Mollymews
-
Posts
5,768 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Mollymews
-
-
adding on to what polysail mentions
when we make our collision prim too thin (and not volume_detect) our avatar can hit the side, get pushed out and up (avatar's forward momentum) then drop back down on the prim, creating two collision_start events
with a thicker volume_detect then the avatar hits the side, and goes into the prim. Is no push out/up, so doesn't collide with the top while walking/running
-
2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:
If through actual testing I find out that JSON is overall faster than lists, I may not use lists at all in my current large project, except where required as llFunction() parameters.
if are going to use JSON in the body then would make sense to also use JSON as function parameters rather than a list
-
1
-
-
if is for the purpose of greeting then a list of previously greeted persons is a good idea
a way to help with triggering the greeting with collision_start is to layer over the floor, or border the floor, a transparent-textured volume_detect object ( with some depth so that the avatar's feet are inside the volume_detect layer) https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlVolumeDetect
with the visitors list, set it to some max length for the last N number of visitors. Then manage the list as a first in, first out queue
OnCollision (collison_start). Check if person is on list
if not on list: say Welcome. Add to list: visitors += [visitor]
if on list: say Welcome Back. Remove from list, then add again to list (as most recent visitor)
when the list is full then delete the 1st list entry. visitors = llDeleteSubList(visitors, 0, 0)
this way we don't have to worry about timestamps
to conserve space with N = large list then we can store the hash of their key: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlHash
edit add: When we have a really large N. Say 1 or 2 thousands then when full delete about 10% of the first entries like: visitors = llDeleteSubList(visitors, 0, 99). Saves a little bit of thrashing on full lists
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:
So all in all, managed to fix the RLV issue, but no fix for ghosted temp attachments..
a similar issue occurs with the Linden Realms HUD sometimes. It doesn't detach sometimes when we leave the region. And it usually can be detached manually in the same way as you have found. Sometimes tho it can't be detached manually. Not only does the server think it is detached but so to does the viewer, even tho it is still being rendered. The ghosting problem
I think your solution to ensure that the RLV script functions are disabled on region change is a good solution, at least in the person no longer having unexpected things happen to them outside of your region
-
12 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:
Would not a better analogy be a bar, or some other privately-owned place that's open to the public? While the bar owner is generally responsible for maintaining good order on the premises, no one suggests they're responsible for everything that goes on there, and no one questions their right to ask customers to leave if they're they're making a nuisance of themselves or upsetting the other patrons.
is a interesting thought that a forum could be considered in the same way as a pub. Where members of the public are invited to come participate
a thing tho about the pub is that the conversations at each of tables are considered private to the people at the table. This is an expectation that we have when we go to the pub. That we on a table are not part of the conversation on another table. And if we interject ourselves into another table's conversation, are typically asked to go mind our own business
a forum like this one for example is not a collection of private conversations, is a single table with everybody able to participate in the conversation. Is more like the pub owner has an open mic stage where anybody can stand and address the patrons as a singular body. And the pub patrons can either ignore the speaker completely, or argue with them, or support what is being said with approval or acclaim
a question is what does the pub owner have to put in place to avoid liability for what the speaker says on the pub's open mic stage ?
they would have to provide a list of rules to the speaker before they get on the mic. Can't say this, can't say that. Like a ToS
and they would have to have a way to cut the speaker off. Turn off the mic, kick the speaker out of the pub, etc. Again like a ToS
which seems pretty reasonable in this pub like context
or the pub owner is not so much a pub owner. They are more like a radio station owner which provides a talkback facility. Where people are invited to speak publicly to the station audience. In the talkback radio station context setting, the conversation has to be actively moderated in realtime. There is a to-air broadcast delay and a bleep button (pre-moderation). And if the conversation being broadcast is not actively moderated in realtime then the station can be shut down
given who voted which way on the US Supreme Court recently, it was 5-4 with Justice Kagan in the minority with Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. Justice Kavanaugh while voting with the majority expressed a view that should it come again later to a full bench hearing then he has reservations which he will take into consideration at that time.
