111–120 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really common trap that smart people fall into, thinking that just because you know everything about one field, your huge brain must be able to quickly understand just about anything.
I've adroitly avoided that trap by understanding just about everything.
or... something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afaik that was in the original script but was removed because it was considered too complicated for general audience to understand.
Specifically, IIRC, it was in test cuts of the film, and identified as baffling by test audiences. I don't think anything substantive in the films is inconsistent with it (and the behavior of the agents throughout the films is suggestive of it), just the in-character exposition. Which, to get really meta, you can explain as the filmmakers incorporating the inability of audiences to grasp, and projecting it into the f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Doylist explanation is that of course the human brains are being used as computing substrates; the energy explanation is a symptom of how little the Zion people actually know about the world.
An alternative explanation is that the machines aren't using the humans for anything ; they're just devoted to the most ethical treatment of these billions of people who believe themselves to be at war, and the only way to capture them and keep them sane is to hook them up to virtual reality and keep them complacent. Every human is a prisoner of war, in the finest possible cell.
Happens for me right here on HN. Comment thread about digital audio/audio software: the comments are just clearly full of people who don't really know much about what they are writing about. Anything else: wow, HN commenters are so knowledgeable and good at explaining stuff!
I think the main issue with the HN crowd, present company included, is that because they're good at learning they think they can quickly grasp the essentials for anything new.
Which is why there's like a revolving door of subjects that you suddenly get a lot of armchair experts about, going from currencies and investment banking to international conflict and politics, a short detour to amateur submarines, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specifically, IIRC, it was in test cuts of the film, and identified as baffling by test audiences. I don't think anything substantive in the films is inconsistent with it (and the behavior of the agents throughout the films is suggestive of it), just the in-character exposition. Which, to get really meta, you can explain as the filmmakers incorporating the inability of audiences to grasp, and projecting it into the f…
Which is weird because a spiritual predecessor (and another Keanu Reeves film), Johnny Mnemonic, uses a similar plot point where the brain is used as a data transfer medium.
(And brain as thumb drive and braismns as networked processing units are maybe not equivalently difficult concepts for audiences.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the reasons I like fantasy is the plot is set in a universe with different physics and so much of my knowledge of this world can be set aside. Even then though I often wonder how do they feed those large cities with only wilderness between them (most are set on navigable water, even though it is just luck at least the city location doesn't violate possibility, but the lack of explanation of how they get food)…
Dwarf Fortress answers that last question with: mushrooms! I think the fantasy city problem is at its worst in 3D video games, where you visit some impressive capital city, massive walls, towers...and enough housing for about a hundred people.
Anyway, with advancements in technology I'm sure we'll see proper cities to scale. It may not all be accessible though.
As a writer myself: I have actual experts review what I write. That's about the best you can do. I think I read that The Big Bang Theory makes sure all the science is accurate. I wouldn't know.
It's too bad then that the rest of the show was so awful. How can writers focused on scientific accuracy create such ugly and unlikeable caricatures for their cast and embed so much anti-intellectualism in every episode?
Just as terrible as the original from which it's a spin off. They actually had Jason Alexander and Ed Begley, Jr. on one of the episodes this week. I guess with enough money you can get almost anyone.
At the end of the movie Gladiator(2000), Maximus has a vision of being reunited with his family as he walks through a field of wheat. However the wheat is clearly a modern dwarf variety. These weren't developed until the mechanization of agriculture in the 20th century. Ancient varieties would have been taller because the stalks were used as a building material.
Not to mention the road had 2 groves not 3.
https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/crosstown-traffic...
I witnessed the converse of this in the recent Mario Brothers movie. There is a scene where steam piping is about to overpressure and it shows a pressure safety valve lifting. Well that pressure safety valve is an accurately drawn ASME I BPVC open-bonnet PSV with test lever. The open bonnet is to expose the spring to air so it is kept cool and therefore has the correct force downwards on the seat. If you specify a cl…
This is a much larger issue than just a media related one. There's a friend I've had for years. He's a physicist. I always ask him questions about physics. I've often referred to him as the smartest guy I know. I have another friend, also a physicist. Less accomplished, but just as smart. Friend 2 hates Friend 1. Calls him an idiot. I generally dismissed it as arrogance or jealously. Then, a few years ago, Friend 1 t…
Large language models.