search results matching tag: reactive

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (39)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (3)     Comments (143)   

Heroic save

How Does Kodak Make Film? (Kodak Factory Tour)

StukaFox says...

I used to use Kodak TP-2415 for astrophotrography, and it's the most insanely fincky film I've ever used, with one exception: Fuji made FF slide film for the same purpose that were ISO 10,000. The stuff was so reactive to ANY heat that it came delivered on dry ice and you had to slam the slide into the back of the camera as absolutely fast as you could. The darkroom processing on those slides was best done by someone who dealt with nothing but Fuji -- and not just Velvia.

If you've only shot 400 - 800 35mm, MF and FF is a world you cannot imagine.

BSR said:

Excellent video!

Have had much experience with Kodak films. B/W film of which I had much time in the darkroom processing the film and then making prints. I also had the chance to work with an Award winning Press Photographer.

One question I had for him was, how does he process his film to get such clear, sharp negatives? My prints would sometimes look grainy or flat. His answer was just 5 words that made me feel like an idiot.

"I just follow the instructions" he said without being insulting.

He told me that Kodak spends millions of dollars to come up with the processing instructions so, "why should I do anything different?"

That's when it hit me. I'm processing film, not mixing drinks.

Australia's Honest Government Ad | COP26 Climate Summit

newtboy says...

I think the worst part of these summits is their stated goals.
Paris intended to keep warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050 (no real plan beyond then)…but you might recall, 1.5 degrees of warming is considered the tipping point where feedback loops and natural processes outpace human inputs, meaning even if we hit zero emissions by 2050, and if everyone kept to their Paris agreement promises, and if other nations don’t continue to ramp up emissions, and if unforeseen feedback loops aren’t stronger or faster acting than predicted, we still lose control completely by 2050. That’s the best plan we have, runaway climate shifts in <30 years AT BEST….and no one seems to be living up to even that planned disaster of a plan. Emissions aren’t being cut, they’re increasing. Feedback loops are ramping up 40 years earlier than predicted. All the while, people are complaining that gas is over $3 (I haven’t seen it under $4 in decades where I live) and insisting we adopt some heavily polluting power generation instead of investing in green energy solutions. People assume, it seems, that some last minute fix will solve climate change, ignoring the fact that emissions from today are reactive in the atmosphere for between 25 and 150 years, so we needed to be at net zero 25 years ago to even start effecting the atmosphere today…and some emissions from the industrial revolution are still effecting us now. Net zero by 2050 (a pipe dream, and the best plan so far) is planning to fail completely…like turning off the blast furnace in your house when the thermometer hits 450.5 inside and thinking you can stop it from burning down.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that there is 0% chance humans will be able to cooperate enough to tackle climate change. People were asked to simply wear a mask and distance a bit to save their lives, and enough refused to do it that the methods that worked beautifully elsewhere failed miserably to control a virus. If we can’t pull off such a simple, blatantly obvious plan against a virus, what chance is there of cooperation across the board to sacrifice enormous amounts of money and completely revamp our wasteful way of life in uncountable ways to stop something seen as a future problem by many? IMO, there so little chance of pulling it off that it’s statistically correct to say there’s absolutely no chance at all.

Goodyear

wtfcaniuse says...

Remember when Trump blocked Amazon's military deal because he didn't like Bezos? Was Amazon a better option than Microsoft? We will never know because the tender process was bypassed by an idiot.

He doesn't need reasons for anything he does, it's all emotionally reactive BS. His supporters just spin it however they can to make it seem justified.

Those Trumpers, All lives and Blue lives matter supporters working at goodyear will no doubt be proud of Trump when they're out of the job because at least it was done to support them right?

messenger said:

Does a private company's enforcing an internal policy unevenly warrant the President trying to shut it down?

Blind Gamer Kicks Ass in Street Fighter Tournament

Jinx says...

I SAID ENOUGH!!!1

It's significant because it's reactive. He wasn't just "pressing buttons" and hoping, he knew where is opponent was in relation to him and he knew what his opponent was doing. Maybe its kind of like the difference between throwing a ball and catching it.

ChaosEngine said:

For those of us not that familiar with fighting games, why is that significant?

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

If your New Year's resolution is to quit smoking...

Quake Champions Quakecon 2016 Gameplay

dannym3141 says...

Pandering more than slightly to the FPS puritan crowd. There doesn't seem to be any frilly bullshit going on - the type that drives oldschool FPS players crazy like calling in air strikes, perks, experience, head bob and realistic climbing motions, reality physics.

