Grieverheart

Isn’t 3 frames of latency already way too much? I would say they are both too slow!

Perhaps for understanding the structure itself, but having the structure available allows us to focus on a coarser level. We also don't want to use quantum mechanics to understand the everyday world, and that's why we have classic mechanics etc.

Also similar to temporal antialiasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_anti-aliasing .

I don’t completely agree with Rossman here. You are buying the streaming right and not the file. What I agree on though is that they don’t make that clear to their customers.

This. I used to be a multi monitor type of person but when desktop switching became good (I first experienced this in Linux) I started using a single larger monitor and never looked back.

I hadn’t come across the this before, but in Dutch we have the oer- which is spelled out as in poor, so I somehow connected the dots.

I once trained myself to recognise if I was dreaming by looking at something in my dream, looking away and looking back again. If the thing I was looking at had changed in any way, I was dreaming. This allowed me to partly shape my dreams, so I can’t totally buy the conjecture that senses are what’s taking the dream machine. Another thing supporting this is the fact that I could let my body fall asleep while keeping my consciousness awake. Even though the senses are technically shut off (sleep paralysis), I was not dreaming. I think the fact that dreaming is similar to generative models has more to do with how we learn shapes, and that is by learning sub shapes and categories of shapes. My theory is that that’s also how long term memory works. Instead of storing the full senses senses at that moment, parts of those senses are replaced by concepts/sub shapes.

Nothing beats Safari in terms of battery usage, and there are features like the reading list that work really well (for me). For development, yes, I always have Chrome installed in case I needed it.

This is also the reason many companies rewrite code to new framework because they cannot find developers that know how to program in the old framework. Really narrow-minded if you ask me. You just need a good programmer than can easily learn new languages/frameworks. It might take a good programmer a week to learn a new language/framework.

Naturally I came across Jerobeam's work while conceiving the visuals of my game. You can read more about the process in my blog post http://nicktasios.nl/posts/in-search-for-creativity.html

The paper is a bit over my head. Are there any findings with respect to the phenomenon of Deep Double Descent [0], or the more recent grokking phenomenon [1]?

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02292 [1] https://mathai-iclr.github.io/papers/papers/MATHAI_29_paper....

Thanks! I have already read the 8bitworkshop one, but I was on vacation back then so I couldn't get my hands dirty. The samples are also definitely going to help. I do like the approach of using something like Verilator, though. The barrier to entry for actually doing stuff on the board seems too large for me at the moment -- Need to install and learn software (Quartus), and my everyday computer is a Mac so I have to use a slow VM!

I also have a DE10-nano for running MiSTer cores and I'd like to learn to program the FPGA. Do you have any recommendations on getting started?

Do you consider Gerard 't Hooft also one of those non-technical people? Mocking the use of certain diagrams does not give you any credit. I would refrain from such petty arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

About your argument, as far as I know, the measurement problem is not solved in QFT. I have also never heard of adding a term to the Lagrangian to represent a measurement. The addition of the external field to hamiltonian of the atom when calculating the Zeeman effect is something unrelated to measurement afaik. If you have any references on your claims please point them out.

If you go down that route, you can always dismiss objective reality. There is no way of knowing that what we experience is actually happening. But we still assume it does. The same holds for superdeterminism. You can say we have no way of knowing if what we measure is not a conspiracy, but that doesn't hinder us from doing science as we know it.

Sorry to burst you bubble, such statements should always be supported by actual mathematics, to be taken seriously.

The authors of the article offer a possible test for a class of super deterministic theories.

I do not understand your statement. Superdeterminism does not imply QM is wrong. You can not dismiss superdeterminism with the pretext that it would render everything pointless as our paths are predetermined. Basically you are arguing that you choose not to consider superdeterminism because you have free will. What sounds more absurd? I suggest you read the original paper for a better reply to your argument.

Funny, a couple of days ago I googled about superdeterminism again to see if there are any developments and came across Hossenfelder's and Palmer's paper on arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462 . Strangely enough, even though I've studied theoretical Physics, the fact that some of Quantum mechanic's claims are based on assumptions such as the fact we have free will, were never really discussed except in a course in the Philosophy of science I took, which, unfortunately, was not very scientific. I actually never heard about superdeterminism until I read one of Gerard 't Hooft's papers (see e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02874). Universities should put more emphasis on teaching the things we take for granted and give students the opportunity to question them, if we want to further our understanding.

Psychologists used to be people that listened to other people's problems and helped them out. Problems started to arise when they started thinking they are doctors and even started prescribing drugs to 'patients'. If you are given the label of ADHD or any of the new fancy labels, know that you are not 'sick'. Life is in your own hands and you can do something about it. The only benefit I see from this labeling is that it helps you find a community of like minded people. But still, it's a double-edged sword and many people treat it like a disease.

Not strictly monopolies, but they are so large they can move capital around making many services/products artificially cheap for the client. In my opinion this makes competition unfair and constitutes a monopoly in some sense.

Hi zorkw4rg. Thanks for having a look at the tutorials. What makes the vertex shader not readable in your opinion? If you substitute the different values gl_VertexID can take (0,1,2), it's not hard to calculate the values of gl_Position.

Maybe I'll write a Haskell tutorial...

One of my goals is to reuse parts of the engine for future projects where hardware acceleration might be used.

During college, I used to play WoW. I think my biological clock was messed up because of it, not because that was my natural biological rhythm. Also, because of the amount of hours I put into WoW, I did not have many hours left to study, affecting my academic performance. Thus, I wonder if the performance is really linked to the biological rhythm, or rather that the biological rhythm is a sign of activities impacting academic performance.

People should be told they are different, and to embrace their strengths and weaknesses, not that they are handicapped. In the end we agree on the solution, I'm just saying that explicitly labeling the weakness can be harmful. It can also lead to further marginalisation by other social groups. Additionally, it is hard even for psychologists to say which exact behaviours can be attributed to autism and which to personal development.

You should never be too hard on yourself, but putting labels can also be dangerous, as people often use it as an excuse to not work towards improving themselves.

I think the solution to most problems in the economy is to limit how big companies can get.

This is correct. Sample size should be dependent on the strength of the effect. As a rule of thumb though, a sample of 50 people is very little. If physics used these kind of sample sizes and confidence levels, we would have discovered multitudes of new particles.

I had a look at this review on bipolar disorder, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8508 . According to a study referenced in it, 68 randomized trials where used to determine the effect of different drugs compared to placebo. Again the sample size is low and the statistical significance is also small, unless I'm missing something.

You are correct in saying that we don't actually know how much we know about the brain. But the brain is s much more complex than e.g. planets orbiting the sun. There are many components that can get affected by chemical compounds in the short term, but more importantly in the long term. I agree though that only through testing can we get a better understanding. It is just the way it's currently done that I disagree. I would gladly read some research you think is good and does not have the shortcomings I describe.