I saw some photos of those ads on twitter a few years back about a certain manufacturer's engine being the correct choice for a specific in-development military plane.
It's weird seeing physical advertising be so targeted. Like, multiple physical ads to target less than a dozen people total.
It's a little broader than that, because these are general defense contractors who have their fingers in every pie. So it's seen by contracting officers, partners, potential employees, etc.
It's a bit like a Coke ad -- you do not need to be informed about Coke, but it creates an atmosphere of nebulous positive feelings. Still, kinda weird.
It makes sense though, given that those dozen people have decisive power to bring billions of dollars in revenue and decades of work to the companies advertising.
Like, the Dutch airplane manufacturer Fokker went bankrupt and stopped manufacturing planes in 1996, but the brand and company are still very much alive, manufacturing parts and providing maintenance services to all their planes still in operation worldwide.
You're not but there may be people that are. Besides, tanks are cool and I'd go to shows like that for entertainment purposes. I went to the Dutch military museum the other day, it has a Leopard tank outside (and of course a collection of tanks and the like indoors, including a German V2 rocket suspended from the ceiling).
There is something deeply sinister about seeing a defense contractor building in and around DC. Very nondescript 80s-90s dark plexiglass office box with a parking lot. Only with metal fencing, coated in cameras, anti ram bollards, and an armed guard at the gate, plus no doubt other security measures we can't see. The most secretive cutting edge science on death and killing being performed in the most otherwise happy go lucky seeming 90s model suburbia where there seemingly aren't any poor people around at all. Something deeply dystopian about this model utopia optimized for an ever present and unstoppable war machine.
If your preparations for war are influenced by advertising in the DC Metro, you are not a serious professional who the public can trust to desire peace.
Line scan cameras operate on this principle, and are still used in various ways to this days. I'm especially partial to the surreal photos generated by them at the end of cycling races
I love line scan cameras. Wikipedia has an awesome photo of a tram taken with a line scan camera on the relevant wiki page[1].
I've just moved to a house with a train line track out front. I want to see if I can use a normal camera to emulate a line scan camera. I have tried with a few random YouTube videos I found [2].
I think the biggest issue I face is that there simply isn't the frame rate in most camera's to get a nicely detailed line scan effect.
A normal frame rate is probably enough if you do it with groups of columns rather than a single column of pixels. That's what https://trains.jo-m.ch/ does with a Raspberry Pi camera, posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35738987 with lots of questions and answers.
Oh wow that's neat! I honestly didn't think of using chunks instead of a single line and the result looks pretty good.
I love the fact the top (or first?) comment is by dllu, and looking on their webpage I saw the tram photo from Wikipedia! It's cool to see the photographer talking about their work. I think about that tram photo so much.
You may consider it FUD, but that was 100% my reality. It's not about people only being friends with you because you have a phone, it's about the shared cultural experience that a group of kids have because of some media they have access to via the phone.
In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to.
I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.
The age-old “invention versus innovation” semantic tail chasing.
Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
>Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
This is most of philosophy :) arguing about the definitions of words especially in the edge cases. But it does matter, because how we quantify, reward, and protect "invention" matters, to do that you need an accurate definition, and boring folks to hash over what counts and what doesn't.
Around here people care a lot about patents and what should be patentable, and that really revolves around what is and isn't actual innovation, actual invention. Sometimes a thing is truly new and unique, other times it's a trivial obvious change, most of the time it's ambiguous and having precise language to determine which one and to what degree a thing is, can make all the difference.
Thanks? I’ve learned to check whether an assertion is clearly defined and falsifiable before engaging. Otherwise you get “obviously frobulation is better than defrobrulation”
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I'm not willing to say that there is no objective truth to it. Take the triode, for example, or the transistor. I include the latter because while it did something that functionally the triode could also do, it did it by exploiting different physics, and the difference was significant.
Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics.
We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
Some people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
Yeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.