I think that decision, should it come again before the US Supreme Court, is more going to go down the talk back radio path than it will the open mic stage pub owner with ToS path
at this high level of judicial decision-making, justices don't care about the cost to business of their decisions. What they only care about is do the conditions imposed by the law create a constitutionally undue burden on the business
if the forum owner argues that as we have a billion active users, is a burden to pre-moderate or actively moderate in realtime, then the Supreme Court wont in the normal course accept this argument. A burden we create for ourselves is not an undue burden. And the Court will refer the forum owner to the legislature for relief. Which is how section 230 came about. Is within the power of the legislature to grant this kind of relief
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Kylie Jaxxon said:
That's too convoluted....Just have the houses go to the bottom of the queue, no matter who releases them. If we get them back within the 5 rolls, we know that is all that is available at that time....
is an interesting problem this
a way to do this so is a bit more 'random-looking' is to use a bucketed arithmetic feistel network
in dual bucket method there are two buckets
homes are drawn from the first bucket in 'random' order (similar to a gumball machine)
with a feistel network that home doesn't need to be marked as taken. The feistel network algorithm will not produce the same 'random' number in the set. If we are the only person playing in the moment and there only 5 homes available then we will be offered all of them in our 5 selections
abandoned homes are placed into the second bucket
when the first bucket is emptied, then the second bucket becomes the first bucket. A new seed for the feistel network produces a different 'random' order
the process repeats (switching between buckets) til there is a moment when both buckets can be empty. At which point it says: no homes available
this doesn't guarantee that we won't get the same home twice in our 5 selection set. Like for example there are 5 homes available and 10 people playing at the same time and they are all abandoning
or I am the only person playing at the moment and there only 3 homes available. With the feistel network tho I can be guaranteed that I will get offered all 3 homes my first 3 selections
for the curious, a example LSL implementation of the basic (single bucket) arithmetic feistel network algorithm is here
-
2
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:
Ban scripts should simply not work when they are 96 m away from Linden water or Linden protected land. So you can deploy a security script or even a no-access group only or list. But it fails to work on 96 periphery around your lot so that air and water travel is not hindered.
thats a lot of space to give over to travelers. 96 meters each side of the road center line is 192 meters
it might be simpler to nerf llTeleportHome (via region control) on any region that has a public road
as a region control, private estates owners could them also nerf it if they wanted for their regions. And I think that if this was possible then Linden would turn it on (nerf) on the Belli estate
alternatively for mainland, Linden could widen the roads to say a minimum of 32 meters. Doing it progressively as and when land along the roads are abandoned. 32 meters is pretty wide and would not pose much of a challenge to keeping our avatar on the road, either self or on a vehicle
-
1
-
-
Just now, Love Zhaoying said:
But if I was totally, utterly guilty and still won..that's ok too, right?
it depends on what we are guilty of
-
2 hours ago, ayamashi said:
I dont see any potential problems with it mentioned in the wiki. Can I assume I can use this without problems? Will it fail to rescale properly for example if the sim is laggy?
best to test these things on as many regions as we can ourselves. So we can have some empirical evidence that our thing works as we expect it too
-
3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:
I've been arrested, and I beat the rap! Does that count?
if you were accused unjustly of some act against the law and you fought the law and you won then it counts. It also counts in the unjust case, when you fight the law and lose
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:
The problem a lot of people seem to have with it is it allows sites to curate what content they want, while still being protected from any consequences.
It's one of the few times the "free speech" argument actually makes sense.
If you want to have the same protection as a public square, you should have to follow the same rules as a public square.
