Cool. Input to developer: offer gear numbers that are co-prime (or absolute primes) to each other. Results in maximum number of circles until you return to the original point.
Thanks! I chose the same set of gears that shipped with the original Spirograph. Also note that you can achieve a similar effect by pressing "," or ".", which offsets the gear by one tooth, and then re-drawing the complete design.
Cool, Thanks. To me, 4-D rotation is completely “unpredictable” or “contraintuitive”, or both. I wonder, you as a developer of that visualization, did you get an intuition for it? do you know in advance how the projection changes when you apply one or the other rotation?
I did actually! As jcun2148 pointed out, the game of trying to return the hyper cube to the start position is a great way to start building intuition.
To describe what each rotation axis does in words: There are six axes of rotation because there are 6 perpendicular planes in 4D (xy, xz, xw, yz, yw, zw). The 3 of these which only use xyz are just the regular axes of rotation. The other three rotate between a regular axis and the 4th dimension. This has the effect of a kind of toroidal wrapping (you may have animations of this, where the inner cubes wrap around to become the outer cube) oriented in the direction of the other xyz coordinate.
Many many years ago I played a browser-based online game and I used curl and php for scripting the game. I eventually programmed an alert feature that woke me up (OS X: ‘say “Warning you are under attack”’) during the night when I was being attacked.
10.4 brought Spotlight
10.5 introduced Time Machine
10.6 cleaned everything up and added some stuff like Exchange Support. IMO the peak of Mac OS X.
From then on, Focus was put on Social Media integration and data collecting services.
Seems I‘m getting old an nostalgic.
Even worse: Sierra. Ouch. 10 years ago I used to go for every upgrade immediately (even .0’s). IMO new versions since maybe 10.8 added mostly data collecting bloat. macOS moved far away from the OS I once loved (peaked at Snow Leopard IMO). Funnily, macOS became “free” after Snow Leopard, so you’ve probably paid with your data ever since.
Not data. You pay in service subscriptions and upsold hardware (especially since some features work less well or not at all unless your OSes are upgraded across the board).
hehe, did the same, although not with +, but using a catch-all feature of the provider. I still get a lot of spam and phishing attempts on my „dropbox@<mydomain>“ address. I faintly remember they (dropbox) had a breach some time in the past.
I fully agree with the article. One thing not mentioned, however probably assumed to be given: domain knowledge. A domain expert using simple methods will probably beat any decent ML model because they are able to define strong features.
That can happen indeed. Compensating for lack of system or domain understanding with ML can result in mediocre results. I've seen this repeatedly with ML teams struggling to get their models adjusted to what was fundamentally not so great data that needed a simple cleanup. Failing to understand the data was dirty, which was easy to address, led to a wild goose chase extracting this and that feature in attempts to make the magic work better.
Once you have deep understanding of your domain and system, finding the places where ML truly adds value is a lot easier. Also, you'll have a basic understanding of how things are without it and you'll know whether it is working better or not and whether that's worth the trouble.
I always wondered how the focusing actually works. It happens „automatically“, but what is involved? Are all cone types used for the focusing, or mostly the green-type ones? Or are there even special, dedicated cells for the focusing only? Does the control ober the muscle controlling the lens shape goes via the brain, or is there a more direct mechanism?
Is there an expert around to explain or give some links to explanations?
(as a side comment: as a teenager I learned to control the focus point to a certain degree. There were these pattern-3D images, „Magic Eye“, and since the perceived depth does not correspond to the actual distance of the image, they eye needs to correct. I guess the same applies to 3D cinema, and may well cause the eye strain reported by many)
