Same with truffle mayo or truffle-based products. [1]
People who grew up on the artificial flavor prefer it over the real one. I have quite a few in my circle of friends.
You go to an Italian restaurant and you get plain pasta, panned in butter or olive oil and then someone comes with a real truffle and grates it in front you of over your dish until you tell them to stop. You pay for that amount.
Unless you go to a restaurant with a great reputation or some Michelin star venue, that is the only way to be sure you're eating real truffles. The dish has no truffle-aroma itself and the truffle is grated while you watch.
Assuming ofc (and probably true for most people): your palate is not well acquainted to the taste of the real thing enough to tell it apart from the many fakes/substitutes.
Never thought of the fake variant as gasoline-like but it sure has that strange, very heavy 'chemical' aftertaste that lingers in your palate. Also never tried the real thing, I wonder if i'd like it or not.
+1 - it tastes so obviously of petrochemicals that I throw the food out - truffle fries, truffle pasta - might as well pour mineral spirits on it for the same experience.
It doesn’t. I also think the fake truffle tastes weirdly like gasoline, the real ones don’t at all.
They are dramatically more expensive, though. Last time I had it, I think I paid a $50 upcharge to have it added to my pasta. Might have been more, it’s been a couple years.
And both are wrong since the values would have to be in a linear color space for for the compositing math to make sense. But in some non-linear space to be useful when mapped to 0..255 (e.g non-linear sRGB).
Which happens right after the Porter-Duff Over operator above -- a smoking gun. Which one is it gonna be?
I.e. the display transform is omitted from this and the math involved with the latter makes your whole argument moot.
It can't be expressed well enough with bitshifts to keep your purported 10x speedup anyway (and which I strongly doubt btw).
And lastly: in a software renderer that stuff is usually <0.01% of the compute in the absolut worst case.
P.S.: I'm speaking from 30 years of experience with software rendering in the context of VFX.
From what I gather these are built-in types the compiler knows?
'i32', not 'I32' but 'List' not 'list'? In Rust the case is clear cut: built-ins that the compiler 'knows' are lowercase, types expressed in Rust itself are PascalCase.
Roto seems to mix this?
Reads like Rust but then "differs subtley" where it (seemingly?) does not matter at all.
What is the rationale? I'm not complaining, Roto looks great. I'm considering swapping my Koto integration in my project out for this. :)
I'm just genuinely curious. From the outside the above smell like "just because" decisions.
This is something we've been backpedaling a bit indeed. 0.11 changed some things to look a lot more like Rust. The reason for this being different in the first place is that were not trying to make Rust-but-simpler necessarily. Or target audience with Rotonda is also not Rust programmers. So we've been exploring different syntax options.
Regarding the List type, as we optimize that, it will probably become a different data structure from a Vec. Also in the Roto-Rust boundary, you cannot pass in a normal Vec. So different names male sense there.
Regarding the case, small primitive types are lowercase. String and List are heap allocated and therefore somewhat different. I'm open to changing that but there is some logic to it.
Ive seen this in the past with some phones (it actually gave me an idea for an advanced level), but I was able to fix it, although it seems the fix was not complete.
I would add that Rust also has naming guidelines and sticking to them removes or at least minimizes the occurrence of another common topic of discussions on PRs/reviews.
In the article, if you were to mention & follow them GetUser() in Go becomes user() in Rust[1], not get_user().
This matters a lot. And yeah, it seems this supports neither and it is unclear if operations happen in linear light at a bit depth of at more that 8bit/channel.
If they don't, most of them will produce subtly wrong results.
Two types of spaghetti (regular No. 5 and gluten-free) produced by the Barilla company (Italy) were purchased in a supermarket."
Are you kidding me? You did a study and tested /one/ kind of gluten-free pasta?
There are so many different kinds from different companies. One type from Barilla is nowhere near representative to draw a useful conclusion.
Especially as unlike many other gluten-free pasta products it lacks an important binding agent.[1]
As someone with a gluten-allergic partner I regularly make pancakes and bake bread with (Italian!) rice-based flour.
And they are difficult to distinguish from the flour based ones, in taste, texture, fluffiness and and structural integrity.
The secret to this is xantham gum. It acts as a binding agent in gluten-free baking, providing the elasticity and stickiness that gluten typically offers. It helps to hold ingredients together and improve the texture.
I learned this when eating excellent gluten-free pinza, in a small place in Catania, Sicily, whose owner has celiac disease.
Ah yes, as far as pasta goes there is also research about this ofc[2]
When I lived in Adelaide, Australia 2006 or 2007, flexible-neck LED lamps that you plugged into an USB port to have light on your keyboard (backlit keyboards were not the norm on laptops) were a novelty item.
People simply didn't /know/ about them/that they existed at all.
I went to a computer/electronics shop in town and asked for them.
The guy told me: "We don't stock them because people don't ask for them."
Cast into TOS and code. Openly so.
reply