#Triangulation

[jareckiworld]

Mona Hatoum — Triangulation (glass beads, wire, and leather, 2022)

[endlessmazin]

Triangulations from Wired Network (2022-2024)

[furiousgoldfish]

How triangulation works

Triangulation is a form of abuse, often associated with narcissistic abusers, which works in a way that gets the abuser what they want, by involving other people into the relationship. It will usually happen when you and the abuser are in some kind of conflict, and want different things; the abuser tells you what they want you to do, and you know you don't want this, so you say no, and stand your ground.

When the abuser realizes they can't persuade you, threaten you, force or pressure you into doing what they want, they go a roundabout way about it, by convincing other people to go and pressure you instead. Now how does that look like?

It can go multiple ways, they can come and cry to other people about how incredibly cruel, insensitive and selfish you are, not wanting to do this one thing to them, and how it's killing them, and ruining yours and everyone else's life. They'll often sprinkle in some lies about you, make you look cruel and twisted. They can come to your siblings, friends, relatives, family, and tell them something along the lines 'I know it's only right for them to do x, but they won't listen to me. However, they really value your opinion, and they might listen to you, please tell them to do x, it would be better for everyone.' This will make the person feel important and happy to be valued both by the abuser and you and to be given this important task of changing your mind, they'll become willing to do it. Or, if they go the crying and complaining route, the person will become annoyed that they're being vented on feel like it's your fault they're now having to deal with this. The abuser might also add imagined disasters and catastrophes that might happen, if you do as you want, and not follow their idea of how things should go.

This person, having been manipulated into thinking they're doing something good, will go and try to tell you that you're wrong for wanting to do what you want, sometimes they'll accuse you of being selfish, yell at you, defend the abuser's idea, pressure you, accuse you of being responsible for abuser's "upset" by acting this way, and will wholeheartedly try to convince you that following your own free will is a horrible, disastrous idea.

And for you, this now means you have to consider, and reconsider over and over again, if you have the right to make your own call, because now everyone in your life seems to be on the abuser's side, and insisting that what you want is stupid, selfish, inconsiderate, hurtful, wrong, potentially disastrous. This, of course, is not true, but the abusers want you in that spot, where everyone you know is against you and on their side, convincing you to just do as you're told, or else. This can sometimes create intense pressure and feeling like you're all alone in the world, like nobody cares about you, and that any decision you make will be beaten down by everyone involved. It can also make you pull down your own choices after having to consider over and over if it's possible that this choice could be selfish or in any way hurtful, and this is not how people normally make calls, it's something you do under intense pressure and scrutiny, which is there only because the abuser wanted it.

These choices can be anything from where you go to school, work, where you live, how you dress, who you date, what you buy, how to respond to others, what you do, how you act. Often they'll be about whether you give the abuser what they want from you, and whether you agree to talk to them or not. The biggest triangulations I've experienced in my life were done when I've refused to talk to the abusers, then they felt it was necessary to lie and manipulate every person I knew to pressure me into extending contact  - and all of those people have been lied to, and have been brought to a heavy emotional state in order to do a crazy thing like telling someone what to do. Normally people don't do such things, they understand it's not their place to dictate someone's personal decisions, not their call to make in somebody's life.

This is partly what makes the abusers so dangerous, not only they're willing  to cross that line themselves, but they're capable of making others cross it too, making their every whim seeming like a life emergency where all rules of freedom and privacy are null. This also puts you in a position where you're forced to doubt yourself, your every decision, and even your senses, to figure out if you could possibly be right, when everyone you know is telling you that you're wrong. They want you to be in that desperate mindset, doubting your own senses, memories, decisions. It's almost like a form of gaslighting, that everyone participates in.

Your choice is, of course, never wrong. You always have the freedom to make your own decisions, even if the entire world decides to attack you for it and to tell you that you're wrong. The entire shitshow is happening only because the abuser thinks what they want is more important than your free life and your quality of life, and they're willing to lie and push people into doing their bidding, just to bypass your free will. You don't have to doubt any of these decisions, because any choice you make is right, as long as you're the one who made it.

