For solo hobby dev it is a lot more acceptable. After all they're also terrible 3d modeler, concept artist, musician, writer, marketeer, community manager,...

- Property: the inspector doesn't call your getter or setter. I do use them still because i like to centralize my validation logic. But need custom machinery to make them behave consistently.

- Tuple: well-known. Good but only in moderation.

- Linq: people avoid it due to allocations, not runtime. While it is possible to avoid dynamic alloc, it is not obvious and best avoided. Also the point about the linq syntax being "cleaner" is debatable.

- Record: good. Lesser known as it's the newest in the article. No footguns like the other.

While it is nice that this is human written, the seo format is nearly as annoying as those ai articles.

There's no solutions because they specifically crafted the problem to not be solvable. No amount of compromises will stop them from advancing further.

In raytracing, error scale with the square root of sample count. While it is typical to use very high sample count for the reference, real world sample count for offline renderer is about 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than in this paper.

I call it disingenuous because it is very usual for a graphic paper to include a very high sample count reference image for quality comparison, but nobody ever do timing comparison with it.

Since the result is approximate, a fair comparison would be with other approximate rendering algorithm. Modern realtime path tracer + denoiser can render much more complex scenes on consumer GPU in less than 16ms.

That's "much more complex scenes" part is the crucial part. Using transformer mean quadratic scaling on both number of triangles and number of output pixels. I'm not up to date with the latest ML research, so maybe it is improved now? But I don't think it will ever beat O(log n_triangles) and O(n_pixels) theoretical scaling of a typical path tracer. (Practical scaling wrt pixel count is sub linear due to high coherency of adjacent pixels)

By passing this is not mentioned at all in the article. Is this because they're trivial to bypass for experienced people, or because they want to hide their method from the dev?

I remember when you can just change your DNS provider to bypass censorship. Nowadays, browsers and OS provide safe DNS by default, and thus censors had mostly switched to DPI based method. As this cat and mouse game continue, inevitably these governments will mandate spyware on every machine.

These privacy enhancements invented by westerner only work for western citizens threat model.

That's said, it will not come to that. They'll just mandate spyware installation.

I've searched for this exact topic. As expected with kind of end user facing techs, the search results are always end user oriented article that explain nothing.

Does anyone know what's the special sauce?