Some could argue that the transistor wasn’t an invention but a discovery: the physical behavior of the semiconductors has existed for millennia, and we discovered that behavior, but we had already invented vacuum tubes before which did the same thing, just a lot less efficiently. Notice that I said “invented” vacuum tubes because the behavior comes from careful engineering and manufacture which didn’t exist in the known universe before that.
But here too, arguing on invention vs discover is pointless because there’s no common truth…
From Wikipedia: "After the war, Shockley decided to attempt the building of a triode-like semiconductor device." If attempting (and succeeding) in using one's knowledge to produce a specific thing that does not currently exist is not invention, what is?
More generally, if there's no common truth then that itself cannot be a common truth...
> Notice that I said “invented” vacuum tubes because the behavior comes from careful engineering and manufacture which didn’t exist in the known universe before that.
That would mean an invention can become a discovery, potentially millennia later, if we discover (no pun intended) that the thing already existed in some form. I think few people would agree with that.
Also, the same ”discover or invent?” question is frequently asked about mathematics, where “exist in the known universe” is very much open for interpretation. Euclidean geometry ‘existed’ in the known universe for centuries, for example, until Einstein found out that it didn’t.
Then there's a different tail chase that's on the opposite side of "innovation" - whether doing the obvious thing others are doing, but achieving wider reach because of more funding, counts as innovation, or just popularization?
(To me personally, it's popularization, but in startup economy, it's pretty much the definition of "innovation".)
I disagree that in general it’s not useful to debate subjective matters.
What is being debated is not whether the given label applies, but whether the label should apply (which really means what the label means), which are subtly different things. The outcome of such a debate is an improved definition or at least an improved understanding of the sense in which others use the label.
I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
Ok, what changes based on which label should apply?
> I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
In the abstract, it probably is, unless the point of the argument is to determine whether to make meaningful change. "Are oranges racist?" - pointless. "Is this policy racist, in that it disproportionately affects X minority group?" - meaningful.
Say we all agree this is an example of innovation and not invention - now what? What was the outcome that warranted the argument at all?
Sometimes it's about the journey. Arguing/debating, even when there's no objective truth to the conclusion, can still teach you a lot about yourself and your opponent. How you think, where you have gaps.
Think of any political debate during an election. There's no truth. It's more for the audience.
McLaren has a loooong history of applying carbon fiber in new ways that revolutionize racing - the MP4/1 was the first full carbon monocoque chassis way back in 1981. Even though carbon fiber had previously been used in a limited fashion in other automotive and aerospace applications, most people credit McLaren for really bringing carbon fiber to the automotive world, because the MP4 series of racing cars were so dominant, everyone else copied them.
McLaren is also currently leading the F1 world championship (after one race) after having won the constructor's championship last year. So whatever they are doing merits understanding.
I believe the original point was that McLaren had an easier time winning the constructors because they had two drivers collecting points, while Red Bull — due to Checo not performing — only had one
Checo (Sergio Perez) was Max Verstappen's teammate at Red Bull. Red Bull had a dominant start to the season which set Verstappen up to win the driver's championship. Lando Norris at McLaren mounted a challenge to Verstappen as the McLaren car went from good to great at Miami, but couldn't pass Verstappen. He did, however, have a strong teammate in Oscar Piastri, and the two of them handily accumulated enough points for McLaren to beat Red Bull for the constructor's championship.
Which brings us back to Checo. There's a strong argument to be made that he, driving the dominant car for the first six races and probably second best car for the remainder of the season, should have been able to score enough points to keep McLaren from winning the constructor's championship. He did not and Red Bull cut him loose at the end of last season.
The second seat at Red Bull has been a brutal spot to be in since Verstappen came along. Arguably their car is very tailored to his preferences, and it's hard for another driver to get the most out of it, or even set it up to suit their preferences. Whatever the case, it's been a bit of a revolving door.
I'd second it. F1 racing is an interesting combination of sport, physics, aerospace engineering and manufacturing. But most of us don't have the background to fully enjoy what you've said without at least some background.