I mean i'm forever bitching about how most FPS these days make you feel like you're waist deep in treacle, nothing feels crisp and reactive. I complain that in the old days we didn't have crowd control effects where you'd take your hands off the mouse&keyboard for up to 5 seconds because of someone's second special attack or 'ultimate'. Or that one hero type will always beat another hero type - I was in top teams/national teams for both HLTFC and TF2, i know my stuff regarding class based team FPS, i'm not just talking shit/whining there.

They ram those statements home at the end - pure speed, pure skill, pure fps. I don't believe it for one second, but they clearly want people like me to be hyped over this.

Tesla Model S driver sleeping at the wheel on Autopilot

ChaosEngine says...

Actually, I would say I have a pretty good understanding of machine learning. I'm a software developer and while I don't work on machine learning day-to-day, I've certainly read a good deal about it.

As I've already said, Tesla's solution is not autonomous driving, completely agree on that (which is why I said the video is probably fake or the driver was just messing with people).

A stock market simulator is a different problem. It's trying to predict trends in an inherently chaotic system.

A self-driving car doesn't have to have perfect prediction, it can be reactive as well as predictive. Again, the point is not whether self-driving cars can be perfect. They don't have to be, they just have to be as good or better than the average human driver and frankly, that's a pretty low bar.

That said, I don't believe the first wave of self-driving vehicles will be passenger cars. It's far more likely to be freight (specifically small freight, i.e. courier vans).

I guess we'll see what happens.

RedSky said:

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to any model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

The Bose Suspension In Action

iaui says...

I really think there must be some forward-looking sensors scanning the road and instructing the suspension in how to act. It doesn't look like it's reactive in any way mechanical, like a spring compensating, but more proactive, where the suspension is acting before the mechanical parts even have a chance to sense any change in the road.

I think the bunny hop may simply be a happy accident where the system reacts to a discrete change in height with such an extreme set of actions (that actually begin first in the rear suspension) that it causes the car to bunny hop.

The Bose Suspension In Action

MilkmanDan says...

@Payback -- that helps with the "how", thanks.

A big part of my confusion was/is from how it started the hop *before* it got close to the object. Without driver input that would require sensors aiming ahead (some mix of cameras, sonar, laser range, etc.) that I can see being a part of a car built around such a system from the ground up, but would go beyond the scope of a drop-in "suspension replacement".

But I can see a reactive suspension system working like that -- it has a computer control unit that normally just responds to sensors in the suspension (reactive rather than predictive), but has a button that can manually initiate that maneuver just like you described. In that way I guess it isn't that much different from a Tesla Model S "insane mode"; driver initiates it and the computer (and car) does the rest.

Interesting.

Theme Park, The Void, Blends Virtual and Physical Worlds

jmd says...

typical trailer full of marketing bullshit, most of that was pre rendered.. and badly at that. NOTHING was reactive or interactive, and if hey want any kind of multi user environment like a shooter ground or what ever that Role player crap was, you are going to need something a bit bigger then anything they showed in there.

Swedish cops show NYPD how to subdue people w/ hurting them

BicycleRepairMan says...

"Visibly unarmed, he could have had any weapon you choose in his pockets."
Yes. He could also have planted a nuclear bomb under the cops feet in advance. or be carrying reactive explosives that detonate when shot at. Anything is POSSIBLE. The thing is: Most people, even the ones who are visibly worked up and out of control, are most likely NOT going to try and kill you. Even people who have just murdered two people.

My question is this: Suppose you had 2 cops, cop 1 draws a weapon on every arrest or any situation he/she deems to be potentially dangerous. Cop 2 never draws a weapon, unless the situation is totally out of control. Which cop is most likely to end up in a situation where someone dies or get shot?

Mordhaus said:

Visibly unarmed, he could have had any weapon you choose in his pockets. In that kind of a situation, the officer has to draw and have the weapon ready because of the 21 foot rule. Even having it ready, some people correctly pointed out that he let the suspect get too close to him. If the suspect did have a knife, that officer would likely be dead today if the suspect wanted him to be.

Awesome Chemistry Demonstration ...Cos FIRE!

AeroMechanical says...

I dunno that I buy the liquid methane claim. Maybe in part, and on review whatever it is is clearly extremely cold, but that much of it seems like it would be incredibly dangerous to set alight. Could you dilute it with something non-reactive that has a similar boiling point? Argon?

Dammit, where are all the sift chemistry experts when we need them?

Sword Fights Movie Montage

noims says...

Three good reasons to aim [an attack at] an opponent's sword: gain a tactical advantage (e.g. position, or momentum of either blade), gauge a reaction (e.g. is your opponent tense or over-reactive), or wear out your opponent.

Number of the films shown that do so for those reasons: surprisingly high, by my count... maybe 10-15%.

Nice montage, but I'm off to find a one of swordfights that are both artistic and realistic. There are so many good fights out there.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon