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

Physically based rendering from first principles

imadr.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#91

Post by godelski »

chermi wrote: post #81
naasking wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen him claim that using only vision is "first principles" thinking. However, relying only on vision can make sense once you realize that roads and signage and everything is literally designed around vision. Any system that does not prioritize vision cannot deal with unexpected obstacles, like new signage. If your vision is good enough to see obstacles and understand signage, the ad…

Let's get something out of the way, just to make sure we're able to continue. Do you agree that his tweet saying lidar can be inaccurate and mess up results compared to cameras only is idiotic? Do you think Elon really believes that tweet? If so, do you think he's stupid? Do you think he thinks sensor fusion is a grand unsolved problem his cracked engineers can't implement? I absolutely agree vision is very very impo…

  > Do I believe that looking at humans driving and saying "they do it just their eyes (they don't) so we should!" is an example of his acclaimed first-principles reasoning ability? No, I think its shallow reasoning by analogy.
And let's make sure we get this right. Humans use more than vision when driving. Touch and sound are essential components to driving. While you could drive without these senses that doesn't mean they aren't important.

Elon's understanding of "first principles" is "the first thought that came into my head". Unfortunately this is a common, and growing, bastardization of the phrase.

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#92

Post by godelski »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #88
godelski wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then, why use that phrase and not a more accurate one?

Because it's a widely used phrase that everyone understands. What the "first principles" are for a layperson and a physicist are different, as is the expected level of rigor in the derivations.

  > that everyone understands.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if this were true

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#93

Post by naasking »

godelski wrote: post #90
naasking wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Designers use tecture not just for grip but to help communicate things to the driver. There's many subtler ones, but the most obvious one is the grooves you often find on the edge of highways that are used to warn you if you're veering off. This is a red herring. None of these feedback mechanisms existed for decades of driving. The core problem of driving is vision and everything else is just gravy. If lidar can't…

> This is a red herring. None of these feedback mechanisms existed for decades of driving Sorry, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you claiming humans didn't have the sense of sound nor the sense of touch until relatively recently? Or are you claiming that as soon as someone enters a car these senses go away? Are you arguing you can't hear things while in a car? Windows up? Windows down? In an open…

> Sorry, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

My claim was pretty obviously about intentional multisensory feedback design of roads.

> I think we're done here because you need to get an EKG as soon as possible.

You're right, we are done because you seemingly can't understand the incredibly simple point that you can drive if you lack all other senses except sight, but you cannot drive if you have all of your other senses except sight, and that this means something pretty critical about the importance of sight over all other senses.

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#94

Post by naasking »

godelski wrote: post #75
naasking wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile, look at any two nerds arguing. It's always nuanced and over minute things that they'll always insist are very important (because often it is, but only at that level). Sorry, but no, nerds are huge bikeshedders, and often miss the forest for the trees. I think this also explains how dismissive you are of experts who have actually worked with Musk and don't seem to share your low opinion of his expertise i…

> nerds are huge bikeshedders How can you judge if it is bikeshedding or actual warranted issues if you don't have expertise? Think about it this way, every big problem can be broken down into a bunch of much smaller problems, right? That's generally how we solve things. So obviously small problems come together to create big problems. The main difference between an expert and a novice is the ability to see how these…

> How can you judge if it is bikeshedding or actual warranted issues if you don't have expertise?

First and second order effects dominate almost everything. Always insisting on nuance therefore is statistically more likely to be bikeshedding than not.

> Experts currently working with him or experts who used to work with him?

Both, and also experts who haven't worked with him in an official capacity but have had extended conversations with him. I have zero interest in retracing all of the old arguments about Musk's competence, save to say that those who dismiss him seem to exhibit just as much deluded confirmation bias about his competence as his fanboys.

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#95

Post by naasking »

MangoToupe wrote: post #66
naasking wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile, look at any two nerds arguing. It's always nuanced and over minute things that they'll always insist are very important (because often it is, but only at that level). Sorry, but no, nerds are huge bikeshedders, and often miss the forest for the trees. I think this also explains how dismissive you are of experts who have actually worked with Musk and don't seem to share your low opinion of his expertise i…

> I think this also explains how dismissive you are of experts who have actually worked with Musk and don't seem to share your low opinion of his expertise in certain areas. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. --- I think there's also something of a "gell-mann amnesia" effect going on here. I could buy him being a manufacturing genius or whatever…

> But as soon as he bought twitter, I realized he was an absolute moron who had never built or successfully software himself in his life

So making one bad investment, whatever his reasons, means he's a moron?

> but wanted to sling buzzwords as if he were a coder.

Yes, he has a habit of trying to build excitement around his endeavours, and part of that is intentionally projecting an image of technical competence because that's his "brand".

I would agree that software is not one of his strong suits, probably because it was never a specific interest of his, unlike electric vehicles and rockets. Is it your opinion that Musk is not aware of his lack of technical competence with software, or are you saying that his lack of technical competence in this domain combined with the fact that he intentionally tried to project competence means he's also not competent in those other domains?

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#96

Post by chermi »

godelski wrote: post #91
chermi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's get something out of the way, just to make sure we're able to continue. Do you agree that his tweet saying lidar can be inaccurate and mess up results compared to cameras only is idiotic? Do you think Elon really believes that tweet? If so, do you think he's stupid? Do you think he thinks sensor fusion is a grand unsolved problem his cracked engineers can't implement? I absolutely agree vision is very very impo…

> Do I believe that looking at humans driving and saying "they do it just their eyes (they don't) so we should!" is an example of his acclaimed first-principles reasoning ability? No, I think its shallow reasoning by analogy. And let's make sure we get this right. Humans use more than vision when driving. Touch and sound are essential components to driving. While you could drive without these senses that doesn't mean…

Hell yeah humans use more!

Lol, I would be a little more cynical and say "the first thought that comes to my head that justifies my business decisions (which I can never show any ounce of doubt over)"

Re: Physically based rendering from first principles

#97

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

godelski wrote: post #92
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a widely used phrase that everyone understands. What the "first principles" are for a layperson and a physicist are different, as is the expected level of rigor in the derivations.

> that everyone understands. We wouldn't be having this conversation if this were true

No, we're having this argument because of pedantry, not because someone doesn't understand the term "first principles."
Post reply on HN