30 minutes ago it was on the front-page, now I can't find it listed in the top 200.

The counter example they gave was the elephant - but this video [1] of elephants walking looks to me like "bunny hands", at least to a degree.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf1K63tc1bY

The article is interesting but it's difficult for me to really picture the implications of the article. Actually after reading it I get the feeling that what I was visualizing is entirely contrary to what they are trying to convey to me.

I suspect it's a generational gap.

I went down a few rabbit holes on the site - is this program also written in Basic?

Thank you! I'm working on a robot with a very expensive slip ring, and need to send high fidelity data through it with shielding. I had no idea this was possible this will make things so much easier!

I found a related video you might find interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvimEf6DFw

I'm currently studying group theory and SO3 rotations (quaternions & matrix groups) and I'm also curious about the connection. I still have a lot to learn but I wouldn't be surprised if the reset rotation is unique, if we abstract away variation.

I'm an enthusiast when it comes to [Vanilla] Emacs. I enjoy customizing my editor, jumping into the Lisp when I find an error, and contributing - though my own config is usually the problem.

This sounds like an opportunity to improve the day-to-day for developers!

Please report any verified bugs to Github. There are only 12 open issues, most of them enhancement requests. The maintainers are celebrated in the community for their diligence and attentive engagement, and I'm sure they'd love to help.

The interface is unique and takes a lot of getting used to. I did need to leverage my extensive experience with Git and Emacs to understand unexpected behaviour but the fault always lay with me.

Given the implications of bugs in such a critical part of a developer's workflow, can you be more specific?

I agree with the order, the Gaussian should come later I almost closed the article - glad I kept scrolling out of curiosity.

Also I felt like I had been primed to think about nickles and pennies as variables rather than coefficients due to the color scheme, so when I got to the food section I naturally expected to see the column picture first.

When I encountered the carb/protein matrix instead, I perceived it in the form:

[A][x], where the x is [milk bread].T

so I naturally perceived the matrix as a transformation and saw the food items as variables about to be "passed through" the matrix.

But another part of my brain immediately recognized the matrix as a dataset of feature vectors, [[milk].T [bread].T], yearning for y = f(W @ x).

I was never able to resolve this tension in my mind...

Luckily it was a small group of devs and not a large venue. Still embarrassing...

This short video is annoying but informative: [1]

The closest I've seen to actual robotic crochet is [2].

Which is exciting and close - but it's hard to overstate its limitations. I took the challenge in that short video seriously and spent 10-20 hours learning basic crochet. It became very clear that replicating my simple test patterns would require vision, planning and modeling capabilities beyond anything I've seen in SOTA surgical robots.

What I find interesting about the post (Knotty) is buried here [3] - apparently it's possible to ditch the grid and create an intuitive representation of the final knit pattern. I suspect that may be doable using traditional algorithms.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EImnSsCadK8

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-pfeaVsOM

[3] https://stitch-maps.com/about/overview/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg3RAI8uyVw

The effect is disrupted by introducing rendering artifacts, by watching the video in 144p or in this case by zooming out.

I'd love to know the name of this effect, so I can read more about the fMRI studies that make use of it.

What I've found so far:

Random Dot Kinematogram

Perceptual Organization from Motion (video of Flounder camouflage)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VO10eDIyiE

Personally I use/prefer 4o over 4.5 so I don't have high hopes for v5.

I wonder if a potential application of LLMS could be: have two experts have a really interesting but dense conversation with each other, and then translate the conversation into simpler language with interjections for explanations.

It may not be enjoyable for the most general audience, but it would scratch an itch for some of us.