Being trapped in that space where it feels like everyone is against you, and on the abuser's side can be extremely isolating, painful and emotionally heavy. It can put you in a state where you feel abandoned and like you're wrong and evil for every decision you try to make. However, this isn't true, all of the people who are telling you that you're wrong, actually have no clue what's going on, and have been fed lies. Not that it hurts any less that they've betrayed you despite not even understanding the situation! It hurts badly. They've been naive enough to fall for a manipulation, and their moral standing weak enough to try and infringe on your freedom, and you didn't deserve that. They've aligned themselves with a person who has hurt you and is attempting to control you, and that feels terrible, like you're alone and helpless against a whole horde of people.

One thing you can do is point out how it's not their place to make this call, and ask them what they've been told in order to come and tell you something as inappropriate and hurtful like this. I can't claim it's going to work every time, but some people were taken aback when they were informed of some of the stuff the abuser just 'forgot to mention' when sending them into action. Sometimes even that won't make them back down, because it's embarrassing to accept that you've been manipulated into being someone's tool, and they'd rather insist they're completely in the right. It's a messed up game where you essentially can't win, the best you can do is stick to your decision and inform everyone who comes to pressure you, that you're not in fact, doing anything illegal and if they want to change your decision they'll have to bring out an army to force you.

Triangulation goes hand-in-hand with scapegoating, and will make you feel like a scapegoat. Even if a lot of people will fall for the abuser's manipulations, not all will, and this is not something that you'll need to endure all of your life, especially if you manage to cut contact with people who are easily manipulated – you don't owe them a presence in their life if they're aligned with an abuser. There are people out there who cannot be manipulated easily, and will stick to their morals and refuse to infringe on your freedom, even when told a bunch of lies.

[xponentialdesign]

Triangulation Gateway 15FPS

[solianapaeris]

I think it’s important for women to realize the subtleties of manipulation and how some men will try to break your spirit or knock you down a notch. There are men who will try to appeal to your ego and compliment you and put you on a pedestal; they try to soften you with false flattery, only to knock you down and try to sow seeds of confusion, insecurity, and co-dependency later on down the line.

If you are a woman who keeps up with her looks and fitness, they will compliment you on that consistently, only to try to throw in digs at how you “look bigger” in some photos, or how you look like you’ve been eating good. They’ll tell you that you “look tired” when you’re feeling and looking just fine to start to sow seeds of insecurity and have you micromanaging and being hyper vigilant about your looks around them.

If you are a woman who is deemed free-spirited or easy going they will mention other women who tried to proposition them (only to reassure you that no, they didn’t accept). They’ll bring up female friends who may or may not be interested in them, or say how so many people think they are handsome in an attempt to bring out insecurity or jealousy in you, to try to get you to cling to them and become co-dependent while triangulating you with imaginary people and scenarios.

If you are a woman who is comfortable in solitude, they will initially try to smother you with affection and compliments and then withhold or withdraw them, to get you to cling to them or to ask, beg, or relay how much you miss them. They will withhold compliments, will not give you affection, or will purposefully leave you or walk ahead of you in public so that you will metaphorically (and literally) have to chase and keep up with them.

It’s important as a woman to know that it’s not a bad thing for you to think “I’m too good for this/them/this situation/him.” That is your intuition telling you something is off. Everyone does not deserve a chance to experience your time or presence, and that does not make you arrogant. It doesn’t matter how many times a man asks you out, wants your time. If something in you says “no” don’t let anyone wear your down or convince you otherwise. That’s not being rude or mean. It makes you wise, and strategic. Men know this.

Men who know that you are indeed too good for them in some way, shape, or form will try to manipulate you in various ways so you will feel like you need them, because deep down they know they don’t deserve the spot they falsely secured to begin with. So they try to pick and dig at your self-esteem, your pride, your looks, so you will feel that you don’t deserve them or that you need them —not the other way around.

