79 karma · joined April 9, 2023
This sounds rather obvious, but I feel people forget it far too often.
I agree that working from RGB backwards results in a lot of back-and-forth between concepts, sometimes leaving unanswered questions. Starting with the SPD means getting to matrix transforms and chromaticity is a much longer route, but I feel is ultimately more intuitive — at least compared to most of the other ways to present it. Also, I wrote this for an audience with some (basic high school) background in math, but zero background in colours. So I'd rather it be drawn-out than underexplained. I myself didn't know much about cone fundamentals before deciding to write about it :)
> If we have to switch to something like burning the model weights into silicon to continue to make gains
I think that's already being considered semi-seriously [0][1]
[0] https://taalas.com/products/
[1] https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1296/am...
"We designed the antennas correctly, you're holding the phone the wrong way."
Basically, the bitter lesson: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
Pretty much. They are only as effective as the body trying to enforce it. The entire point of being a sovereign nation is nobody can force you to do anything. Now it is in a nation's self interest to not violate agreements and get along nicely, but sometimes the calculus changes and the punishment may not outweigh the benefits.
That would've been been the case if all laws, opinions and purchasing decisions were made by everyone acting rationally. Even if self driving cars are safer than human drivers, it just takes a few crashes to damage their reputation. It has to be much, much safer than humans for mass adoption. Ideally also safer than the competition, if you're comparing specific companies.
> This contains a nice introduction to biological colorspace
Looks like an interesting read, thanks for sharing!
That's what I gathered from spectral response. Usually spectral response in this context refers to the responsivity of the cones. Even when accounting for 'brain subtracting green from red' (which I assume comes from the opponent process theory) the following graph has nothing to do with it. The captions too read 'Yes, this results in red having negative sensitivity @500 nm', implying the red (L) cones have a negative sensitivity to cyans — which, again, is not really the case.
No, cones do not produce a negative response. The graph shows the intensity of the primaries required to recreate the spectral colour at that wavelength. The negative implies that the primary was added to the spectral colour to match it with itself, instead of adding it with the other primaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#Color_mat...
What is preventing people from just creating a fork?
I was not aware of this. Also judging by this and the sibling comments, it looks like the momentum didn't die despite Google's apathy. Hopefully the fact that their own team is now developing the rust port, as well as the growing support in other platforms, is enough to make Google reconsider its choices.
> Monetary policy is government policy. The ruling party is seldom uniformly popular across their entire domain.
If by monetary policy you are referring to fiscal policy, you're pretty much spot on. There's always in-fighting between states and lots of complaining about the central/federal government favoring certain states over others.
This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say.
> Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions.
I feel like _you_ are the one who is only addressing the points that are the easiest to argue using unverified numbers and hypotheticals that would never be practical, just to support your claims, instead of addressing the argument as a whole.
> OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!
I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point. Most people have overlapping commute routes, which are anything but random. It is proven mass transit reduce collective travel times, and which is why I mentioned the least amount of time for _most_ people, which you conveniently didn't account for.
> This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK.
Again I never argued for _only_ bikes, you're dragging your own assumptions and hatred for bikes into the argument. I also don't know why you think bikes more anti-human than cars. Anyway, how is a city that needs cars to get around better than a city that doesn't, better in terms of accessibility? And again, "transit is barely OK", but you conveniently did not mention about the accessibility of cars.
> So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses.
EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars (aka more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible). Idk why you would use EV for cars, but not do the same for buses when comparing them (if not just for pushing your agenda). If anything, I would guess the percentage of EV-to-ICE ratio for buses is higher than for passenger cars in most high-density cities (except for the US, ig idk).
> People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here.
Economic forces will always end up pushing for more and more density. Pushing for car dependent cities may mitigate this to a point, but it does not create better cities. Good zoning laws have a much higher probability doing that.
> No, they make it more inescapable.
As mentioned, I fail to see how good public infrastructure is stopping a person from leaving a city more than other economic forces, if it is so insufferable.
> Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense.
Great point. It would have become LA. Where your ideas (at least from what I understand about your ideas) have already been implemented. A place known for zero traffic, that consistently comes on top for best cities to live.
I think I am done with this, have a good day bro
Progress for me includes both small iterative refinements and big leaps. It also includes trying old techniques in new domains with new technology. So I think we just have differing definitions for progress.
Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. Think streets with trees, and lively public spaces for people to hang out.
> If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes?
No one is being forced. If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. The 'hellscapes' have more to do with the housing crisis and zoning laws than transit infrastructure.
Idk why most people think urban density is a problem to be solved (using tech like self driving for eg), because it ultimately always circles back to the fact that density is the only sustainable way for cities to develop and grow in the long run. Even if it is not perfect.
> I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan.
It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Imagine the increased stress, lesser free time, and lower quality of life from all the noise and pollution.
> Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.
When exactly will most people have the option to opt-out, and how likely and how exactly will it happen?
I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.