I mean judging from Liam Lawson I think the car isn't that well suited to most people other than Max.
And I remember Christian Horner said something to Zak Brown that seems to fuel fire inside him. And McLaren have been improving since then.
And back to the topic, I was rathe hoping this is some new tech we could reduce the weight of F1. It is still way too long and wide. Even accounting for the upcoming 2026 changes.
I wish we could go back to Pre 2009, sub 600kg much smaller F1 cars.
Carbon Fibre didn’t become mainstream until Pagani Composite Research was established in 1988. The person who brought carbon fibre to the masses was Horacio Pagani through his cooperation with Lamborghini. That’s where Horacio Pagani had the money from to focus on Pagani Automobili.
IMHO, it can because there can be significant challenges of implementing a given (manufacturing) process under completely different constraints. Like, air frames need to deal with a huge amount of weight and massive temperature swings (a flight from Qatar to Europe for example will start with +40 °C, and at travel height -60 °C), and F1 racing cars will instead encounter very frequent and very rapid acceleration/deceleration and up to 5G in dynamic forces.
It looks exactly how the aerospace automated fiber placement robot arms operated starting 10 years ago...but with a slightly smaller table. So they revolutionized the technology by slightly reducing the working volume!
It's still very cool to see the technology propagate to other industries though.
getyarn.io is the clip site I've seen. https://nestflix.fun/ is for movies within movies, not sure if that's what you're referring to by subplots thought.
> You can do this by holding your finger substantially in front of the image, and focusing solely on the finger with your eyes, while turning your mind’s attention to the image behind it while keeping your eyes still.
This tip in the article helped me a lot, it's much easier to cross your eyes further with something to actually focus on
I've thought about this and probably should, especially since my parents got divorced recently. But I haven't really thought of a way to bring it up tactfully without being patronizing. Any ideas?
My parents responded well starting from a discussion of "Have you seen how good AI imitations are these days? Voice, images, even video..."
I don't think safety rules themselves are patronizing, especially considering how good the tech is: "Never trust a conversation you didn't initiate no matter who the other party claims to be or how good, bad, or urgent it sounds." Generally this doesn't count known communications with friends and family through known channels. It would take a lot more security failures to mistrust known good channels (but it can still happen! eg spoofed caller ID).
Another rule of thumb is to ask yourself, "How would I go about addressing this directly if I hadn't been contacted about it." E.g. the website, app, support line from the main site, etc. Always best to go to known channels, especially for anything financial. Even better not to even answer/respond to unknown contacts if you can avoid it. (Not always possible with work / kids school / etc.)
I agree, I wouldn't use this article as an example, because it does include a lot of poor judgement along the way. But there are plenty of examples of how good AI imitation has become lately.
The Core ONE is the first Prusa I would actually consider buying. But it's twice as expensive as a Bambu P1S and lacks various features that are optional on the prusa but included on the P1S. Like air filtering, the chamber cam (I know it's bad but good enough for me). And their alternative for the AMS (they call it the MMU) is way less sophisticated, it doesn't do full roll retraction or include a drybox for example. Finally, I have more faith in injection-molded parts than 3D printed ones. They're smoother, more precise, more solid.
Now the extendibility is a big feature but it's not something I would use. I want a printer that I can unpack and go and have minimal maintenance and tinkering on. My hobby is about printing things, the printer itself is not my hobby. It's a tool and it should just work.
So no, so far Bambu is and remains the the go-to brand for me. I have a P1S + AMS and also an A1 Mini, I think it's amazing how much value you get for your money at 180 euro. I actually use the A1 Mini more lately when I have something small to print due to the easily exchangable hotend (I often print small high-detail stuff on it with the 0,2mm nozzle). And it's a lot quieter than the P1S.
And like others mentioned, Prusa is becoming a lot less open source. In the video he mentioned it is because of the Chinese clones which makes some sense but still...