And yes, if you are well put together, good looking, well-spoken, and intelligent, the harder they will go to get you in the beginning, and the worse the manipulation will be afterwards, because some men feel that the only way to obtain a woman of that caliber is to break her emotionally or mentally, so she can become a shell of herself and be “built up” again by his external validation.

Be safe out here, ladies, and protect yourself 💕

[radiotourist]

Память`17

[mostlysignssomeportents]

In defense of Deliverism

There are many ways to slice up the coalition that is the Democratic Party, but one important axis are the self-styled adults-in-the-room, who declare themselves to be realists, and the party's left wing, who are dismissed as idealists who don't understand politics: neither how to win elections nor how to wield power.

The "realists" are the ones telling us that we can't have nice things. They say that if the Dems promise bold action - protecting abortion, controlling assault weapons, funding infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, providing health care - they will lose elections. When Dems do win elections, they insist that none of these things are possible: the Supreme Court will strike them down, or the GOP will filibuster them, or the business lobby will subvert them.

For these realists, every negotiation is a grand bargain in which all the grownups meet in smoke-filled rooms where they niggle and cajole and flatter their way into tiny, incremental policy changes, "signature achievements" that are so modest that the enemy can't possibly weaponize them as the deeds of radical socialists who will bring the country to ruin.

To do otherwise, the realists say, is to court catastrophe. Wielding power will destroy the "comity" that makes the legislature effective. It will "delegitimize" the institutions whose trustworthiness is key to enacting sound policy. When they go low, we must go high - not out of a sense of decorum, but to preserve the republic itself.

This kind of politics - the "triangulation" politics beloved of the consultant class - took over the Democratic Party in the Bill Clinton years (see also: UK Labour under Tony Blair). But its foremost practitioner - the Triangulation GOAT - was Barack Obama.

Obama's inside/outside game was indeed remarkable. He assembled and steered a massive, grassroots get-out-the-vote campaign that leveraged his skills as a once-in-a-generation orator to inspire huge numbers of historical nonvoters to show up and cast their ballot (recall that nearly every US election is won by "none of the above," so GOTV is a winning strategy, if you can pull it off).

Then, after the election, he switched off that grassroots.

Literally.

At the time, Obama's grassroots was the most successful netroots in history. Talented coders and digital strategists figured out how to leverage the internet to identify, mobilize and coordinate volunteers across the country. And while netroots activists did their work across the whole internet, their home base was a server the Obama campaign controlled. Once Obama won, they switched that server off.

You see, the rabble is useful when you're out there, trying to turn voters out to the polls. But if you plan to spend your term in office playing eleven dimensional chess, you don't want the mob jostling your elbow and shouting in your ear.

If FDR's (possibly apocryphal) motto was "I want to do it, now make me do it"; Obama's was "I want to do it, now go away." Rather than surrounding himself with the great unwashed, Obama created a cabinet of technocrats, grownups from the upper ranks of industry and the consultant class.

Think of Tim Geithner, Obama's Treasury Secretary, who counseled that the banks should be bailed out with no strings attached, not even a requirement that they halt the seizure and liquidation of swathes of Americans' family homes. When Geithner told Obama he had to "foam the runway" for the crashing banks with the roofs over everyday Americans' heads, there were no grassroots organizers foaming at the mouth in outrage. Thus did Obama end the Great Financial Crisis - by creating the Great Foreclosure Crisis:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/06/personnel-are-policy/#janice-eberly

But Obama's signature achievement wasn't his economic policy - it was his healthcare policy. The Affordable Care Act was a carefully triangulated compromise, one that guaranteed a massive flow of public cash to America's wildly profitable health insurance monopoly and steered clear of any socialist whiff that Americans would get their care from the government.

The ACA was an technocrat's iron-clad dream policy. It would work! After all, it "aligned the incentives" of healthcare investors and "harnessed markets" to drive efficiency. No one could accuse this policy - which was copypasted from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's RomneyCare - of being "socialist." It was invented by a Bain Capital consultant!

