The short answer is "It depends!"

I know it's a crappy answer, but there are way too many parameters at play. There are many games today that have scripted scenes in them that are pretty cinematic. Think of GTA III, from 2001. The cut scenes in that game still outshine the actual gameplay of GTA V today.

If the scene is scripted, then all the animation, and camera movement can be fine tuned and all compute resources are pooled into the viewport of the camera. This allows the artists to focus all of the trickery on the shot itself, but not the rest of the world. From a PVS or scene-graph stand point, you have pretty much reduced the complexity to just what you are seeing.

I do not know how they made this demo and cannot comment on it with any authoritative capital. I've written 3D engines before (not for videogames though) and can comment on the technology I think I'm seeing here. My comments are just an opinion based on what I know. I do not have access to Unity and have never used it before. But here it goes:

For a scene like this, there should be reduced/canned computation in:

• Collision detection and response
  
• AI
  
• Animation / IK
  
• PVS
  
• Texture Atlasing
  

The shaders, unless they are geometry (the ripping of the skin/flesh in the Adam scene) could or could not be reduced in scope and complexity. I am not sure if they are scripted or dynamic. By scripted, I mean a geometry shader that reads vertex data from a VBO stream or some memory buffer instead of computing the vertices on the fly. It's still real-time, just not dynamic.

Most of the graphics you see here are standard applications of technology that's been around for a while:

• PBR shader
  
• Motion Blur Shader
  
• Depth of Field Shader
  
• Cascaded Shadow Maps Shader
  

The particle system seems pretty standard as well.

This is a great demo and I am extremely impressed with the art direction, but the engine itself is, after all, Unity with PBR for the characters, and maybe Global Illumation for the indoor scenes, which I believe they licensed from Geomerics.

At 1:43 the conclusion made from the graph is "5lbs at most" when the graph shows a different story. Those blue shadows on either side of the line show some kind of uncertainty whether it be best case and worst case scenarios or margin for errors.

I know that sounds like nitpicking, but it'd be like someone saying they love cars and know all about them, but when you ask what their favourite type of car is they say "red ones". It presents itself as scientific but then makes a high school level scientific mistake that just scratches at the surface of credibility.

[calories in] - [calories out] = [net calories absorbed or lost]

Calories are directly proportional to mass or weight. If you burn more than you ingest then you lose weight, it is unavoidable. The "best" way to lose weight is to be negative in the above sum, either by increasing your energy expenditure (exercise) or decreasing your energy intake (food). And of course the body needs essential vitamins and whatnot to function and remain healthy.

I have a friend who took tablets to increase his resting metabolism. He lost weight, but also sweated profusely, had a high heart rate that worried him and regained the weight straight after coming off them.

Well, except that Australians can and do own guns, there's no technically about it. There is a bit of whinging from a few nut jobs who would like us to have no restrictions, but you can safely ignore them.

I recently saw a graph of firearms imports to Australia, and although it dipped slightly after 1997, since 2006 the number have simply been huge. It was actually many years ago that new imports had replaced all the firearms involved in the buybacks (of which there were a few 20 years ago, but I don't remember any more recent ones here).

This article from the ABC has the same points and references, but is missing the graphs - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/gun-culture-alive-and-well-in-australia-expert-says/7509286

Eric Tymoigne and Scott Fullwiler made it into an article over at The Week:
Hillary Clinton loves to trumpet Bill's budget surplus. She shouldn't.

It also features a graph of sectoral balances which makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Are there recordings and photo(graph)s of you winning?

I agree with the general idea -- we should continue to spend, and spend MORE, on getting lead out of the environment (especially in homes and public utilities like water, etc.).

But I do have a semi-minor nit to pick. Oliver mocked the lead industry shill guy from the '70s for suggesting that better general health across the population at the time was because "we must (have been) doing something right", and therefore lead paint must not be dangerous. Yet one of his own major argument points comes from referencing a "study" that shows that every dollar invested in lead abatement ends up returning 17+ times that much in societal gain due to lower crime rates, lower medical bills, etc.

That's a problem because BOTH of those arguments are making a correlation equals causation error. The lead industry shill was wrong -- general population health was higher in the '70s than ever before because of advances in medicine. Lead was holding it back -- but to be fair, only to a tiny degree compared to the gains made in general health care.

I'd argue Oliver's cited study is equally wrong (or at least misleading) -- OK, crime may be lower, but I seriously doubt that spending more on removing lead contributes to that much at all. And total costs of health care spent on caring for people with lead poisoning are almost certainly lower now than they have been previously, but the lion's share of that (legitimate) financial gain undoubtedly came from banning lead paint and then leaded gasoline -- as seen in Oliver's graph of "average blood lead levels of children aged 1 to 5" which dropped incredibly fast between 1980 and 1990, and then much more slowly since then.

