neonological

23 ms·

1.
by neonological 4y ago
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
2.
by neonological 5y ago
[redacted]
3.
by neonological 5y ago
"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 tha
4.
by neonological 5y ago
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
5.
by neonological 5y ago
That's just a further reason why it makes no sense. The categorization is developed as mysticism.
6.
by neonological 5y ago
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.
7.
by neonological 5y ago
>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 comp
8.
by neonological 5y ago
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
9.
by neonological 5y ago
>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 poi
10.
by neonological 5y ago
>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 pin
11.
by neonological 5y ago
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 n
12.
by neonological 5y ago
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 a
13.
by neonological 5y ago
> 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 th
14.
by neonological 5y ago
Well two brains are better than one.
15.
by neonological 5y ago
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.
16.
by neonological 5y ago
> 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` t
17.
by neonological 5y ago
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 hav
18.
by neonological 5y ago
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 pe
19.
by neonological 5y ago
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
20.
by neonological 5y ago
Mathematics makes beauty and logic equivalent fields of study that belong in the same category? How?
21.
by neonological 5y ago
>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.
22.
by neonological 5y ago
>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 phi
23.
by neonological 5y ago
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.
24.
by neonological 5y ago
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 ca
25.
by neonological 5y ago
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 ass
26.
by neonological 5y ago
>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.
27.
by neonological 5y ago
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
28.
by neonological 5y ago
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
29.
by neonological 5y ago
> 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 in
30.
by neonological 5y ago
>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

More ›