neonological

Facebook groups is pretty good. Gotta join the right group.

If your asian there was the whole subtle Asian thing a couple years back that generated tons of sub groups like subtle Asian rock climbing.

Don't have to be asian too join and I'm positive there's groups outside of the whole subtle Asian thing.

[redacted]

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again...That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."

- Oliver Wendell Homes on the marketplace of ideas.

Unknown to most people, our modern idea of free speech was not founded by the constitution but by a judge of the name Oliver Wendell Homes. The history and story of how our modern concept of free speech came to be what is today is very relevant to the free speech problems faced by the ACLU.

If you're interested I recommend this podcast episode: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-.... Really relevant and really interesting.

He's probably not deleting or flagging anything because he's aware it will make him look biased. This is a common strategy. Dang picking and choosing only to censor the most insidious things remains an open possibility.

Also, what decade long track record? You have a record of posts that were deleted or censored? That would be a track record. But guess what? none exists. That's a fact.

All I'm saying is that a conflict of interest exists and because of this conflict of interest, dangs comment is pure sketch.

Am I going to let my neighbor borrow a million dollars just because he has good credit? No. It would be unwise to do so and you blindly trusting dang is highly, highly unwise.

All forms of faith are blindness.

I claimed multiple times that it looks like this was pinned. Whether it was actually pinned is open for debate. So you make a claim it wasn't pinned, why don't you prove it with something other than blind faith in dang saying he never pinned it.

That's just a further reason why it makes no sense. The categorization is developed as mysticism.

No instead of blind faith I choose to not trust someone with a conflict of interest. You choose to give him your blind faith and call any form of doubt a conspiracy bubble.

Why can't you just accept that and say so? What's blocking you from acknowledging your own words are just incorrect?

Very simple logic. He's in a position where he can lie. Conflict of interest. He's paid by the company who sponsors this news site. Why can't you get this simple logic through your head?

You said he only downweights for one reason.

Please read my post. I said what I meant WAS THIS: The only thing Dang can say is that when he downweights posts he can only SAY that he does so in the interest of the HN community. That's it. Mainly the point is because this is ONLY what he can SAY (keyword) you can't trust what he says, because of a CONFLICT of INTEREST. Get it? Take note I capitalized some words for emphasis to help you understand exactly what I'm saying. The language I use is specific and exact.

You're not addressing the point.

I am addressing the point. The point is I'm not wrong at all and I'm telling you why. That's really all you need to get through your head.

What he did in this specific case? Different matter.

What he did in this specific case IS ENTIRELY the point. It is NOT a different matter. ANY thing off this point is off topic. My initial post is completely and only addressing the point. I think your mind is wandering from point to point not latching on the main topic.

What he does as a matter of both stated policy and declared intent and I would suggest, evidence is different. He downweights for a range of reasons.

Your suggestion is noted. And I suggest there's a conflict of interest here. There.

Giving someone with a conflict of interest good faith is extremely unwise. I advise even for you never to do it.

In essence you can say my faith in him is 50% not 100% as good faith seems to imply. So with 50% faith, engagement is still has value. I never met a person who never lied, so every single person I've ever talked to in my life I technically never had 100% good faith towards. I expect everyone to lie and be untrustworthy at some point. For some people it's big things, for other people it's minor white lies. For someone with a conflict of interest I'd be more careful.

Additionally even someone completely untrustworthy can still be communicated with. You can still glean information from such a person by observing his actions. For example if dang censors this thread by deleting the whole thing, that would say a lot. Him not deleting the thread also says a lot.

What I don't understand about you is how you can say you don't "understand" something and then suddenly say "good evening" as if you're leaving. Wouldn't the goal be for you to "stay" and "understand" Or is the goal simply to debate and win or leave if you can't win?

You are literally comparing things with ( in 1 post): China, covid, dictatorship, serial killers, censorship, educational creationism, biology in schools, ...

Those are called examples. Examples in service of helping to illustrate a point that is still on topic.

You on the other hand wanted to talk about things that were never remarked upon or even true. I never said anything about how dang should stop moderating anything. You brought that up out of nowhere. Hence. Off topic.

