G
Mga
Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
211–219 of 219 posts
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, you are offering ways that photography can be a useful means to an end that we previously accept as good for other reasons, not ways that photography can be a good in itself. Suppose the humans were already extinct; would you then consider it a good in itself for machines to be taking and interpreting photos? Would you set up a video camera with a solar panel in a park, endlessly taking 60 photos per second, t…
Efficiency can turn something from useless to useful, which means the outcome is not inherently useful. Thus if photography is required and the only thing that makes it possible then it as a means becomes and end to it's self. Consider, in a pure nitrogen environment animals will suffocate under no great distress. The goal has become separated from the result.
You seem to be unclear on the distinction between means and ends, which is to say, instrumental and terminal values.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The point of economics is that it keeps us alive so we can do math The most hacker news comment I read all year
It reminded me of a quote from Stephen King [0] "life is not a support system for art; it's the other way around". [0] beautifully rendered as a short comic here https://zenpencils.com/comic/king/
That's a beautiful comic, thanks for sharing.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#214There are various people speculating on the economic significance of this solution, which, to me, is rather missing the point. It's like measuring the significance of the excavation of Tutankhamen's† tomb by the tourist revenues of museums. The point of economics is that it keeps us alive so we can do math and also think in other ways; the point of consciousness is not to make money. I don't think there is any econom…
I can't see some of the other comments so maybe someone else has put this out there, but economics Is definitely one of those topics that are interesting and worth thinking about. It's not (just) about money, its about the distribution of resources and the structures that facilitate that distribution. Economic theory certainly can have applications beyond informing world economic policy, not to mention that informing policy is also a good idea.
With respect to this solution, I bet it will be great for astronomy, especially superpowered space telescopes that need to squeeze every bit of accuracy out of their projected lifetime. They might also improve optical telescopes but I'm not sure how much there is to improve before running into physical limits. I can't think of any other big impacts off the top of my head, but I bet there are others.
Not sure how much of an economic impact this result will ultimately have, and I agree that that's missing the point here, but in general I think asking about the potential economic impact of scientific/technological advances is a prudent line of questioning.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#215Doubtful that this paper is the first analytic solution. There's a light artist who exhibited lenses like this at NYC's Museum of Math several years ago. They turned flashlight beams into pictures. At the artist's talk he passed around a wavy lens and mentioned that one of the surfaces was solved in closed form. Looked like second-to-bottom lens on the page http://zintaglio.com/lens.html
I voted for your comment because it's interesting but I don't agree that the example you linked is the same problem as solved in this post. But that is an opinion because I'm not informed enough to know for sure. Meanwhile I did dig up a paper related to mapping radiance with a shaped lens like the artist you linked. It's a cool topic!
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.03076.pdf
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
The needlessly bad-faith "probably accidentally" is factually inaccurate.
Just to clarify: it wasn't bad-faith, I was just (trying to be) sarcastic, as most of the store-bought food nowadays "may contain traces of nuts and/or eggs and/or celery" etc.
Aha, do note that sarcasm mostly goes down badly on hn, because literal people, and jokes historically frowned upon.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hazelnut spread is one of those things that is much more commonly referred to as the brand name. No one says "Reynolds wrap" they say "aluminum foil". No one says "hazelnut spread", they say Nutella. No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags.
> No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags. Everyone says resealable bags. I've never even heard the word ziploc. In New Zealand.
Do they also not use hyperbole in New Zealand?
Perhaps no one in New Zealand, but New Zealand has the population of a small US state.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm aware that it's made with hazelnuts. But in order for someone to refer to it as a "hazelnut spread", hazelnuts would have to be the dominant flavor. They're barely there at all. (Compare the consistency of nutella to the consistency of peanut butter.)
Since we are splitting hairs, the container list the product as; "Hazelnut Spread with Cocoa". Quite prominently, in fact. Why would your definition be more valid than the manufacturers?
We are discussing in the context of what people use in everyday language. In the U.S., the use of "hazelnut spread" over Nutella is exceedingly rare. Even when dealing with an off-brand, non-nutella "hazelnut spread".
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#219What wenT unsaid wasn’t anything about expensive camera gear, but that phone thingy we hold in our pocket. THAT device will get much better at photography in very quick order, and the price change will be largely immaterial. I fully believe this will be the death of all but professional cameras in 5 years or less. (Yes, I know cameras are already in sharp decline, but I’m talking true death - bankruptcies and firms l…
I fully believe Why? What makes you think this will be easier to implement than existing methods?
Gut feel. To me, photography is now a software game. If you can put a reasonably cheap lens in front of a sensor and apply enough computing horsepower, I believe that the old one lens and one sensor will be like the mainframe of cameras. They will still be around, but smaller, modular ones put together via software will dominate.