So any financial return on further investment in getting rid of lead is very very unlikely to live up to the same rate that it did in the 80s. I doubt that the study accounted for that, if it is also including tenuous things like crime rate to trump up its numbers...

Oliver is right to later suggest that "not poisoning children" is a better argument for getting rid of lead than "17 times financial return on money invested into lead removal". Just stick with the poisoning argument instead of the dubious correlation vs causation study.

I have no doubt he's on the take in some way or another and I'd be surprised if he wasn't laundering money through offshore accounts. However, Poroshenko is right there on the list and given how the German media has been pro Poroshenko/Yatsenyuk, having Putin on the cover of this story is just the icing on the cake.

That said, I don't really care about the officials or, generally speaking, the high profile cases. The fixers are more interesting, including the individuals set up as fake directors on dozens if not hundreds of shell companies -- a perfect entry into the network. Sueddeutsche has already provided graphs of how many shell companies large German banks have created through MossFon. In the lead, as you will have guessed, is Deutsche Bank, as always when we're talking shady business.

The fact that a German lawyer by the name of Jürgen Mossack co-founded MossFon might motivate same folks to at least dig deeper into MossFon, which would be a start.

And I know they could be testing me
The data might be wrong
A preplanned concocted recipe
And played up all along
But at least my graphs are beautiful
With sigma 5.1
This I know
This I know

They told me don't worry about it
Analyze the chirp and
No more
They told me be careful
And doubt it
But I've seen a merger
Of black hole-ole-ole-oles!

LIGO feels when space is rippling through
With a wave of
Gravitation

LIGO feels when space is rippling due
To a tensor
Perturbation

Vacuum sealed interferometer
An L 5-mile long
Split a laser, bounce 300 times
Compare the distance gone
One built in Louisiana and one more in Washington
That's LIGO
Yeah LIGO

A Billion lightyear journey
To cover
Then it hit the Fabry-Perot
Lengthening one leg then
The other
Making fringes dance on
The dio- o- o- ode!

LIGO feels when space is rippling through
With a wave of
Gravitation

LIGO feels when space is rippling due
To a tensor
Perturbation

LIGO feels that space is rippling through
From an ancient
Amalgamation

LIGO feels that space because it's crew
Gave it seismic
Isolation

This event's power is
Enormous
Fifty universes
Of suns
We had indirect clues
Before this
All you GR haters
You were wrong -ong -ong

LIGO feels when space is rippling through
With a wave of
Gravitation

LIGO feels when space is rippling due
To a tensor
Perturbation

LIGO feels that space is rippling through
Can you feel the
Excitation?

LIGO's view of space is rippling through
Our collective
Imagination

This graph (edit: replaced with non-paywalled source), or rather its German equivalent, has become absolutely irreplacable to me when discussing macroeconomics. That display of sectoral balances is such an immensely powerful illustration of why federal deficits are not the devil's handiwork.

Man... I know this was just a slip of the keyboard, but I really think there should be anthropomorphic climate change. It would be like a little mascot made of smog and storms and rising temperature graphs and it'd race around the earth looking for adventure and GHG emissions!

...actually there probably was anthropomorphic climate change somewhere in the old Captain Planet cartoons.

Dan Bull reacts to Fine Bros.

CGP Grey reacts to Fine Bros.

CGP update to Fine Bros. update


Fun graphs and statistics regarding Fine Bros. channel
https://tfbsubscribers.github.io/
http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/thefinebros

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

Kinda makes sense. a circle, 360 deg, is 2 x pi radians, so the information being near 2 on the graph isn't a huge leap. It's weird that you're finding it in the number of iterations though.

I think that's the way it's meant to be, and maybe I'd trust that one more. They made me take one of these professionally administered ones in school (engineering obviously... because everyone else doesn't need a test to tell them what their personality is like) and that's what it was like. Sort of like getting grilled by the fuzz, they ask you the same question in a bunch of different ways to get a more representative answer.

I don't remember my coding, but in the bar graphs I was pretty much exactly down the middle in every category, so I figure I aced it. Totally zen, that's me.

The simplest and best answer is just that people are stupid.

A lot of people though don't believe based on evidence their view is right, but through evidence that an opposing view is wrong. That one logical fallacy just murders our species and public education aught to spend 1 whole year just shaming that out of the populations heads. This is not just on scientific matters, but the very, very common I'm not voting for candidate X I'm voting against candidate Y.

That all said, Michael Mann is IMO contributing to the problem of skepticism of climate research. I'm not even referring to his extracurricular stuff like this and blogging. Go and read his journal articles and dig into the appendices and look at the math and graphing methods used... not the lynch pin kind of work we really want being championed as the state of climate science research unless we want it to be relegated to the status of 'soft' science .