As I said before: chill. Ps. Still useless content :)

Then stop replying. Stop being rude. There's no point if it's useless for you.

He also added ~"there's 2 sides of a story". I don't see why Dang wouldn't be allowed to add a comment regarding this topic.

The fact that it's the top post is the most questionable thing here, it seems pinned to the top.

The statement is seemingly fair and balanced but make no mistake it's not. A common technique among corporations and public relations experts is to try to seemingly be fair about things that are obviously wrong. A good example of this is educational creationism in the US. Many schools want to teach a fair and balanced view of biology by teaching both evolution and creationism. Like dang himself said, there are two sides to every story after all.

I never said Dang should be banned from commenting. It is a dictatorship after all. His opinion and comment and the fact that it's the top comment in this thread makes the whole thing sketchy. And that is all I am remarking on.

If I were him and my intentions were to be neutral I woulda just left the topic completely alone.

Good moderation is too much undervalued from my POV. You only notice it when it's gone.

This is off topic. I'm not talking about moderation here as something to get rid of. My topic is the conflict of interest that has to do with this thread and dangs comment on it. That's it.

If I'm free to give my opinion, you seem to frustrated because people don't agree with you. I understand, it's normal and human behavior. You are not above it.

You are, and I appreciate your opinion. I never said I was above it. But here you are again, after telling me to chill you tell me that I seem frustrated. Again it's your bias talking and inserting false emotions into places where none exists. I am simply explaining why I disagree with you.

As an example your most recent comment, first line: > Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down. It's snarky against a highly respected member that is part of the team that makes this forum HN.

It's not snarky dude. It's true. If I call someone who murdered 10 people a killer am I being snarky? No. I'm remarking on a fact. Now I admit I'm criticizing him but open and polite criticism is part of the spirit of HN.

Anyway this subthread has already degraded to uninteresting talk that's against the spirit of HN. I would say normally dang would probably kill this subthread if he saw it, but he may not in effort to appear fair and balanced. That's a good thing. But that doesn't mean you should just ignore the conflict of interest at play here. Either way, it's best not to continue this debate, I've made my point and you evidently disagree but neither of us can definitively prove whether censorship is happening or if it isn't so let's end it here.

Full of human behavior ( as you like to mention), because it doesn't fit your endgoal. Downplaying that the post isn't deleted, while admitting that the moderation was fair.

And what is my endgoal? I have repeatedly said he could not be censoring things and that he also could Why didn't you bring those up? Are you CHERRYPICKING??? No you're not, you're simply not clear about what I am saying so I am clarifying the facts to you.

My end goal here is to remark that the actions dang took here are a conflict of interest and that makes his post highly sus. Does it mean dang doesn't do good things? No. Does it mean dang has never done no evil? No. It means that what he is doing here for this specific post is sketchy. THAT is my end goal.

Useless content :)

See. This is rude and the smiley face is truly snark. This is actually against the rules of HN. A deliberate violation. I wonder how dang would react to this kind that kind of remark. Truly a test of his ability to stay centered and unbiased. Most likely he won't do anything given the context.

I am chill. You're misinterpreting things.

It's perfectly reasonable things may never go perfect. However. Things become sketchy when Dang changes the title and pins his own opinion at the head of the comment section.

Gossip and news are literally the same thing. It feeds and lights up the same areas of the brain. It's hard to say whether this is gossip or news because from this guys post it looks like he got kicked out of YC for trivial reasons. It can potentially say as much about the reputation of YC as it does about the guy who got kicked out. That sounds like news to me.

Cherry-picking statements and acting like this is not appreciated.

You know I make a huge effort not to cherry pick anything. But it's inevitable things are usually interpreted this way because of the medium of communication or my own trouble with articulating the meaning of what I say. My experience is that when you "think" someone is cherry picking words on HN, usually he's not doing it on purpose and that's how he actually interpreted what you said.

Look carefully at what I wrote. The only thing I am doing here is presenting a valid opinion that goes against the grain of public opinion. There's nothing else going on yet it's exploding into some kind of drama where you're telling me to "chill".

Consider the fact that the bias lies with you. You interpreted my comment as not "chill" when I'm literally just calmly typing my thoughts. I am calm, but why did you insert emotion into my words where none initially existed? Because you are biased. My guess is that you injected hostility into my words because my opinion is simply against your opinion.

It's normal human behavior to interpret a difference of opinion as an attack. I point this out to you so you can better understand yourself and to not classify a unique opinion as an attack. This is my interpretation of what's going on with you and I think it's pretty accurate.

Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down. This is normal given his position and it's the price of admission (see my other reply to his post). People also rarely vote on how substantive your post is but on whether they agree with it or not. It's not in the spirit of HN to do this but you really can't control human behavior and people do this without being fully aware of it.

Due to how human voting behavior sort of deviates from the spirit of HN, it's a good excuse to have some people moderate the site as having an emotional mob control everything could have the entire site turn into reddit. The problem is the people moderating the site are also human and also victims of their own biases and business interests so you get hella sketchy stuff like this pinned post.

Still it's sorta good that this post wasn't outright deleted.

Normally, of course, we'd downweight this sort of petty drama.

Down weight? So you guys internally pick and choose topics to weight down? I thought HN was purely community driven with only comments being moderated.

Of course on the surface you guys say you only downweight petty drama but I truly wonder if that's actually true. The fact that you guys downweight anything without trusting the community makes me question how fair, balanced and unbiased things are on HN.

Additionally the person who this tweet was about posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27400221 and it doesn't seem like drama. It seems like injustice and misinterpretation and stubborn refusal. His only option is to appeal to the public but of course YC has to color it with their bias.

It really looks like he was kicked out over a tweet from his perspective. Getting kicked out of YC may seem petty to YC but it is not petty to the person who was kicked out. Even Dang calling this kind of thing "petty drama" does unparalleled damage to his reputation.

The right way to deal with this is not to touch this post and let paul make blog post or something and see if the community votes it up on HN.

Well two brains are better than one.

I'm not sure how we do it in this case. I know we already follow a trapezoidal velocity profile when approaching a target, but mid switch to another target I'm not sure what we're using. Thanks for this, I will look into it.

In this case use the one closest to the actual current angles. For cases when all angles are possible for an axis, use the current angle as target (i.e. motor doesn't change). When you then have an target angle use `wrapToPiSeq` to get an equivalent angle close the current actual angle as input for the motor controller.

Yeah that's how I solved this issue. But still if we avoided quaternions we wouldn't have this problem all together, which is my point.

Specifically what's going on is that we're sending quaternion values over the network and the person on the receiving end needs YPR so we're basically like wtf, there's no transformations being performed on the quat, the source of info is a YPR and the output is needed is the same exact YPR so we're only converting to a company wide Quat Protobuf type to send over the wire. I submitted a request to make a new protobuf type that included YPR but I was met with huge company resistance from other engineers saying that a YPR was redundant to a Quat (It's not).

In computer animation and robotics, inverse kinematics is the mathematical process of calculating the variable joint parameters needed to place the end of a kinematic chain, such as a robot manipulator or animation character's skeleton, in a given position and orientation relative to the start of the chain.

Interesting, but yeah the application in my company is just a single gimbal so there's no chain of "joints" here. I don't think this would apply to our my specific case.

https://www.astro.rug.nl/software/kapteyn/_downloads/fa29752...

Thanks for all your input. I'll take a look at the link above, it looks interesting.

I get what what your saying here. So use 3 quaternions to represent the orientation rather then 1. Right?

But doesn't that magnify the problem by 3x? Extracting the angle from the quat again can yield multiple possibilities. If you have 3 quats you now have 3x more possibilities. This can only be done if you assume certain restrictions for each quat such that they yield a singular axis angle when you do a back conversion.

Additionally doesn't that technique yield more possibility to encode axises that are incorrect? A quaternion representing the x axis can be accidentally encoded with rotations along other axises. It's better to keep the type of your domain restricted to be able to encode only possible answers.