If you're in the habit of taking down content you don't want on your platform, why shouldn't you be at least partially responsible for what's left, the stuff you seemingly agree with?
yes. This is the issue
content sharing sites want to have their cake and eat it as well
in the recent US Supreme Court case on the Texas non-censorship law, the plaintiffs (corporations) argued that the Texas law removed their editorial discretion which would violate their 1st Amendment rights to free speech
while at the same time supporting Section 230 which removes their legal liability from any editorial discretion that they do make
this a legal luxury afforded to them only, is not afforded to other forms of publishing
what was interesting is that Elena Kagan voted against the plaintiffs. Ms Kagan never gave a reason as was an emergency order, but from her history she has never been a fan of laws for you but not for me
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:
Or the more recent tactic now employed by many companies - to hide away all information, discussion, news and announcements behind a Discord wall - far from the internet access and search - and under close watch of governance as to who is allowed in, to view what, and who can participate. This creates a chilling effect for many - and the result is only a handful, a literal handful are vocal in any way, and only because they unceasingly bow to and pander to the status quo.
why is it chilling that group of people, be they a company or a family, want to communicate between themselves in private across the internet
on Facebook, we have a extended private family group. Is nobody else's business what we say and share with each other. Same as is none of my business what some company's staff talk about on their Discord channel
other people's affairs are none of my business. Is not for anyone to compel them to share their affairs publicly with me. Nor my family's affairs with them
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:
A login requirement is not a shield from litigation, that's what 230 provides.
yes, it was a gimme which resulted in the social media sites that we have today. Had that gimme not been given, and the sites held to the same standard as all other forms of information dispensing/sharing/publishing then social media would be quite a lot different than what it is
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Coffee Pancake said:
Right .. So, are LL going to hire a team of legally qualified moderators to inspect every single post before publishing it, or are they just going to close the forum.
this is a business decision all corporations have to decide for themselves
the decision isn't only tho: pre-moderate or close. There is a 3rd path. Which is don't publish the contents of this forum publicly. Have to login to read the posts. A requirement to login makes it a private space and not a public space
just the other day the US Supreme Court ruled on the Texas non-censorship law. The Court said that the State can't prevent a corporation from censoring their own private space. That any attempt to regulate free speech in a private space is unconstitutional, abridging the 1st Amendment rights of private space/property owners
-
2
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:
Are we sure about that? Unless there's a trick with which I'm unfamiliar, that sat-upon thing would need to be above the banline range. (My guess is that this is determined by the origin of the root link, not by any offset the avatar may attain by link or root sitTarget—which is testable, but this is already pretty far in the weeds).
your guess is right. back in the day Linden changed where the avatar camera position and physics shape is positioned for a seated avatar. A change which was done back then to defeat seated phantom avatars
then some years later when parcel visibilty was introduced, this wasn't addressed and can be exploited to peep inside a banline box while seated on the neighbour parcel
i last tested this ages ago and found it to be true, when we discussing on this forum about avatars over the banline box. I dunno if Linden have done anything since to fix it
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:
I hope future moderation is better than Facebook's is today, I have RL FB friends who've been given temporary "bans" because someone didn't like their posts - which were probably political and pretty tame in the scheme of things, these friends being mostly ultra-liberal types. In other words, someone got "butthurt", reported their posts, and got them "banned".
when a post is run thru a moderation algorithm before it is posted then the users are no longer cast in the role of police by the hosting owner/corporation. The policing is in the domain of the host
corporations do respond when they are required to police their own premises
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:
How do you imagine any public forum would operate post section 230 ?
moderation queue. A post has to be moderated before it is published. Not withdrawn/deleted/edited/removed by the moderator after it has been published
-
1
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:
Yes, redacting Section 230 so that Google and Facebook have to behave like the New York Times will go a long way towards fixing this
i agree with this. I don't see how posting to a public forum, like this one, or to public boards on Facebook or Reddit, etc. is any different from posts/letters/articles on the New York Times
Facebook, Reddit, Linden too with this forum, are publishers. And I think they have to abide by publishing rules same as any other publisher
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, FloofyFoxChaz said:
I want to be able to have the game I'm currently playing shown over my avatars head. I have seen a couple people with this but I cant find any info about it. Is it only for steam games or is it possible to link the xbox pc games im playing to it as well?
search the marketplace for "TITLER". Is lots of them to choose from
-
13 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:
Interesting, Molly. You have quite the legal mind.
