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 bold claim, people have made others 22:45 <+ddnet-discord> IIRC 22:45 <+ddnet-discord> I dare you to find a way, I spent hours to figure out a way 22:46 <+ddnet-discord> dna vote xD 22:46 <+ddnet-discord> with which I can identify you 22:46 <+ddnet-discord> :/ 22:46 <+ddnet-discord> well discussing that is useles 22:46 <+ddnet-discord> as its clearly impossible 22:46 <+ddnet-discord> "clearly impossible" 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 i'd love to know if there is a way 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> yea, me too, googling 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 in ddnet i mean 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> our politicians either I bet :D 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> 😄 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> https://www.adoodle.org/ 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> if anonymous votes are impossible I don't think we should make public discussions out of moderators aswell 22:47 <+ddnet-discord> ? 22:48 <+ddnet-discord> doesn't get you non repeatable votes 22:48 <+ddnet-discord> the vote system requires an email 22:48 <+ddnet-discord> xD 22:48 <+ddnet-discord> Please give a list of emails (one for each line or in comma separated form or else). 22:48 <+ddnet-discord> The voter will receive an email containing a unique personal vote ticket and two links to vote and display the results of the vote. Naturally a voter can only vote once. 22:49 <+ddnet-discord> then you trust adoodle.org to keep their identity a secret 22:49 <+ddnet-discord> using a external service for us i dont think its a problem 22:49 <+ddnet-discord> its a ddnet vote, not a entire state vote 22:49 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 u think people would go that far just to judge someone? 22:51 <+ddnet-discord> funny how you trust a possibly for profit company more then us 😄 22:51 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 e.g. trustless online poker is also possible btw (haven't found sth in quick googling) 22:51 <+ddnet-discord> @Learath2 :P 22:52 <+ddnet-discord> @heinrich5991 whats that? 22:52 <+ddnet-discord> online poker is possible as it's not necessary for the sides to know the other persons identity 22:52 <+ddnet-discord> just something I remember from a cryptography course 22:52 <+ddnet-discord> ah 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> but you still have to shuffle the cards 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> some way 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> it's only necessary to get a trusted roll from the "casino" 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> no 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> trustless 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> it's called provably fair 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> as I said 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> decentralized and everything 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> provably fair provides the trust i mean 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> no need for any implicit trust 22:53 <+ddnet-discord> but it's something I would have considered impossible before that class 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> so don't consider anonymous voting impossible so fast 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> well if there was a solution to anonymous voting i think state sized entities would have found it 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> or maybe not 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> why would a state whatn unanymous 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> they like data 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> anonymous voting over the internet is just not a good idea over the internet 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> and knowing people 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> well not the state but the unis 22:54 <+ddnet-discord> computers get hacked etc. 22:55 <+ddnet-discord> well yeah, unis, I think I read about anonymous online voting before, so you have that 😃 22:56 <+ddnet-discord> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature 22:56 <+ddnet-discord> sounds like a good start 22:57 <+ddnet-discord> (cryptography/math can do more for you than one would think) 22:58 <+ddnet-discord> What the 22:58 <+ddnet-discord> ? 22:59 <+ddnet-discord> @Savander ? 22:59 <+ddnet-discord> weird discussion 23:00 <+ddnet-discord> World never was equal, why you are trying to make it here? 😄 23:00 <+ddnet-discord> And why not? 23:00 <+ddnet-discord> :P 23:01 <+ddnet-discord> cause, it's impossible 😄 23:01 <+ddnet-discord> People are egocentric race 23:01 <+ddnet-discord> it would only be possible as long as each and everyone has the same understanding 23:01 <+ddnet-discord> and common sense oc 23:02 <+ddnet-discord> which just doesn't happen. A handful 'bad' people is enough... Wait how do you know they are bad? For them you are bad xd 23:02 <+ddnet-discord> see, already doesn't work 23:02 <+ddnet-discord> You can make world better, but you will find 10 more people who will fuck you up 23:02 <+ddnet-discord> doesn't mean you shouldn#t try 23:02 <+ddnet-discord> ^ 23:02 <+ddnet-discord> It could work only if you will choose specific persons 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> like in sects 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> DDNet the sect? 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> 😄 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> thats the oposite of what we want 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> choosing specific people 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> like currently 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> well 23:03 <+ddnet-discord> we = me 23:04 <+ddnet-discord> we 😃 23:05 <+ddnet-discord> łi łi 23:10 <+ddnet-discord> Çřåčķ 23:34 <+Learath2> deen: here?