Exactly, holds will evolve as they get used and more polished, even indoors. Climbing a Moonboard with a new set of holds is quite different than climbing on one with older more polished holds, even if it's the exact same problem and the same holds.
It's an interesting project and it could be fun to watch, but it's completely useless.
To me, the customer here would be climbing gyms, offering a service to climbers.
1. Set up camera on routes
2. Record all climbs
3. Reason through hold details
4. Generate potential movements
5. Show climbs vs ghost movements
6. Feedback to tune model
3 being accomplished by reasoning "if a movement should be possible using the identified hold, but no one successfully does it, the hold must be misidentified or have different properties."
The point in this thread seemed to be "real world holds have different properties, and that defines possible approaches to holds."
To which I pointed out that, with enough data, you could reason backwards to figure out their properties.
Assuming that's solved, if the question is "What is the point?" then I'd answer the same point as golf swing analysis -- structured comparison feedback for continual improvement.
"Have you thought about trying X move at Y point?" or "You're trying X move at Y point, but here's how you differ from someone successfully doing it" both seem useful feedback.
And essentially what's manually generated now, from someone watching and then providing feedback.
With regards to strength, hell, if you wanted to get fancy you could also deduce a specific user's strength, comparing their moves against others' moves on the same features.
I kinda agree. I've seen too many people using their self-diagnosed over-intelligence to excuse some of their surprisingly non-smart behavior. Behavior that leads to failure in their enterprises.
This kind of article always make me uncomfortable because I feel smartness/cleverness/intelligence does not seem to be objective enough a quality to lead to such analysis. And some people may identify with such patterns and declare themselves as "too smart" and not try harder, believing the problem is from the other side of the table.
Because no true Scotsman would simultaneously claim to be smart while acting as their own saboteur. The two concepts are, of course, mutually exclusive, incontrovertibly.
I’d title it...How to Justify and Frame Your Success as Meritocracy In Light of People Much Smarter than you Not Succeeding Because They Lack Your Connections
That’s just it’s...IMO it’s saying if you are smart and not successful you have no ability or skills.
Which we all know isn’t true. The lack of social mobility in the US has nothing to do with lack of ability or skills. Power and wealth are to concentrated and “success” is more dependent on access to those than being smart, having abilities or skills.
Are you suggesting that if they were somehow truly smart they would know how not to sabotage their own success? Because that's some serious fallacious thinking right there.
Sounds like it, and I agree. How else should you judge this?
And what should you call it when people are less successful than they could be, and can't see that the cause is their counterproductive habits and apparent lack of self-awareness? - because 'smart' isn't the first word that springs to my mind.
There's "smart" in the sense of "general mental ability" (ie, skill in cognitive tasks), which is usually what the word is used colloquially to mean, and then there's "smart" in the sense of "making the optimal choices for long term happiness and success", which, being correlated with the first definition is often conflated.
Now, sometimes these definitions come apart, ie, people who are "smart" in the first sense fail to be "smart" in the second sense. That doesn't mean the first definition is inherently meaningless. In fact, g factor ("IQ"), the psychometric concept that maps most closely to that first definition is extremely well studied, and well established as coherent and measurable.
Why these two attributes come apart in some people is an interesting question, because they're usually so correlated, and that's what the article is in a sense about.
althought the content is more concept art instead of fine art, you might like the Artstation Chrome extension, it's a great way to discover new artist:
Eh, 24 inches, no *-sync, 144hz refresh, 1080p, 1ms "grey-to-grey", and it's TN not IPS.
More on the high-end is Acer Predator X34: [0]
34" cinema 21:9, g-sync, 100hz refresh, 1440p, and IPS (also full 100% sRGB coverage). This thing retails for ~$1300 and is sold-out almost everywhere.
If we're talking pro-gamers, they probably don't want a 34 21:9 cinema display either. While I haven't tried it, I'm guessing g-sync @ 100hz makes having a insane refresh rate unnecessary. But at $300-400, I'm guessing most progamers will go with the minimum necessary to get their frame rate optimal.
In reflex based games, given two otherwise equal setups with players having equal reflexes, the one who gets the stimulus first due to higher refresh rate will win. The standard 60 Hz means new data is sent every 17ms. With 144 Hz you cut it down to 7ms. With equal reflexes, the player who receives the stimulus 10ms earlier will execute the necessary actions 10ms earlier.
In practice no two players are that equal, but it's still beneficial to accumulate every advantage you can.
Mostly to keep the app simple and still deployable on the free Heroku plan. Sure, it could handle multiple locations, but then it would quickly outgrow the free tier
It's an interesting project and it could be fun to watch, but it's completely useless.