Still this can be done as a valid-ish workaround. I give you credit for that, I wouldn't of thought of this so thanks for ur explanation. Although I might use this idea it is far from ideal imo because of the problems I mentioned above. That is if I interpreted what you're saying correctly?

Also addressing your example, the bigger problem in my mind is that there are still issues that arise even if the physical gimbal is restricted on all axises to (0, 2pi). Any gimbal that can go 4pi likely can go infinite pi and that knob will likely be the same so losing rotational information greater than 2pi is ok for most cases in my mind. (If the system yawed 790pi, users are usually only interested in some value under 2pi). The insidious thing imo, is that information is lost even in (0, 2pi) and a lot of people don't realize this.

I am making the distinction. However what you choose as an axiom in your science of morality is still a choice. You have to take what your moral instincts tell you and encode that instinct into an axiom. I can frame what I said from that perspective to help you understand.

Consider the situation I talked about and the two possible moral axioms that arise from it.

The psychopath that sat and watched the baby drown. Should he deserve any form of punishment? What should we encode as an axiom from our instinctual response to this situation? Should we just let people who sit by the pool watching the baby die not be punished? Is that the right thing to do?

What about the people who didn't donate a dime to Africa? Should they be punished? This is basically most people in the US. Should we punish everyone in the US?

Axiomatically speaking if one is punished so should the other.

This is the axiomatic conundrum. We evolved moral emotions to determine our behavior. Even when we try to interprete these emotions from an axiomatic perspective the conondrums remain on which axioms to choose. Depending on the situation neither axiom completely fits our interpretation of what is right or wrong.

Some people resolve this by choosing not to punish anyone by basing their decision on the axiom that punishment should only be reserved for murder by action not murder by inaction. However that is just an axiom you arbitrarily chose. Emotionally speaking murder by deliberate inaction is something everyone feels is fundamentally wrong as well and can be shaped into an axiom. The problem is this axiom conflicts with our instincts that are telling us that the people who killed starving kids in Africa by refusing to donate money are not guilty of murder.

There are other moral situations that can hijack our brain. Consider a train that is about to run over and kill 5 people tied to the track. You can save those 5 people by pulling a switch causing the track branch to switch to another lane. This lane only has one person tied to the track. Do you pull the switch? Save 5 people or save 1 person? By default the train will run over 5 people.

Think about your decision before I adjust the parameters. Most people choose to save 5 people over saving 1 person and they will flip the switch.

Imagine the same train. The track is now linear with no branch. 5 people are tied to the track. You see a really big fat man standing next to the track. You can save all 5 people by sneakily pushing the fatman onto the track. The fatman will die but his weight will stop the train saving the 5 people. What do you do?

The situation is the same, only superficial parameters have changed.

Basically the situation is this: you have the choice of saving the lives of 5 people or 1 person. Axiomatically we by default think that you should save 5 people over 1 person.

However while both situations are the same we feel the the second situation tends to feel wrong. It feels like murder if you save 5 people. The axiom of murder by action and the axiom of saving 5 people over 1 person in this situation form a moral paradox and the feeling of what's wrong or what's right changes depending on if we push a person onto the tracks or if we flick a switch.

This indicates that when you try to encode our moral instincts into axioms they form inconsistencies. An inconsistent system means the system is arbitrary and made up. It is not a "science" and just an arbitrary set of inconsistent behavioral rules. In other words, it's just a biological group of behaviors that coincidentally helps humans survive in a society; it is not some universal truth in the universe, not like the laws of physics.

Is it worth studying an arbitrary set of rules as if they were some universal truth? No. I think it's excessive. You need to create laws so that society functions but any analysis deeper then that (like the philosophy of ethics for example) is a pointless endeavor. There is no axiomatic or fundamental truth here.

That's applied math though. It is categorically on another level in the hierarchy.

Why would one specific application of math, the application of math in beauty be placed by philosophy on the same level as logic fundamentally. Math is derived from logic after all. Why isn't philosophy placing the study of the application of math to origami in the same category? Why does beauty arbitrarily take precedence over origami?

