@vil: Well, it's actually Bell herself that has a similar opinion:

https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr2030_12/sn/Bell.html

It has been suggested that I should have had a part in the Nobel Prize awarded to Tony Hewish for the discovery of pulsars. There are several comments that I would like to make on this: First, demarcation disputes between supervisor and student are always difficult, probably impossible to resolve. Secondly, it is the supervisor who has the final responsibility for the success or failure of the project. We hear of cases where a supervisor blames his student for a failure, but we know that it is largely the fault of the supervisor. It seems only fair to me that he should benefit from the successes, too. Thirdly, I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them. Finally, I am not myself upset about it – after all, I am in good company, am I not!

When the paper was published the press descended, and when they discovered a woman was involved they descended even faster. I had my photograph taken standing on a bank, sitting on a bank, standing on a bank examining bogus records, sitting on a bank examining bogus records: one of them even had me running down the bank waving my arms in the air. Look happy dear, you've just made a Discovery! (Archimedes doesn't know what he missed!) Meanwhile the journalists were asking relevant questions like was I taller than or not quite as tall as Princess Margaret (we have quaint units of measurement in Britain) and how many boyfriends did I have at a time?

Damn clickbait title.

Dunno...the rather robotic servo movements kill it for me.

950Nm. From zero rpm to max. Just...wow.

TBH they just play catchup to Crytek. IMO the Sandbox Editor of Cryengine has been second to none re: Terrain Modelling/Editing for years.

But, but...he's not on a horse!

He's quite good...but IMO the photorealistic moniker is thrown a bit generously here.
Do a google image search for, e.g.(restrict to large images):
Ralph Goings, Paul Cadden, Gottfried Helnwein, Robert Bechtle, David Parrish...(from the top of my mind)
If you find the work above impressive, these are going to blow your mind.
To be precise: At the moment when you realize those aren't photos you're looking at, but drawings. Yes, those are ALL drawings.

And if that's not enough mindblowing - try to see them for real. I recently went to the Helnwein retrospective here in Vienna, and it was amazing. The pictures are quite often huge (several meters!), which adds tremenduously to the effect. I'm not sure even large format cameras can capture so much detail.

What's so confusing about offside?
The laws of the game state:
"A player is in an offside position if [..] he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent"
and
"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position"

And that's basically it.

Inviting arguments by deliberately allowing the decision to be subjective - sure. But confusing?

Waaaitaminute.
That's not a real dog. That's a robot.
3:35 - You can clearly see the operator handling the remote control.

Damn. Now I want a knife block that goes "SHHHINGGG!" everytime I take a knife out of it.

Has some serious Stunts/4D Sports Driving vibe going on...

While the science behind it is exciting and definitely legit, those presentations really get on my nerves.
They go from overpromising and pretentious ("I thought the world changed at that point") to downright negligent and dangerous ("It's carbon, therefore harmless - you can even compost it!") Yeah, sure. Nanotoxicity, schmanotoxicity...what is this, Duck and Cover?
IMO, "compulsory positive" presentations like these hurt scientific reputation in the long run.

Thank you. I became increasingly astonished during reading that harvard would publish something like that. Dubious numbers, loaded language throughout and a complete disregard of correlation vs. causation had me scratching my head the whole time.

67584,0,65536,65600,0,65536,65536,256,0,65536,0,512,0,65536,256,0

67584,2,65544,65616,0,65664,65536,320,0,65536,0,512,0,65536,256,0

hm. now a way to play them sequentially...:)

>> ^spoco2:

Wow, are you a member of 'I want everything for free, and I'm not even prepared to watch an ad in order to get it' generation are you? How bloody entitled are you?

Well, no ad block here - still no ad.