For many cognitive processes, I don't see a clear survival value to conscious awareness of that process, so I don't expect that awareness to be a reliable feature. The survival relevant result of that cognition can still come through.
I also think that an internal voice that doesn't get conscious awareness is likely to become a process that doesn't present as voice. So it's not like someone can just pay more attention and hear something, because it stopped talking a long time ago.
I look at this like Multimedia and the web in 1995. Yes some of this is a shadow of Microsoft Bob. We don't know what we're doing with VR yet but the technology has crossed over the line from being a toy or experiment. Skeuomorphism is a temporary workaround until we (users and designers both) learn what conventions are most powerful and port more applications to VR.
> the technology has crossed over the line from being a toy or experiment.
I agree with you generally, but I think the people who are big on this space are overstating this point in particular. The existing VR hardware still feels like a prototype of what will eventually "work" here. It's too big, too expensive, too low-resolution, and too dim, and it relies a lot on our brain's willingness to accept and accommodate sub-par imagery. Similar to the AR space, I genuinely do not believe that the technology we're building with has enough of a performance ceiling to get us where we want to be - I think that "LCD screens + funky optics" is getting us close enough to trial some VR experiences and play around with the interaction models, but I think it's got too many compromises (shitty resolution and no differential focus, among them) to really be the technology that takes us to the "promise land" here.
They're paying for credibility, but assigning the credibility to an organization instead of an open and understood process of vetting. This confuses me.
True, though I'm assuming by "the world", they mean that traditional processes which would have involved pen and paper and other non computer based tools and systems are all being redesigned to make use of computers, thus Software is eating them.
But AI is not replacing processes that rely on software with something that no longer relies on software. What AI is doing is it lets you replace even more processes that were not yet able to be handled by a computer with one that a computer can do, and thus it just helps Software eat even more of the world. Decision making and judgement tasks were not able to be successfully moved to computers prior to the recent advancements in AI, now some of those can be.
I think this is a reference class problem. One could also say software replaced work done in offices with work still being done in offices. (until recently) Most of the work was still done on literal desktops. but significant changes have been happening within the subset of the office and within the use of the desk.
Why would you want a mirror, and especially why would you want a mirror on an ephemeral image hosting site? The XKCD site has been online since '06 and is already archived on archive.is and web.archive.org, imgur has been online for less than that time and certainly can't boast the same amount of uptime.
Yes but surely imgur is more prone to that, given its more lucrative surface area? And either way, wouldn't archive.is or web.archive.org be a better choice, given that both have big infrastructural systems that are very literally designed from the ground up to avoid data loss?
General construction kit for real world applications. In theory you could take a machine apart and use the beams for some other machine. A smaller kit could build any of the machine designs as needed.
The problem with grid-beam is that it really only seems to make sense if you A) have lots of grid-beams in various sizes already, and B) are making, taking apart, and repurposing things frequently. Without A, making grid beams is a lot more work than just purpose-cutting your pieces, and without B, you don't really have a reason to drill all those extra holes.
I've built a ton of stuff with grid beam. I never drilled my own holes. For big stuff, like making office furniture [1], I buy "pre-drilled" aluminum beams from McMaster-Carr [2]. I would buy lots of long lengths, then cut down to the required size as needed. And years ago, I also "miniaturized" grid beam down to Lego-compatible, 3D printable components that I use for prototyping [3].
The grid beam book talks a lot about what you need to make beams from scratch. You don't have to do that. You can buy (or print!) beams and get to work right away.
I lived with Phil and RJ Jergenson for a couple years around 2012, tried to learn from their experience and mistakes. They weren't happy with 1ft lengths in every project, even though they were an improvement in reusability over all lengths free-for-all. I've since moved all the replimat designs to use lengths 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 only. Which allows for center pivots and divisible-by-two lengths whereas the Jergensons could only divide by two. We also hit countertop height a little better. Little tweaks.
I try to communicate with everyone listed in the "Friends" section on the right hand side of https://www.replimat.org/ regularly. I'm excited that things seem to be gathering steam for all of us.
If someone is subsequently charged with fleeing, having a reasonable belief that someone was impersonating officers could be an easier defense than merely fearing danger, however founded those fears may be.
* Low friction, nothing to install, near instant feedback.
* Fun starting at simple shapes, gradients, distortions, all the way to absurdly good looking rendering.
I did have that experience of growing up with fun programming, for me shader programming brings that back.