The whole thing is so cruel. I'm a bunny cup, but I would never do whatever sport wasn't shown. Especially the hedgehogs, they really don't bounce back.

Your video, I will never be as cool as my nephew in a bounce house, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 152 Badge!

Any time you "see" an electron or photon, you change the scene (more like you only see the effects of when they hit something).

If you try to "display" the "position" of an electron or photon relative to something else, like another electron or photon, or a matchbox for scale, you get in complicated trouble.

You can't bounce a laser pulse off a photon. Something lost in translation from Swedish? Like a sarcasm tag somewhere?

I dunno, it's pretty static. If it's up there every day with probably about seventy tons of water in it and it isn't hasn't cracked or broken yet, it's probably cool to support a couple thousand pounds of people bouncing around.

Y'know, the first thing the new Tarkin brought to mind was LA Noire. To be honest, I think LA Noire did the whole face-scanning thing much better. Now, they had an easier job to do, where the whole game is already CG so perhaps the faces don't stand out as much, but it does feel like they did a better job.

I actually think they tried to control Tarkin's face a little bit too much. I think there will perhaps be a 'realization' in the industry that adding a host of very subtle random fluctuations to a face will make it seem more real.

I found the discussion about lips sticking together to be fascinating, and that's certainly headed in the right direction. There's probably something about gravity being applied to faces that make them seem realer, too. Like that they subtly jiggle and bounce as they move and that at a miniscule level the skeleton of the skull moves first to push the musculature and skin of the face around second. Those kinds of subtle movements are probably what could make this kind of thing realer.

Yeah, I find it all a bit nihilistic. If your objective is to rid the world of any suffering then it seems to me the surefire solution is stop existing. I bounce off the whole Buddhist "desire = suffering" thing for a similar reason. But to be happy - Might that not involve a certain amount of suffering? Is anger necessarily entirely destructive? Is hope sometimes reasonable? Does being hopeful require an expectation? Question mark?

I dunno.

Tesla enthusiast here. The Tesla vehicle is able to use its front-mounted radar to track one car beyond the car in front of it. How does it do this? It bounces the radar signal off the street underneath the first car. In this case the Tesla could determine the position and velocity of two vehicles in front of it and it predicted a collision, sounded the alarm, and applied the brakes.

So no, it's not that the cameras are tracking objects through another vehicle's windows (at least not yet). Radar can also see though zero-visibility conditions like snow and fog.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar
even cooler, as of a recent update the Tesla can actually bounce radar underneath and around the car ahead to the one in front of it (albeit probably at a lower resolution)
"Taking this one step further, a Tesla will also be able to bounce the radar signal under a vehicle in front - using the radar pulse signature and photon time of flight to distinguish the signal - and still brake even when trailing a car that is opaque to both vision and radar."

Thanks I really like that advert. I saw an article about it in the Grauniad this morning, too:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2016/dec/07/how-a-polish-ad-out-christmased-john-lewiss-bouncing-badger

The comments added this:

The real joke is with the duck because the leader of this wonderful country is Kaczinski (the duck translated) and most people say the same words used in the ad when his name is said out loud.

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

Depending on how you use batteries, this can be an extremely useful test that doesn't require any additional tools.

I'm generally not in the habit of using a battery a little bit, then removing it from whatever device and putting it back into storage. I put batteries in things and use them until they don't have enough charge to power those things. Sometimes "dead" in a high drain device (digital camera, shaver) can still provide enough juice to power a low-drain device (clock), but the majority of the time I use them until they are ready to be thrown away.

When you've got 8 batteries in a pile, 4 that you know are brand new and 4 that you just took out of some device that has exhausted their charge, the bounce technique works extremely well for figuring out which is which if you weren't paying attention and got them mixed up.

Yeah I'm glad he's doing well. Shitty things happen to some really undeserving people. Good to see him bounce back.

I'm made of a polycarbonate alloy, you're made of glue ... bounces off me and adheres to your necrotic flesh.

I like him.. I like what he's trying to do.
I think he should have closer friends to bounce ideas off of.
I think he needs a better manager, unless he's managing himself, then get one.

He took a chance, and I admire him for it. We all need to fail sometimes. I do however, feel like they were setting him up to fail. Never should an artist have to interview and defend their work before they've even performed - I really don't know what that was all about - he was on the defensive before he even started.

I really saw this as an artistic performance piece. The song had catchy parts but was missing the glam. The sound quality was poor. Like I said - Better management, maybe a little less Retro-MJ look.