Sure, the left would carp about Medicare For All and whine about the unjust enrichment of insurance barons. And sure, the right would try to convince "low information voter" lumpenproles that the individual mandate was an imposition on their Freedumb (TM), but in the end, more of us would get covered, prices would come down, and America would flourish.

That's not how it worked out. Prior to ACA's passage, 85% of Americans had health insurance. Today, it's 90%. That's not nothing! 5% of the US is more than 16m people. But what about the 85% - 282m people - who were insured before the ACA? Their insurance costs have doubled - from an average of $15,609 for a family of four in 2009 to $30,260 today. Obama promised that ACA would lower the average family's insurance bill by $2,500/year - but instead, insurance costs increased by some $15,000.

ACA wasn't just about cost, though: it was supposed to end discrimination, by forcing insurers to take on customers without regard to their "pre-existing conditions." On this score, too, Obamacare has failed: thanks to the ACA's tolerance for high-deductible plans, the number of Americans enrolled in plans that force them to pay for their chronic care out of pocket has skyrocketed from 7% to 32%. Yes, your insurer can't discriminate against you for having diabetes, but they can make you pay an extra $2,000 in deductibles every year before covering any of your diabetes care.

Now, maybe business-as-usual would have been even worse. Perhaps not passing the ACA would have left Americans poorer and sicker. But we're not comparing ACA with doing nothing - we're comparing ACA with more muscular, direct programs, like M4A. What if Obama had enlisted his grassroots, summoning up a left-wing answer to the Tea Party that turned the GOP into the party of no (including no compromises)? What if he'd jettisoned comity, appointed new judges, sent every executive order the Supreme Court rejected back to the court to be struck down again?

What if he'd governed like Lincoln, or FDR:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/20/judicial-equilibria/#pack-the-court

There's a name for this kind of politics: it's called deliverism:

https://prospect.org/politics/case-for-deliverism/

Deliverism is the idea that if you promise things to the voters, they will vote for you. It's the idea that if you deliver things to the electorate, that they will re-elect you.

Deliverism is a subject of hot debate in the Democratic Party, because Biden is an empty vessel that gets filled by different party factions, which means that his policy is incoherent, but includes some of the muscular, get-stuff-done politics of the Dems' Warren-Sanders wing, but that agenda is often undermined by the "responsible grownup" do-nothing Schumer wing.

The responsible grownups say that deliverism is dead, because voters mostly respond to hot-button cultural issues, while material improvements in their lives barely move the needle:

https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-death-of-deliverism/

In support of this proposition, deliverism's critics point to Obamacare, lauding it as a policy that made Americans better off, but still failed to win enough support for the Dems to defeat Trump at the end of Obama's second term.

In their rebuttal in The American Prospect, David Dayen and Matt Stoller point out that for most Americans, Obamacare didn't produce any improvement to their health care. The ACA made their care far more expensive, and the ensuing concentration across the sector (mergers between insurers, and between insurers and pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies) made their care worse, too:

https://prospect.org/politics/2023-06-27-moving-past-neoliberalism-policy-project/

The rise in health care costs is no mystery: monopolies have taken over healthcare. In particular, healthcare is now the domain of private equity rollups, where a fund buys and merges dozens or hundreds of small businesses:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/18/wages-for-housework/#low-wage-workers-vs-poor-consumers

Every layer of the healthcare stack is has grown steadily more concentrated since the Obama years: "Hospitals, doctor’s practices, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, ambulances, nursing homes, rehab facilities." As Stoller and Dayen put it:

> Every part of our health care world is increasingly controlled by greedy bankers who kill people for money.

The same corporate concentration has eroded wages, meaning that workers are paying for higher healthcare cost out of smaller paychecks.

Stoller and Dayen argue that the polls show that politicians who make material improvement to voters' lives do win popularity. Take the Child Tax Credit, which lifted more American children out of poverty than any initiative in history. The majority of voters who received the credit favored the Democrats. After Joe Manchin killed the credit, that support flipped, and that cohort now supports the GOP by a 15% margin.

