221–230 of 291 posts
Unpopular opinion, the windows logo peaked at 3.1. My only other though is that I'm surprised this many people were needed to take that photo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting but I am not sure I understand this: >> contact-and-removal operation takes constant time, the worst-case time complexity of the algorithm is O(n). How is the contact-and-removal operation constant time? How can that assumption ever be true? If you use a parallel processor like human vision or human feel (ie. which pressure nerve activates on the hand) it may appear constant, but if you use a computer it…
The analog algorithm described is not described for digital computer. It’s an amusing theoretical thought experiment and not a recipe for actual fast sorting. It’s O(n) when you use your hand for contact and removal. I don’t know if it’s possible to implement spaghetti sort on a computer, maybe not, but I guess if it were possible, it would probably at least require n processors to sort n elements. Maybe the nearest…
I have an vertical monitor (1080x1920) I use mainly for browsing and the site is basicially not readable: https://i.imgur.com/5Klt2Ls.png I scrolled to the bottom for contact information but it keeps loading stuff so I never reach it.
I’m on Windows, but I’m guessing macOS and many Linux DEs have something similar.
Recently I came across this minimal Linux logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gnu-linux_minimalist... Although I like the 'amateuristic' style of the old Tux, I must say this new minimal penguin looks really good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> replaced by a brighter and cleaner version that was drawn on a computer Can you source this statement?
I went looking - and there's a wiki dedicated to just this topic. https://windowswallpaper.miraheze.org/wiki/Windows_10 It does seem that the original was replaced in May 2019 by a brighter version, although whether it was drawn on a computer or not is anyone's guess.
> GMUNK was also involved in this version, and stated that it was created under the same methodology as the previous version.
https://windowswallpaper.miraheze.org/wiki/Hero#Later_versio...
I always found that wallpaper a weird choice, being dark-depressing and uninviting to the average user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recall Amazon’s Lord of the Rings title sequence [1] received some criticism for looking fake, even though they filmed it practically [2]. I’d guess it was due to folks assuming title sequences are CGI, combined with the fact that few people really know what poured liquid metal is supposed to look like. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV-dDyYgwkc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ
There's a similar problem with gunshots and explosions - we want what movies have given us which is not what they actually act/sound like - so much so that live recordings of actual gunfire/explosions is often deemed "fake".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're thinking like an engineer, and speak as if there is a right amount of time to spend on artistic endeavours; if you cross this threshold for you it is a "ridiculous and colossal amount of effort". Budget aside, art isn't constrained or criticized by how much effort the artist put in. All that matters is the result. A wallpaper or any other artistic creation isn't less beautiful or evocative because the artist s…
No, he's just being realistic. Even without getting into semantics about "what is art", the reality is that this is promotional material for advertising. This wasn't commissioned by a rich patron to put up on exhibition for MoMA. This isn't to take away from the artists skill, effort, creativity etc. but the context of this is inherently a business and economic decision. There's no artistic impetus, no political/soci…
> It's a computer wallpaper that monopolistic megacorp funded to show off how wealthy it is.
Groan. It's not possible to have a serious discussions with someone starting from such a cynical position. After all, what is even the point of creating anything? We're all going to turn to dust and be forgotten forevermore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which details are you thinking of? I was under the impression that with ray tracing, physically based materials, and fluid dynamics our computers wouldn't be hard-pressed to realistically render a static scene with light (of varying coherence and other properties) going through a piece of plastic and hitting swirling fog. The parameters of the scene need to be set up, yes, but then it would be just as easy to generat…
In 2015 (almost 10 years ago now) the tech probably wasn't as convincing as it is today. But I agree you could probably get like 90% there
I've been spending a lot of time on photography (though mostly w/ film cameras) during recent years, and only recently realized this is actually photographed. (It took long because I'm a long-time Linux user, so I barely seen the image.) Many people say this would've been easier with VFX, but I disagree. The image has highly convincing details that would take a long time even for highly talented VFX artists to nail.…
When I saw this headline I mixed up windows versions and thought it was going to be about the Windows 11 Bloom backgrounds, which I always assumed were made with physical materials, but it seems like I am wrong about that one too, hah!