Thales’ Theorem

It’s not that the triangle doesn’t exist, but that the brain has multiple options for forming said triangle, only one of which results in the real image. Threw the following together to illustrate:

I was looking at a grid lattice wall paneling just this week which had the same effect. If the pattern is perfectly uniform, the eyes can’t distinguish between different features in it. The whole situation is a bit comparable to a stereoscope. Shifting the eyes out of plane with the pattern causes the false images to split vertically while the one true image remains. This isn’t an issue most of the time, but it does demonstrate how some situations invalid for stareopsis can be tackled with a simple head tilt.

Rangefinders aren’t usually looking at patterns in walls for example. Aircraft or ships don’t create uniform enough patterns. Yes it’s still an edge case, but I just wanted to explain my point that tilting the head does offer the brain more to work with, which in some confusing situations can be critical to correctly perceiving the situation.

For singular dots in space your argument would be valid, but real objects are often more complicated. If the eyes can’t reliably lock onto the same spot along the X-axis due to a repeating pattern or a complete lack of detail along said axis, tilting the head shifts the whole situation and allows the eyes to zero in on a fixed point to perceive depth. An extreme example: If you look at two horizontal featureless lines (offering no details along their length to lock onto, brushed metal railings for example) positioned one behind the other, running perpendicular to the field of view in the direction of the X-axis. The only way for depth perception to work here is to tilt the head to introduce a difference along the Y-axis. Repeating patterns with the right spacing (e.g. grids, lattices) in that same plane can also confuse depth perception, in which case the head tilt often helps.

Another (marginal) benefit of head tilting is the fact that as the head rotates, the eyes physically move, possibly revealing additional detail that may have been obstructed from the previous vantage points. All this for a much lower energy expenditure than the whole animal moving itself.

Oh and one thing that popped into mind from personal experience as I am writing this: In darkness tilting the head helps discern between shapes that are just lingering on your retinas after looking at a brighter thing earlier (rotates along with the eyes) vs. dim things that might actually be there right now (stays in the same orientation relative to the surroundings).

Not only does it help with hearing, but with sight as well. Two eyes looking horizontally at an object produce a dataset for the brain to process, but the depth perception is constrained to working in the horizontal plane. Tilting the head expands this into the third dimension, providing a lot more for the brain to work with.

That was a very tone deaf response.

En usko että tapahtuu. Mainonta kun edesauttaa kulutusta ja siten sitä kaikkein pyhintä eli talouskasvua.

Edit: Älytelkkarin omistavalle kaverille linkkasin tämmöisen kun tuli vastaan: https://smarttubenext.org/

:DDD

Neither of the two planes that fell down recently were Boeings.

Me but every time I think I see a nice cloud.

Maybe in some places, but in most of Europe at least, speaking two languages is considered the norm if not the bare minimum.

Yes, ahead of what was practically feasible.

It wasn’t about George Floyd as an individual. It was about what that case represented. People weren’t rioting to get him back alive, they were angry at the system which caused his death among many others. Police killing black people is a thing that keeps happening over and over again in the US. It’s a systemic issue that is never fixed. Floyd just ended up being the face of a movement born out of a lot of frustration about police brutality in general, possibly because of the way that situation was filmed. If he hadn’t died, then some other case would’ve served as the catalyst for the same movement.

Oh and the exact manner of death was quite irrelevant. Either he suffocated due to having a boot on his neck, or then he OD’d and the officer killed him by omission, failing to provide medical attention. Most likely it was a bit of both.

Mikäs tässä töissä istuskellessa. Huomenna yövuoroon jo lisät kilisee tilille. Ihan jännä uusi kokemus itselle tämä tämmöinen joulun vietto, mutta eipä tässä kun ollaan kollegoiden ja pomon kanssa jo etukäteen kerätty iso kasa herkkuja popsittavaksi.

Ja jouluhan on pakanallinen juhla. Ei oo “kristusmessu” nimeltään nääs. Kirkollinen ulottuvuus ja Jeesuksen keksitty syntymäpäivä lätkittiin siihen päälle vaan kun keskitalvea juhlivat pakanat piti saada tehokkaammin käännytettyä.

Hydrostatic equilibrium yes, but equal? No. We agree that centrifugal force is a factor. Now ask yourself, why would gravity suddenly strengthen at the equator to get the surface acceleration to stay equal to that of the poles?

It doesn’t. As a result the Earth seeks a new hydrostatic equilibrium, bulging out at the equator. This in turn strengthens the centrifugal force a bit while also slightly diminishing the force of gravity (because more of the planet’s mass is farther away). So the same effect is taken even further. Local differences add a layer of noise on top of this, but the end result is that the net surface acceleration is measured to average slightly less at equatorial regions than at the poles, with for example Singapore getting 9.7639 m/s2 of downward acceleration, while Helsinki gets 9.825 m/s2.

IQ is an attempt to represent a persons problem solving abilities with a single number. This is bullshit, because intelligence isn’t that simple. There’s different kinds of intelligence. Some people are better at some kinds of intelligence, while others have their strenghts in other areas.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

There’s also an unlocked bootloader, if you didn’t notice.

Climate change is just one of six planetary boundaries that we’ve crossed, out of a total of nine. The choice of rocket fuel is largely inconsequential compared to the effects of maintaining the industrial capacity necessary for such endeavours.

#1: I doubt there would ever be a situation where those same resources wouldn’t be better used to make things slightly less unbearable on the home world. In our case, even if we covered the world in poison and had an endless nuclear winter, Mars would still look like the worse planet to live on. It’s doubtful whether or not a better one exists within any “practical” distance. If the aliens happened to have a lucky spawn in a star system with multiple habitable planets, good for them. They have another chance to figure things out. But interstellar flight (not to mention colonization) is still vastly more difficult.

#2: Exploiting the resources of the solar system is orders and orders of magnitude simpler than establishing self-sufficient colonies in uninhabitable space or planets. The show For All Mankind threw out most of any believability it had a while ago, but even there the entire fourth season revolved around the subject of how even a single asteroid full of rare earth metals would sate our hunger for such a long time as to effectively kill any initiatives to expand in space.

Space exploration necessitates a technological industrial civilization. So they/we would somehow have to figure out how to first do #2 (so as to not die), while still maintaining the industrial capacity to spread out into space. That sounds like an even more improbable subset of the already improbable scenario #2.

That distance exists not only in space, but most likely time as well. Extrapolating from our singular data point, it would seem that the lifespan of a technological civilization is quite short. The odds of two of those being around at the right times for even one of them to detect the passing emission shell of the other is diminishingly small.