Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Complexity Explained

complexityexplained.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: Complexity Explained

#81

Post by complexcomplex »

andrepd wrote: post #72
complexcomplex wrote: post #70

I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations. The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs. Perhaps a ‘things ever ___ should know about ___’ is needed for mathematicians and notation. Ala, “some disciplines use the same symbols for different functions” and “many symbols are intended to obfuscate details for ease of hand writing”. Perhaps this is meant as a col…

When you say "LaTeX", do you mean... maths? I'm confused about what's your criticism.

I sniff an air of condescension; what’s your goals therein? Are you posturing your ‘maths’ knowledge?

I thought I was explicit in my criticism of “notation only” explanations, but perhaps a positive example would be more explicit.

https://github.com/barbagroup/CFDPython

This repo explains computational fluid dynamics (an example of a complex system!) from “what is a python function” to “2d Navier stokes”.

It shows the work of how to discretize ‘latex beautified’ notation, shows the relationship between the computations and the notation, and even explains when their LaTex strays from “conventional use of notation” and why.

The authors even throw in traditional handwritten board lecture videos if that helps you learn better.

complexityexplained reads like it’s written by the Spider-Man points at Spider-Man meme.

Re: Complexity Explained

#82

Post by karmakaze »

ColinWright wrote: post #2

I got three slides in and the "Swooshing!" was driving me nuts. I'm sure the content is fine, and the presentation is simply gorgeous . For me ... unusable. Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

> Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

Thanks for that. I suspected as much. I'll wait to read something more serious, less market-y.

Re: Complexity Explained

#83

Post by uyt »

ColinWright wrote: post #2

I got three slides in and the "Swooshing!" was driving me nuts. I'm sure the content is fine, and the presentation is simply gorgeous . For me ... unusable. Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

For the people suggesting reading the pdf or disabling JS, you're missing the point of this submission.

90% of the value is in playing with their interactive demos. (though all of them seem to be from https://www.complexity-explorables.org/ so it might be better to go there directly instead)

Re: Complexity Explained

#84

Post by hawski »

ColinWright wrote: post #2

I got three slides in and the "Swooshing!" was driving me nuts. I'm sure the content is fine, and the presentation is simply gorgeous . For me ... unusable. Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

It is so slow, that after the title slide I scrolled through three slides and stopped, because I thought something was wrong. Then the slide appeared and I realized I missed three slides, because of those animations being so slow and not at all correlated to how fast I scroll or how far I'm in.

Re: Complexity Explained

#85

Post by carapace »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #38
beaconstudios wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reality of bottom up organisation, and is basically a completely different metaphysics to the current Western modernist one. Going further down this path of thought will lead you to ideas like constructivism, teleology, and non-dualism - all ideas that have long philosophical histories but are currently out of vogue.

It would be nice if someone could untie them from religion, make them simpler to understand, and bring them back into vogue, if they're so useful.

Well, there was Siddhārtha Gautama, who became Buddha. His original teachings are non-religious.

I can recommend the books of David Hawkins for a modern, scientifically-informed view on the subjective experience of Reality.

https://veritaspub.com/dr-hawkins/

> Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. was a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, spiritual teacher and lecturer. The uniqueness of his contribution to humanity comes from the advanced state of spiritual awareness known as ” Enlightenment,” “Self–Realization,” and “Unio Mystica.” Rarely, if ever, has this spiritual state occurred in the life of an accomplished scientist and physician. Therefore, Dr. Hawkins was uniquely qualified to present a spiritual path that is scientifically compelling to modern society.

Re: Complexity Explained

#86

Post by ColinWright »

uyt wrote: post #83
ColinWright wrote: post #2

I got three slides in and the "Swooshing!" was driving me nuts. I'm sure the content is fine, and the presentation is simply gorgeous . For me ... unusable. Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

For the people suggesting reading the pdf or disabling JS, you're missing the point of this submission. 90% of the value is in playing with their interactive demos. (though all of them seem to be from https://www.complexity-explorables.org/ so it might be better to go there directly instead)

If those links are the intent of this page, the "Swoosh! Swoosh!" is a great way to hide them.

There's a maxim in publishing: Don't bury the lede.

Re: Complexity Explained

#87

Post by dredmorbius »

cabalamat wrote: post #44
dredmorbius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disabling JS helps. PDF: https://complexityexplained.github.io/ComplexityExplained.pd... (Multiple languages available.)

Having read the pdf, I was underwhelmed. There doesn't appear to be any meat here, merely restatements of the obvious.

A far more appropriate title would be "Complexity: A very brief introduction to major themes with bibliography".

The booklet is 20 pages covering aspects with a one-paragraph description, several examples as a bullet list, list of concepts, and two references for further readig.

The title sets up rather greater expectations.

Re: Complexity Explained

#88

Post by dredmorbius »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #10
ColinWright wrote: post #2

I got three slides in and the "Swooshing!" was driving me nuts. I'm sure the content is fine, and the presentation is simply gorgeous . For me ... unusable. Edit: In the end, at the end, I found the PDF. It seems a little light on content, but I guess I'm not the audience. Not sure who the audience would be, though.

Turn off JS, fixed :)

ToJ;F!

Re: Complexity Explained

#89

Post by ColinWright »

Oh, FFS. Now it's been pointed out[0] that there are links and animations embedding in the page. And there are!

But their existence is beautifully hidden by the bloody annoying, horribly slow "Swoosh! Swoosh" of the animation.

It's a perfect example of having potentially fantastic content, then making it really, really hard to notice.

Urgh.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048154

Re: Complexity Explained

#90

Post by JackFr »

I’m not sure I get the point.

Cool animations, no details, no math. Profound quotes from heavy names but not math.

Revolutionary, paradigm breaking stuff, but not really.

Almost makes me long for a Stephen Wolfram press release.

Post reply on HN