rikeanimer

you may have put the cart before the horse. calculating mp/me from pure mathematics is different than theories developed from observation.

'. . . fractional deviations in these constants are not arbitrary, but correspond precisely to the geometric cross-sections of “Sturmian worms” (topological defects) required to enforce aperiodicity.'

ugh

sigh. your probably into the Copenhagen interpretation. buhbye.

find one. I dare you.

is the number accurate or not? and minimal aperiodic tilings of the infinite plane are not uninteresting, they are related to turing completeness. whatever. how accurate is it? you tell me.

correct. sorry. fixed.

think i just fixed. made public like you suggested. face palm.

i wrote this. thoughts?

It's wildly depressing to me that in neither the linked article or the HN comments was a mention of the 'Erdos Number'. . .

Awesome concept and game idea Matt. Would be interesting to maybe add a simple 'stroke count' idea and add to scoring. I know -0zero- about painting but it might drive players to be closer to how IRL painters paint.

Anyone know many strokes it takes an average artist to get to completion? [sorry joke had to be made but really curious about answer as well].

This already gave me a better feel about what painters do, and I'm blind in the mind.

Comments about trolling the scoring algorithm seemed a little silly to me, if you folks want max score just run some sort of soft-ICE, scan the sandboxed mem and change it ;) This is a really cool idea and I love it.

yeah there were a handful of tailsitter designs that era. Cool concepts but pretty much all had an achille's heel or two.

Did no one notice the balls? Those are there so a set of external cameras [think motion capture] can feed in an absolute, essentially perfect state estimate to the control algorithm. It's probably a run of the mill system from Vicon [company].

Essentially if you're running vicon you can make flying things do things like you could make them do programming them in Blender or similar, subject to the [pretty minimal to the human eye] time constants of the mechanical systems. Brushless speed controllers are pretty fast, servos are as well [but way slower]. The end-to-end control loops we are talking about are in the ballpark of 1khz easy and have been for quite some years.

If they had balls they'd take off the balls ;) Other than that it is essentially CGI in real life ;)

Sorry don't mean to be negative it looks cool guys. Now go make it actually cool.

I ain't got no darn PhD in control theory from some fancy skool er nuthin but my gut tells me for this situation it's the state estimation that actually composes the beavers tail under the wattuh of dis dat der prollem.

shouldn't they be training the models to detect the poachers and not the animals to be poached?

I get that it is cool to be able to ooohcrazy train a model to select between different species but like all tools this is one that can be used by both sides-- and assuredly will be.

Training a model to identify poachers is A: way easier B: waaay more actionable C: way less sexy for a news report and fun for nature lovers, and NVIDIA's shareholders, unfortunately.

Unfortunately for the pangolins C will probably always trump. . .

They're so cuutte I love them!!!!

If you missed the Starship BN4 static fire and need your fix now. . .

lol I thought we were discussing programming paradigms-- but at the same time I think considering the NVIC and different peripheral/vs high speed busses may be relevant.

tools are just tools. all entities will continue to develop better tools to help both themselves and those in their immediate proximity. this is simply history over [minimum] past 4.5 billion years.

history has shown that trying to control tools simply leads to more unnecessary death.

maybe we should think about focusing on all entities having enough that their is no need to employ power?

tldr; if everyone on the planet had a roof over their heads, food to eat, books for their children and light with which they could read them in. . . we wouldn't be here. and econometrically this has been feasible since around the 1970s.

there are examples of small geographically isolated communities throughout history that have had this.

i wish humanity would get better at math.

it's basically just a flex from the killer concrete industry. no sweat.

omg I tried to post a reply on that support page and it errored out saying "you need to be signed in ..." while I could literally see my sign in logo top right corner of the page.

fking google.

there are good [as well as technical humurous] comments on the page.

the pakleds were the first open-source enthusiasts in ST:TNG, the borg just acquired binary blobs

https://youtu.be/KeFoGo3N_4g

if only we had an operating system with flexible granularity permissions models baked in. wouldn't it be nice?

decent. I'm curious what it would be for a human tetrachromat (likely female) seeing in r4 space. Sadly, I can never know.

Is bad understanding of dosimetry gonna be a thing now? I hope not. Cosmic microwave background radiation only makes your dick hard.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29761587

yes they are. can you explain what your graphs are showing then, please?

I think they are showing nothing but noise.

Of course:

The problem is that the data is presented to the observer as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It is not. The graphs show simply noise within the expected spectrum of noise for both the Montana and San Francisco data.

Next there is some statement about increased cancer risk which doesn't really reference anything at all but on first blush seems intended to reference then difference between the montana/SF data.

The data between both of those graphs if within the noise and we have little information on under what circumstances it was taken [and this is in addition to the fact that it is just noise!]

The authors first statement that "it probably means nothing" does nothing to excuse the fact that most viewers will likely view it as as something especially given the comments that follow.

FUD.