10:14 <GH> [Principia] pleroy commented on issue #1722: There is no `x86intrin.h` on MSVC. I am going for `nmmintrin.h` (n as in Nehalem) which hopefully exists everywhere. This gives us all of SSE and none of AVX, which is what we want at this point. https://git.io/vAW2L

13:20 <GH> [Principia] pleroy closed pull request #1722: Implement some operations of R3Element using intrinsics (master...Intrinsics) https://git.io/vAcvR

15:45 <awang> egg: Are extensions discouraged in the Principia codebase?

15:45 <awang> Got some extension warnings from Clang

15:48 <awang> egg: Also, not using std::is_standard_layout_v instead of std::is_standard_layout<>::value?

15:55 <egg> awang: nah we don't have the _v here iirc

15:55 <egg> awang: hm which extensions

15:57 <awang> egg: Wait, really? It's a C++14 thing, IIRC

15:57 <awang> Uh

15:57 <egg> awang: yeah, but we don't have C++14

15:57 <awang> "anonymous structs are a GNU extension"

15:57 <egg> not all of it at least

15:57 <awang> "anonymous types declared in an anonymous union are an extension"

15:57 <awang> Ah

15:57 <awang> Still waiting for VS 2017 to not break, right

15:58 <egg> that's why date literals are such a mess, constexpr needs to be functional

15:58 <egg> hm

15:58 <egg> welp it's a GNU extension supported by MSVC so we've got that going for us

15:58 <egg> which is nice

16:00 <awang> VS 2015 doesn't have relaxed constexpr either?

16:00 <awang> Sounds fun

16:00 <awang> VS 2017 can't fix itself fast enough

16:01 <awang> So extensions that MSVC allows are fine?

16:01 <awang> Or at least extensions that the major compilers support

16:01 <egg> not sure

16:06 <egg> but let's say this one is fine for this purpose :-p

16:06 <awang> BLASPHEMY

16:06 <awang> YOU DARE DEFILE THE STANDARD

16:06 <awang> :P

16:08 <egg> I mean, we have #pragma once too

16:08 <egg> ow, there's nobody in #pragma

16:12 <awang> #pragma principia?

16:13 <egg> awang: I mean #pragma the irc channel

16:17 <awang> Ah

20:39 <GH> [Principia] katrinleinweber opened pull request #1725: link DOIs against preferred resolver (master...patch-1) https://git.io/vAWpw

20:41 <GH> [Principia] pleroy commented on issue #1725: Can one of the admins verify this patch? https://git.io/vAWpP

20:41 <UmbralRaptor> So, sci-hub?

20:58 <GH> [Principia] pleroy commented on issue #1725: Thanks for the fix. https://git.io/vAWhH

20:59 <GH> [Principia] pleroy closed pull request #1725: link DOIs against preferred resolver (master...patch-1) https://git.io/vAWpw

20:59 <GH> [Principia] pleroy pushed 2 new commits to master: https://git.io/vAWh7

20:59 <GH> Principia/master 3b5ee5f Katrin Leinweber: link DOIs against preferred resolver

20:59 <GH> Principia/master 9feee5e Pascal Leroy: Merge pull request #1725 from katrinleinweber/patch-1...

21:08 <GH> [Principia] katrinleinweber commented on issue #1725: You're welcome :-) https://git.io/vAWj3

21:11 <GH> [Principia] pleroy pushed 9 new commits to master: https://git.io/vAWjV

21:11 <GH> Principia/master 1f3e501 pleroy: Dimensions.

21:11 <GH> Principia/master d811d02 pleroy: Dimension generators.

21:11 <GH> Principia/master b49b974 pleroy: Split out the generators.

22:06 <zilti> Is Test Flight really in a state where it's usable? I can basically adjust my clock to how my flown-many-times, fully-researched engines with an MTBF of 105 minutes fail before they reach 4 minutes of flight time?

22:54 <Mike`> zilti, that sounds weird...

22:55 <zilti> Mike`: if that's not normal, I guess I'll start poking at the installed mods

22:57 <Mike`> zilti, i mean... somewhat depends on the engines you're using and their TF config

22:57 <zilti> Mike`: TF config? I'm extensively using the basic E-1 currently

22:57 <Mike`> zilti, i'm playing RO, and while the first orbital engines, namely the AJ10, are pretty unreliable, especially their ignition, the second level orbital engines are already much better

22:57 <Mike`> RO/RP-0

22:58 <Mike`> also, do you repsect their burntime limits?

22:58 <Mike`> i don't know how much that would be for the E-1, i'm not that far into my career

23:06 <zilti> Are the burntime limits somewhere in the game? I don't know about that. That might be it.

23:07 <Mike`> zilti, yes, it shows them when you switch engine configs, it also shows them when you hover an engine in the VAB or science screen, and right click to get the scrollable advanced details list, in that list you need to scroll down to see Testflight engine configs/data

23:08 <zilti> Mike`: Alright, I'll take a look at those - thanks! I assumed MTBF would be the core variable TestFlight works with.

23:08 <egg> !wpn zilti

23:08 <egg> !wpn Mike`

23:09 <Mike`> zilti, testflight uses quite some variables, for example, some engines have a higher chance to fail to ignite - and all engines have a design burnh time, when you burn longer, their fail probability rises

23:10 <Mike`> zilti, also, such questions are better asked in #RO i guess. :)

23:11 <Mike`> zilti, i did just check the E-1, its rated burn time is 165 seconds, so less than 3 minutes.

23:12 <zilti> Mike`: Ah, that explains it. Oh well :P Yea, I thought I remember there being an #RO channel - but forgot it was written abbreviated.

23:38 <GH> [Principia] pleroy opened pull request #1726: Change the definition of the moment of inertia (master...MomentOfInertia) https://git.io/vAlIz