Sure, Biden couldn't order Manchin to support the Child Tax Credit. But he could have gone to WV and campaigned for it with Manchin's base. He could have loaded the bill with pork for WV that was linked to the credit, and dared Manchin to vote against it. He could have "fought dirty" (which is what the grownups call "fighting to win").

The grownups say that if Biden had done that, he might have alienated Manchin and lost future votes, or caused Manchin to run as a Republican in his next election - but that presumes that Manchin won't switch sides anyway, and it presumes that failing to deliver the Child Tax Credit wouldn't also jeopardize the Dems' legislative majority.

The grownups in the Democratic party say we can't win by campaigning on economic issues like monopoly, nor on pocketbook issues like M4A. But when Biden slashed the cost of insulin, his approval numbers shot up.

The grownups' claim that they should steer Democratic electoral strategy is grounded in the idea that they can win elections, and without electoral victories, the Dems can't do anything. The grownups' claim that they should steer Democratic governing strategy is that they can win policy victories, and that these will get the Dems re-elected.

But neither of these claims hold water. Far from being pie-in-the-sky idealists with no theory of change, the party's left is incredibly good at getting stuff done. Take the antitrust enforcers Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, as well as the recently departed Tim Wu. They aren't mere idealists - they're brilliant tacticians and proceduralists who have figured out how to use their existing authority to do more than decades of their predecessors combined:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

By contrast, the grownups in the party - people like Pete Buttigieg - have notably, repeatedly failed to master the procedural technicalities needed to exercise comparable authority. You can't be a technocrat unless you understand the techniques:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

As for electoral strategy, the consultant class puts all its focus into eking out these incredibly marginal wins - the name of the game is to guarantee a 50.1% win and then move on to the next fight, which ensures that governing will be impossible. Meanwhile, union organizers like Jane McAlevey seek out 97% majorities for strike votes, in the teeth of voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and disinformation campaigns that are far worse than anything we see in a general election. And yet it's the party's labor wing that is smeared as unserious about electoral victories:

https://doctorow.medium.com/a-collective-bargain-a48925f944fe

It's true that the right has been scoring electoral wins with appeals to ideology and identity rather than by promising concrete, material improvements for their supporters' lives. You can win elections that way - but only by demonizing half the country as the enemy and then promising to make their lives miserable.

That doesn't invalidate deliverism as a strategy for winning elections. People may not have the time or interest to follow politics in detail. They may not understand how the ACA's internal technical workings are structured. The ACA has a lot of deficits - for example, it doesn't allow people to discover which insurance companies deny the most claims:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-often-do-health-insurers-deny-patients-claims

But even if that data were out there, there's only so much attention people can or want to pay to their insurance policies. People want health care that works: that takes care of their illnesses and injuries, without bankrupting them. Something like the VA (at its best). Or Medicare (at its best).

Improving peoples' lives isn't merely good governance - it's also good politics. Playing hardball is hard and can be unpleasant, sure, but most of the risk from taking big swings while in office is that the voters won't stand with you and give you the political capital to score big wins.

"I want to do it, now go away" guarantees that there will be no polity at your side, giving you political capital. The politics of grand bargains only produces unimpressive, incremental change.

For all the failings of the GOP's radical wing (and there are many such failings), there is this one virtue: they get stuff done. The GOP has taken massive swings - seizing the courts, dismantling the administrative states, stacking elections, and siphoning off trillions for its donors:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/16/that-boy-aint-right/#dinos-rinos-and-dunnos

The Democrats don't need to copy the GOP's abandonment of material policy for ideological hardlines. Indeed, it shouldn't: when they go low (culture war bullshit), we go high (delivering real benefit to voters). But the Democrats' left wing could sure stand to learn a trick or two from the GOP's right - namely, how to turn "I want to do it, now go away" into "I want to do it, now make me do it."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/10/thanks-obama/#triangulation

The Clarion Science Fiction Writers’ Workshop (I’m a grad, instructor and board member) is having its fundraiser auction to help defray tuition. I’ve donated a “Tuckerization” — the right to name a character in a future novel:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/clarion-sf-fantasy-writers-workshop-23-campaign/#/

[Image ID: An old fashioned tickertape parade. In an open-top convertible, surrounded by security, is a kicking Democratic Party donkey colored red, white and blue.]