Mathematics makes beauty and logic equivalent fields of study that belong in the same category? How?

Your company can still use quaternions to represent the rotations of each axis

I don't understand this can you elaborate? My company does indeed use motorized pan tilt units.

What I've found, from famous books by famous philosophers all the way to pop philosophy books to vague philosophical discussions... is some of the muddiest and most convoluted self-indulgent thinking i've ever seen.

I find philosophy to be highly irrational. It studies topics that are uniquely different yet it categorizes these topics as the same thing.

Aesthetics aka beauty is a philosophy, and so is logic. How do these things exist on the same level? Aesthetics is a human attribute and a human opinion and made up concept, logic is an observable phenomenon fundamental to the universe.

The infinite regressions are also pointless paths to explore. By induction we know it's infinite already so why continue to explore?

No conjectures in math are called theorems and they are based off of made up assumptions called axioms. Whether the axiom is true from an observational standpoint is irrelevant to math.

For example euclidean geometry is observably not true. Einsteins General relativity shows that the observable geometry of our universe is not euclidean. Yet the field of euclidean geometry is still intensely studied and a valid mathematical field.

I should be getting paid for this.

You need to realize that there exists the possibility of being both good and bad.

Pushing this narrative without considering the obvious facts is a simple minded view.

Cheaper products are good for the working class because it means they can afford more products. Automation leads to cheaper products. Common sense.

That is the good side of automation for the working class.

So the answer is far more complicated then the simpleton answer you came up with here. The more you automate things the cheaper things get but the less jobs are available.

The gradient is somewhere in the middle you can't completely have no automation otherwise every product will be custom made and expensive as hell.

You can't have 100 percent automation either otherwise there's no one around to have jobs and make money to buy the product.

So economically speaking automation is both good and bad for the working class and only a cost benefite analysis can find the right amount automation that is best.

There free education for you. A lesson in basic math (see my other replies to your misguided views on quaternions) and economics in one day. I'm not so bold Like you as to run around offering paid consulting work for these trivial lessons.

You can design a hardware ptu that when given a quat it figures out its own ypr to arrive at that orientation. That would make quats feasible for hardware.

However, how the Ypr was picked by the hardware must be explicitly encoded as an assumption that must be part of every conversion from quat to ypr that happens downstream.

If you really need this problem solve I might know someone willing to do paid consulting on it.

If you really need education in math and how to properly do trigonometry I will help you solve this problem for free. Just ask me questions. I'm super nice and won't go around fraudulently espousing an expertise in math and demanding people pay me to solve trivial math problems.

Frankly you are not even qualified to solve the problem yourself or give me a recommendation.

Especially when this problem is basically impossible to solve. I'll give you 10 thousand dollars if you can give me a quaternion that doesn't have multiple yprs here on HN. Literally, give me your venmo.

Nope. The only thing you need to specify is the order the YPR angles are applied (that more a convention than an assumption). In SolveSpace the assembly constraints would effectively encode the order of application.

The term "yaw pitch roll" ALREADY has the order of the Euler angles applied. Let me tell you that order, it's: yaw, pitch and then roll.

Ypr is different from straight up Euler angles in that ypr has order fixed; hence the term "ypr"

With the order of angles fixed you still get multiple answers for a single quaternion. Why don't you try it in 3D space in your own head. Given A rotational orientation in 3D, find at least two yprs needed to arrive there.

Here maybe this will help you: a ypr of (0,0,0) is the same as a ypr of (180, 180, 180). These two yprs can only be represented by a single quat. Think about it. Given only a quat you cannot determine which ypr was used by the physical gimbal to realize this orientation. For solve space to know it must be making assumptions or holding onto information outside of the quat.

There free education for you and I didn't even ask you for a dime.

No, no, no. Wrong again. Please study basic trigonometry and read your own sources. Your own link proves you wrong.

The formula for conversion from quat to ypr involves arctan and arcsin. These functions yield multiple answers.