am not a lawyer or any legal expert
my only practical experience is as a member of our hapu, participating in the Waitangi Tribunal process, and negotiating with the Government of the day representing the Crown's interests. And negotiating with other hapu representatives, a process which our iwi leaders do their best to manage
and any agreements reached thru these processes have to be able to survive a Court challenge. So it all gets technically legal pretty quickly
because of this, I have over the last nearly 15 years now, spent quite a bit of time looking into how other countries are dealing with historical grievance matters, and I try to learn from them as best I can
-
3
-
-
12 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:
And another take on the 2nd amendment, or clarifying the origin, pointing out how it is "steeped in anti-blackness":
this may have been a motivation for some to vote for the 2nd Amendment back in the day - a militia to suppress slave rebellions. But is not an argument today for a militia. USA is no longer a slave society
so what is today's militia for ? Which I think is the pertinent question
a State could answer that it needs citizens who can respond to a call by the State Governor as special police deputies/constables or as National Guard reservists in defence of the State, then it can be seen as an organized militia and be well-regulated. These citizens can be armed, everybody else cannot be in terms of military scale weapons
an issue is that some people take the 2nd Amendment to mean they can be armed to protect themselves. Which is constitutionally not true. But until a State organises their militia to defend the State then every citizen is militia in defence of the State
ps add. Just add that I think the current popular arguments in the USA are wrongly focused on the weapons. When the argument should be focused on the militia if any progress is to be made
-
1
-
-
On 5/31/2022 at 6:30 AM, Luna Bliss said:
the Constitution was actually referring to the right to bear arms in a militia
is a bit more nuanced
the rule was (back in the day) that when the State Governor called out the militia in defense of the State then it meant every citizen who had a gun would answer the call and bring their own gun
the militia is an irregular body of armed citizens. But on presenting themselves would accept the governor's authority to direct them on the battlefield in defense of the State
the militia is not like the National Guard which is a regular body of soldiers
the issue is that there isn't a militia to call out if the citizens are not armed. They are just unarmed (non-militia) volunteers for the regular body - National Guard
yet the US Constitution provides for a militia (an irregular armed citizen body) in the 2nd Amendment. Militia in the originalist text and in today's language both still mean the same thing
i realise that it can sound a bit nuts to ordinary people today that a US person can have the weapons they do. Just in case the State Governor calls them out to bring their weapons to defend the State against its enemies
for all the weapons to go away tho, then have to a) repeal the 2nd Amendment
or b) there is a constitutional argument to be made that a State could determine that a militia is no longer required for the defense of the State. And that while the 2nd Amendment provides for a militia, it would not be unconstitutional for the State to not have one. No militia no guns
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 5/31/2022 at 7:07 AM, arisaie said:
The reason why I called close_menu (llListenRemove) at the start of touch_start is because it was listed on the llDialog wiki. This is there - "Ensure any outstanding listener is removed before creating a new one"
sometimes the wiki examples don't fully explain the flow of the event model
two flow examples
1) wait for touch
2) touch
3) close listener
open listener
show dialog
wait for dialog button
4) listen event
- process button response
5) goto 1)in this flow the listener is always open, while waiting for touch
the code flow should be1) wait for touch
2) touch
3) open the listener
show dialog
wait for dialog button
4) listen event
- close listener
- process response
5) goto 1)the issue with the second flow is when the person doesn't click the dialog button, the listener remains open
so somebody previous invented the listener timeout
1) wait for touch
2) touch
3) open the listener
show dialog
start timer
wait for dialog button
4) listen event
- stop timer
- close listener
- process response
goto 1)
5) timer event
- stop timer
- close listener
goto 1)
-
1
-
-
am pretty sure it means that all responses already queued will still fire the listen event
-
1
-
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
llGiveInventory() Reliability
in LSL Scripting
Posted
best to test this on other regions as well in the first instance. If is happening everywhere then raise a JIRA explaining all regions. If is only happening on your/one region then raise the JIRA explaining your/one region