[blake447]

Alright! Delaunay triangulation is officially, properly implemented. Notable roadblocks: Some boolean logic was terminating early because I one-lined it improperly A random test case was running on update constantly messing up the triangulation, causing me to question my sanity as I desperately figured out why it was flipping things back and forth Swizzling and figuring out the order the elements had to go into the matrix. At the very least, they have to be ordered counterclock wise, and just for good measure I matched the order to this diagram (again, courtesy of wikipedia)

And finally, we no longer needed a test for convexity as the Delaunay process handles that case as well! meaning it was actively getting in the way of the algorithm and had to be removed! Super excited to move on from this nightmare

[trekahouse]

I had to learn in the most devastating fashion that he didn’t know how to love, but he damn sure wanted all of the love I had to give. He made himself a victim of everything, and used that to gain my empathy. It was suppose to be a trap, but I escaped. I don’t care how he explains my escape. I don’t care how he villainize me. Just know that my mind is free and I finally have peace. This is going to be hard to hear. He will never love you, no matter what you do or how much you do it. Not because you don’t deserve love, he’s merely incapable. He doesn’t know how. But he’s not going to tell you that, because he loves all the ways that you love him. He loves how you pacify, make excuses and sacrifice yourself for him. He loves how hard you work to prove your love. He’s going to drain you in every capacity, and eventually you’re going to feel like nothing is ever enough. And you’re right, it never will be, because darling he’s empty. He’s an endless pit of darkness and he’s trying to drag you into the tunnel of nothingness with him. You are next in line for everything that he said about me and did to me. Sadly, it just might be worse for you. I wish I could rescue you, but right now you’re busy trying to prove that you’re different. He has projected all of his negative behavior onto me and you believe it. So unfortunately, you can’t be saved. You have to find out like the rest of us. Just remember that when you finally wake up to the man behind the mask, to give yourself some grace. He’s good at fooling people.

Treka L. House

— I pray for you often.🧎🏾‍♀️

[butterfliesrising]

he wanted me to feel jealousy towards her, but i didn't, i just felt compassion for her… i too had once known the devastating lack of self-love required to be with him

- butterflies rising

[danielryancotlerpoetry]

[animate-everything-everywhere]

[miriam-heddy]

Just started watching Alert: Missing People. I had to wait till I’d seen all of H5O. I zoomed thru the first 4 eps.

Scott Caan is so very good! No surprise, but yeah. And, not standing next to a 6’1” Adonis (who, yeah, I miss!) must be a bit of a relief (if only for the director and wardrobe people).

There’s something very *gentle* about Scott, despite the explosive temper and hand gestures. Once again, he plays the father and friendly ex-husband well. His voice is different w/out the Jersey accent. Oh, and he’s still hot af.

Really enjoying the rest of the cast, too. Petey Gibson’s cute.

I’m hoping for some buddy action between Jay and Mike, btw. Maybe some slash? The setup is already seriously triangulation-based.

[cedar-glade]

Ive seen people do pre directs before to keep inline and limbs under compression but we also can use it for an srs whip canopy tie triangled mrs system. Doing limb walks on long limbs for tip reduction with no scaffolds requires stability, if you need a foot hold for better work position loop slings on the trunk work great. Second set is using a rigging line, non life support, as aid in a blakes mrs configuration to get out to a position of stability before safteying in, then utilizing the rigging line to rig.

[blake447]

So I'll actually chronicle this as I go along, I'm playing around with dungeon generation! And holy hell we're running into the first major roadblocks.