Additionally your own Wikipedia link explicitly states the existence of multiple answers, and that traditionally atan and asin in programming languages yield only one answer. I quote:

"Note, however, that the arctan and arcsin functions implemented in computer languages only produce results between −π/2 and π/2, and for three rotations between −π/2 and π/2 one does not obtain all possible orientations. To generate all the orientations one needs to replace the arctan functions in computer code by atan2"

Either way you misunderstand the math behind quaternions and you lack a basic grasp of trigonometry. Assuming you read your own Wikipedia link, what I said is categorically true.

1. People would like to fix vacs too. Cheaper doesn't mean everybody just replaces a vac every year.

2. Fusible links are designed that way for safety. The hood of a car is designed to be opened so that even a fusible link can be fixed.

3. When I asked: Do care have unexpected loads? I answered that question right after I asked it. The question was rhetorical.

I'd rather replace a fuse in a 25$ blender then buy a new one. But either way, you wouldn't throw away a $100 dollar vac or a $500 dollar iPhone just because a $0.10 fuse shorted out.

Mainstream phones (iPhone, Samsung, etc) are typically designed with adhesive that has removal tabs which deactivate the adhesive and allow someone to remove it cleanly.

True. BUT these batteries are still extremely hard to remove as they are locked into the case. They were designed to be hard to remove so that apple service people can repair the few phones that statistically beat the warranty.

We both know that the iphone is basically designed with a battery that is so hard to remove that it can be basically classified as not removable by the average layman. Very different from the way all phones use to have removable batteries.

It's hard to open as a result of the design/engineering trade off. Just because it's hard to open doesn't automatically imply that someone must have plotted to make it hard to open. It just means that end-user serviceability wasn't a high-priority design feature.

That's my point. How do you know it's a tradeoff? How do you know it's not a design decision? Basically Apple is incentivized to make the phone hard to open. Additionally all apple policies of "repairing" a phone basically make "repairing" the phone cost as much as buying a new one. With every policy surrounding the phone is positioned, it's more than likely that the decisions are deliberate.

Your point is valid for instances of proven malice, but one should not assume malice where a valid alternative explanation exists.

My point is valid for instances of suspected malice. The motive exists. Do you trust someone trying to sell you a new crypto just because there's no evidence of malice and that an alternative explanation exists? No. It's stupid to believe there is no malice.

It is far wiser to assume malice exists wherever profitable incentive exists, such is the nature of business.

The phrase "planned obsolescence" implies and is a claim of intent. The obsolescence wasn't "planned" if it was simply a side-effect of value engineering... it was simply consequential. There are some proven instances of obsolescence being planned, but this is by far an exception, not the norm.

You are missing the point. I am claiming that ONE feature can be built to meet TWO objectives. One for value engineering and the other for planned obsolescence. That would make NEITHER of the two objectives a side effect.

Example: Airplanes are painted with colored paint both to prevent the metal from degrading AND to give the plane a better aesthetic. ONE feature meeting TWO objectives.

The broad root claim above that "Consumer grade products are deliberately designed to fail." is the assertion with insufficient evidence. The video attached to that claim has a few valid examples, but a few examples over the past century is not indicative of the current state of the entire manufacturing industry... especially when there is a textbook engineering practice that does explain the same.

My broad root claim is that the practice has happened, is happening and will happen.

My evidence for this is examples of this actually occurring. And real incentives for this practice to exist.

I made no claim about how widespread the practice is. That is more your claim. Your claim is basically saying that the amount of entities practicing planned obsolescence is so minuscule that it's basically negligible.

Your evidence for your claim is that value engineering exists in a text book. That's it. You know what else exists in certain text books? How crypto works. Does that make crypto frauds and scams negligible? No.

No doubt your claim is hard to prove, the burden of proof for you is astronomically harder than it is for my point. But then think about it... why do you hold strong opinions and stances on topics that are almost impossible to prove?

I would say you obscure it. You can certainly calculate it from the 4 quaternion parameters.

No it is an actual information loss.

There are multiple valid YPR solutions like my example illustrated.

There is NO way to determine which YPR out of the multiple possibilities was the original solution.

Something like solve space can only determine the original YPR with additional assumptions or the original YPR still referenced in memory.