It seems to be a nice, handmade, thoughtful collection. Things like being able to flip the images is a nice touch.
However, name "animated" will only lead to disappointment for people finding slide shows of humans. This is basically the same kind of that a Boy Scout handbook provides.
As a ultra noob in the art of knotting, I liked this when I stumbled over it a few weeks back. I agree that for newbies it would be even more instructive with smoother flows, I guess they're held back by the animations being photos and not, well, animations.
I also have read their backstory/naming thing [1] several times but I still don't quite get it. I first thought they were related to the historical Grog, but that was a misunderstanding. I think.
I think "Trucker's Hitch" refers generally to any setup where you tie a midline loop, then use it like a pulley and tie off the free end. There are several different ways of doing the loop knot and the ending knot, with their own names on their own, but Trucker's Hitch refers to the overall setup.
Nice UI. Pretty cool to see a CAD program in the browser, without even an annoying login to try screen. On the other hands it seems to be pretty choppy and I was visual artifacts about 5 seconds into the tutorial. I got the same artifacts in Zen and Chrome.
Careful, he is also a believer in Ayurveda[1]. Which basically basically categorizes people into different elements like fire and water and then tries to change their diet and habits to match their elemental style or something. You can hear him talking about it here [2]. Kinda reminds me of Humorism [3]. Dr. K seems like a nice enough guy but don't get too lured in by the "Harvard-trained" credentialism.
I agree there's nuance, but he's way above the "has a webcam and yeti blue" bar that most of youtube falls under, that was my point in putting his credential up. Not to rise him to a perfect status, but to not allow him being on youtube to fall to the minimum bar of youtube.
Definitely agree. He sometimes says things that sound interesting or true, but for the most part I believe he is full of it.
The field of psychology is barely removed from charlatanism anyway, having a diploma from Harvard doesn't change that.
It's a question of magnitude. Do you think that over-regulation of specific technologies is possible?
If the price of building stairs was growing each year in only the west to the point were we were opening one staircase 5 every years, it might be worth to ask some companies why. If they all say "the last guy who built stairs got bogged down for 25 years trying to meet all the safety standards". It might be time to relax some of them.
It depends on what you consider the goal to be. If the goal is bring a hamburger and person to the same location. It doesn't really matter which is in the car.
It's just ease of use. I tried to make a mastodon account early into the xitter takeover. I spent probably half an hour trying to make a account before I decided if it was gonna take me this long that there was no way it would ever catch on anyway so I should just give up.
Being able to compile to different hardware including GPUs and TPUs seems to be one of the core goals of Mojo based off what Chris Lattner was saying in his Lex Friendman interview. It doesn't seem to come up much on Modular website though, so I can see why you would think that.
That's an intentional misinterpretation, I think. I mention art as an economic activity because it's primarily professional artists that are harmed by the widespread adoption of this technology.
They tried to use the labor theory early on by claiming, "real art takes hard work and time as opposed to the miniscule cpu hours computers use to make 'AI art". The worst thing AI brings to the table is amplifying these types of sentiments to control industry in their favor where they would otherwise be unheard and relegated to Instagram likes
> It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.
You hit the nail on the head. Copyright is, by its very nature, a "tool of capital." It's a means of creating new artificial property fiefdoms for a select few capital holders to lord over, while taking rights from anyone else who wants to engage in the practice of making art.
Everyone has their right to expression infringed upon, all so the 1% of artists can perpetually make money on things, which are ultimately sold to corporations that only pay them pennies on the dollar anyway.
You, as an indie hip hop or house musician supported by a day job, can't sample and chop some vocals or use a slice of a chord played in a song (as were common in the 80s and 90s) for a completely new work, but apparently the world is such a better place because Taylor Swift is a multimillionaire and Disney can milk the maximum value from space and superhero films.
I'd rather live in a world where anyone is free to make whatever art they want, even if everyone has to have a day job.
What do you mean? Copyright protects all creative works, and all authors of those creative works. That some have greater means to enforce was always true, and copyright doesn’t cause that, it (imperfectly) helps mitigate it. What copyright does is actually prevent them from stealing work from independent artists en masse, and force them to at least hire and pay some artists.
> I’d rather live in a world where anyone is free to make whatever art they want, even if everyone has to have a day job.
You’re suggesting abolish Copyright and/or the Berne Convention? Yeah the problem with this thinking is that then the big publishers are completely free to steal everyone’s work without paying for it. The very thing you’re complaining about would only get way way worse if we allowed anyone to “freely” make whatever art they want by taking it from others. “Anyone” means Disney too, and Disney is more motivated than you.
> You, as an indie hip hop or house musician supported by a day job, can’t sample and chop some vocals or use a slice of a chord played in a song… for a completely new work
Hehe, if you sample, you are by definition not making a completely new work. But this is a terrible argument since sampling in music is widespread and has sometimes been successfully defended in court. DJs are the best example of independent artists who need protection you can think of?
> It's a means of creating new artificial property fiefdoms for a select few capital holders to lord over, while taking rights from anyone else who wants to engage in the practice of making art.
I doubt even Disney sue people who want to make fan art. But if you want to sell said art or distribute it, they will.
I don't really think the differnce between an economy that grows by 2% a year and economy that is consitently getting poorer, is analogous to a difference in taste.
Well you can listen to all the western economists decrying Japan based on economic values or you could take a trip and see the factors that GDP does not reflect.
Wealth inequality is not reflected in GDP
Quality is not reflected in GDP
Consumer protection is negative influence on GDP as is, in the short and mid term that is measured, almost any other intervention like Environmental protection.
However, name "animated" will only lead to disappointment for people finding slide shows of humans. This is basically the same kind of that a Boy Scout handbook provides.
reply