Basically the algorithm goes as follows, generate a bunch of random rooms in a tight circle, run an algorithm to pack them without overlap (separation steering, which I managed to borrow from the internet), triangulate those rooms (which I cannot borrow from the internet) according to something called the Delaunay process, then use the resulting graph to fill in hallways based on the connectivity of the rooms. But Blake, what is the Delaunay Triangulation? Well, basically its a way of making sure the triangles are "nice" as in not too long and skinny. The first requirement is that the vertices on the triangles are sorted in a counter clockwise order, which is where my initial challenge lies. Even before we start dealing with triangles, we need to figure out how to handle them. Here's what I mean. The way I'm doing it is similar to blender's handling. We take a list of points. We then make a list of edges, an edge defined as a pair of indices for points. Then we make a list of tris, a tri being defined as a trio of indices for edges. Like so

Bit of a mess, but it gets the point across. Now that we can represent triangles, we have to also represent orientation. Basically the way we do this is assume the edges first point is well, its first point, and that the order the triangle's edges are listed corresponds to some clockwise or counterclockwise order. It doesn't matter which, as long as we always assume the same thing. In the above example, we'll use clockwise. We also want all the points to follow after one another. Notice how in the first triangle, the last point of a segment is the same as the first in the next segment. The second triangle, doesn't follow this convention and the order needs to be flipped around on a few of them. If the clockwise orientation ends up being wrong, we can simply flip all three of them once they are consistent. Alternatively, the approach I take is first make sure the orientation is consistent, then make sure the ordering of points is consistent. The way we do that is with a little bit of vector math

Basically, we take the offset between the two points, and the offset from their midpoint to the centroid and cross product them using the right hand rule. If the orientation is up in this case, then its wrong and we have to swap the edges pointer's to A and B. After that, we check to make sure the 0th segments last pointer is the same as the 1st segments first pointer, and if it isn't, we simply swap the pointers to those edges in the triangles representation.

Now that we can triangulate between major rooms, its time to begin adding more points to triangulate. Now, i can't seem to get the implementation working for some weird edge cases, so I'm going to take the brute force approach.

Here, what I'm doing is creating a canvas to guarantee that any main room gets placed within an already existing triangle. In the future I will try to create a convex hull to start off first, then do this, but this works for now. Now its worth noting I utilize very similar math to the orientation math to determine if a point is within a given triangle, then brute force the search over all existing triangles, subdividing them as I go along. Wikipedia mentions some fancy smancy pointer math to tern this into kind of a binary search (ternary in worst case) but I can't get it to work, so brute force it is! You might notice that it looks like shit. Thats because its not Delaunay yet. What we need to do next is as we're adding triangles, examine the neighbors of the triangles it falls within and switch some edges around to minimize the smallest angle in any given triangle. Unfortunately, I need to go to work at this point and this is also not a trivial task with our current data structure! so this is going to require some more on-paper math before implementing an algorithm. Till next time!

[averyroundsquare]

I can feel the self destruction coming.

I haven’t felt this for years.

I want to cuss Her out and go below the belt. I want to take it way too far. My crazy wants to come out to play. I am almost depleted of fucks.

I know it’s because I am being triangulated. I know it’s because She’s mad I stood up to Her and Her shit this week. She made Herself look like a fool all because She was running from accountability, but She’s mad at me for it. She’s mad because she realised too late that I used Her against Herself to expose Her. I know, devious dark empath tactics.

So to retaliate I believe She fucked Dee and another one I’ll call Kay and she made sure I would see them sneaking away to do it. I saw Kay sneak off to meet her the day after we had our argument. A couple of days after that she was sneaking off with Dee. I feel sick to my stomach. And I know that’s what she wants.

It’s eating me up inside. But I know I don’t have any right to feel this way. I don’t want my crazy to show but it’s simmering. I hate people hurting me and I haven’t done anything to them.

I get that’s part of her plan. She got exposed as a bully and a liar so now she’s playing nice with everybody while turning up the heat on the back burner she had me on. She wants me to burn and seethe. She knows last time she did this triangulation trick I almost lost my mind. She knows how I feel about her and now she’s using me against me. Checkmate, I guess.