204 karma · joined October 26, 2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_kinematics#Inverse_kin...
Relativity explains a couple of counter intuitive things that we actually see:
1. Apparently there is no particular velocity that can be called absolutely stopped or special in any way: every velocity is just as valid as every other.
2. Observers moving at different velocities disagree on 3D distances and time intervals between events.
3. But they all agree on the spacetime distance between events. Which is to say, there is a simple formula that resembles a distance formula in 4D where one of the dimensions is time.[0] We know that using this formula, all observers at all velocities get the same result.
gravity is not being discussed but relativity addresses it as well.
So relativity explains actual (but counter intuitive) observations. If we had the simpler Newtonian universe then we could fly around at unlimited relative speeds and time would flow unambiguously at constant rate and be completely unconnected to distance/space. But by direct observation, we see we don't live in such a universe.
If causality could percolate at unlimited speeds then we would not observe any these things and the formulas for relativity would not work but the formulas of Newton would. For one, there would be infinite frames of reference for which you arrive before you depart and these frames of reference could use faster than light travel reverse casualty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_interval
I would have thought that any model of a black hole in this scenario essentially approximates one of those conditions.
But maybe not the most common hundred concepts. "Turn out" is ambiguous but the notions of "expulsion" or "away" or "count" and "people" may not be.
It would be extremely useful to have a list of the most common core concepts shared by all cultures. Some maybe tricky like colors, but there must be a great many in common because it is possible to communicate after all.
Unusual language describing how we actually do remote control today. With a picture of an example boat no less!
[0] Hertz'ian radiations undoubtedly refers to EM
For example, in Tennis, replay shown by the Hawkeye system is not video but reduced to a computer animation. The animation shows the ball impact with an unreasonable shape and with sharp outlines of infinite resolution of both ball and line on every surface, even grass. Yet the result is accepted with little or no argument. So while ambiguity still obviously exists to the same degree, the final decision has been delegated to software and machinery rather than publicly reviewing the actual event via video.
I find two interesting things about this. 1) apparently having a human review the video and rendering the final verdict would cause more argument than black-box software and 2) Hawkeye has become part of the rules and so some players have found ways of using the psychology involved to their advantage.
Yet it produces native apps as well as WebGL.
An infinity of tutorials exist in as many qualities so learning resources of every level are hyper abundant from gradual to accelerated. A passable 2D app is probably possible in a few days starting from zero knowledge. But a impressive 3D game will take mastery of quite a range of its abilities and probably require a team.
Since it is not dependent on a proprietary player, it probably has more staying power than Macromedia/Flash but it does have competition from Unreal which I imagine is a viable alternative.
Is this out of memory or skipped input or dropped processing requests or too much power drain? What exactly is an "overload error" on such an unusual machine?
Such a list would be great to have for many reasons actually.
I built something similar on google app engine way back when it was new and cheap. It was browser based so more text than cool graphics. And I didn't get to play with shaders.
It may sound dry but I was thrilled with the challenges of coding for NoSQL BigTable and its promises of cheap scalability. It was a fun project.
- change requires the passage of time.
- particles moving at the speed of light relative to us have infinite time dilation and so no time passes from our point of view.
- the article is talking about particles moving at the speed of light which under go change.
I have the same (mis?)understanding and am curious how this can work as well.
By which frame of reference? I never understood the language around "instantaneous". Isn't simultaneity relative? So that where one frame of reference says two events are simultaneous, there or others that say they are not?
But I would suggest that the current rationalist claim is "reason and empiricism tell us the most reasonable thing to believe at a given moment" and is almost a-priori true. This is not to claim it is the final truth or that following it will be catastrophe free: The polio vaccine will fail sometimes. But it is better than any non-rational non-fact based alternative.
The old claim "reason leads to ultimate truth" is difficult for a number of reasons. One relates to the ultimate know-ability of reality through our senses. Another is the almost absurd level of over confidence in a given theory.
I would also contest the claim that we are more violent and barbaric now than in the past. I believe that is factually incorrect or at least controversial. At any rate, science could be accused of the technical advances that make killing more efficient but not of starting wars or worsening the base instincts and gullibility that underlying the causes of cruelty and barbarism.
And I would point out one significant social change reason did bring about. Rationality requires judging people by relevant criterion rather than irrelevant criterion. This leads, after apparently continuous struggle, to increased racial, ethnic etc tolerance.
I think we should also distinguish between genuine rational-empiricism and pseudo-science. For example, many of the worst atrocities in the 20th century were justified through a knowingly false and twisted reading of Darwin. These are not rational ideas, they are, in fact, irrational ideas cloaking themselves in an undeserved respectability.
I think we should also make another more subtle distinction. There are those who have a preconceived notion and then, through omissions, intentional or otherwise, argue eloquently for it. This contrasts with being genuinely curious and following the facts and thinking where-ever they lead without prejudice. The former is obviously not going to lead to usable reality based ideas.
But I'd say another hard thing is that every game needs a different approach to AI. Some need path finding, which is well documented. Others need resource balancing which is less so. The newer and rarer the game mechanic, the more novel the AI.
I would say Machine Learning is not useful except in a handful of games and if yours is not in that category, you risk spending a lot of time for little pay off. And even if in those categories, ML will be working to win not to maximize fun so they could end up being too good or to cheaty looking.
As I recall, the successful bullet was filled with phosphorus and had a small hole that was re-opened as it ran down the barrel when fired. Thus it spewed flame along its whole flight and as it penetrated the Zeppelin hull where hydrogen and oxygen where a good ratio.
But as I can find no citation, I must take my own memory with a grain of salt.
If so then an better scanned version of the pdf should be the first thing we buy from a distant civilization.
The way of thinking that such a text gives is nearly identical to the thinking needed for coding.
Just one example: We coders sometimes forget that a conditional like "if (not (A and B)) or C then..." is utterly incomprehensible to the bulk of humanity. Go through a logic book and that stuff will be second nature.
Also it helps lifelong with clarity of thinking which is nice too.
There is no tool that automatically rules this in or out as a possibility? I would have thought it would be nearly trivial to build such a thing. Am I missing something?
But then his successor Aristarchus under took to measure the sun-earth distance as follows:
He looked at the angle the earth and moon form when the moon is exactly half full. This would give the sun distance as a multiple of the moon's distance using trigonometry.
He observed the earth's shadow during lunar eclipses. This gave the moon's size in terms of earth size.
He knew the earth's size from measuring shadows at different latitudes on earth and the distance between those sites.
Knowing the moons size vs apparent size, simple trigonometry gave him the distance to the moon. And therefor also the distance to the sun.
Unfortunately his angle measuring techniques were primitive and he decided the sun was 20x further from earth than the moon (rather than about 400x). But his other figures are quite passable.