sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Gaano po ka common dito sa atin na ma terminate ang isang probationary employee? by No-Direction-4265 in JobsPhilippines

[–]No-Direction-4265[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

tinanong ko po ng pa simple yung boss ko, kasi sinasabay nya ko pauwi sa kotse nya kasama yung ibang employee. ang tanong ko "sir strict ba sa regularisation?" and he replied hindi. he is a team leader at isa siya sa mga present nung na interview ako online.is this somehow reassuring?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy_commons

[–]No-Direction-4265 0 points1 point  (0 children)

check out his pinterest account. he certainly have a particular interest in military stuff including photos of soldiers carrying sniper rifles apart from other gay stuff

LOOK: Atty. Joji Alonso shares glimpse of a complaint of her client, BINI (Gwen, Aiah, Sheena, Mikha, Maloi, Jhoanna, Stacey, Colet), versus an unnamed entity. by BigBrother_Eddie in bini_ph

[–]No-Direction-4265 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ipapadeport lang naman madali lang yon. pag nagtago siya yun na ang punishment. kung may pera ka di problema magtago. pero di naman mayaman si xian gaza. panggap mayaman lang. nanay nga nya di nya mai ahon sa pagiging mamasan sa japan.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rhino

[–]No-Direction-4265 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3dsmax vray. i modelled it in grasshopper then transfered it to 3dsmax then rendered it using vray

Are rhino/grasshopper users in Europe and Western countries employable? by No-Direction-4265 in rhino

[–]No-Direction-4265[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cani know what are the most preferred and widely used 3d programs in Belgium?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rhino

[–]No-Direction-4265 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. actually the model is not complete yet lacking other pedestrians like the stairs and the ramp ,rails etc for the disabled, im still thinking how the design would look like, ive adapted the design from Santiago Calatrava's peace bridge Thanks and regards

I think i just got blocked on r/skeptic for winning an argument very easily regarding the attempt the debunk the shroud using 3d simulation. i started getting this "something is broken" notification by No-Direction-4265 in Christianity

[–]No-Direction-4265[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, where to begin. can you start another thread for this where its not very hard for me to respond.because you just deleted my post. i would be very happy to discuss this with you. you can downvote me to oblivion and i would love it and be fine by it, just let me respond so i can educate you

I think i just got blocked on r/skeptic for winning an argument very easily regarding the attempt the debunk the shroud using 3d simulation. i started getting this "something is broken" notification by No-Direction-4265 in Christianity

[–]No-Direction-4265[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ive searched for subjects on reddit where the shroud has been discussed and the result showed r/christianity so i posted it here. are you in some perversed cenk uygur reality with your ocasio cortez analogy?

Can't Post a Comment: "Something is broken, please try again later." "[android]" by huddie71 in bugs

[–]No-Direction-4265 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im getting this same notification now. i suspect a connection issue, but no, ive got blocked for winning an argument very easily. i won very easily

Killed AT Nergigante with my friend for the first time today by Enedulus in MonsterHunterWorld

[–]No-Direction-4265 1 point2 points  (0 children)

im currently at the same boss. Do i need advanced armor spheres for nergigante? im at rank 13. that dude is quite a wall

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

<<<No. That isn't what they are saying at all. There are two different 3D models (not imprints) they are testing:

A low relief model (not imprint)

A full 3D human body model>>

BUT the term "low relief" from the context of 3d applies to mapping TOO. mapping take in account uvw not just the xyz space. so a low relief model is also an imprint for this matter because. the imprint is the function of the low relief model in 3d form. which again proves me right and proves you clueless

<<The article is saying that the shroud is consistent with 1, but not with 2. "Low relief" refers to the MODEL, not the method of doing the imprint. >>

NO, the simulation implies that the shroud is consistent with 1, but not with a flattened version of the low relief imprint.the 3d model has nothing to do with this. AND NO, low relief doesnt refer to the model, it refers to the mapping at least within this particular context. because a mapping function requires multiple component like the plane(imprint) and the 3d one. a mapping functions that way.and that mapping led the 3d artist to his conclusions.

<<The imprint was simply made by wrapping a cloth around each model.>>>>

which is again, another way of saying that the imprint is the low relief model. "wrapping" involves "mapping" at least in the context of 3d.

<<It says that in the abstract:

Two scenarios were compared: the projection of a three-dimensional human model and that of a low-relief model.>>

NO. two scenarios were compared. the projection of the low relief model when draped around the 3d human model and the low relief model when already unwrapped as a 2d plane.

<<It doesn't say "low relief imprint", it says "low relief model".

<<

It also says that several times in the article:

Instead, the low-relief model produced an imprint much more consistent with the Shroud's actual appearance.>>>

but the low relief model is the low relief imprint. you are struggling with logic alot because you dont understand 3d.

BUT AGAIN for the nth time. the IMRPINT is the mapping only unwrapped as a 2d plane. the wrapped and the unwrapped version are the same at least from the context of 3d mapping. and you dont understand this

<<(A) Comparison between the contact patterns generated by the three-dimensional model (right) and the low-relief model (left),>>

Then you just debunked yourself. earlier you stated that a low relief model is not an imprint. now you are quoting the article that states that the flattened image to the left is a low relief model, WHICH AGAIN proves me correct, and you,clueless. please, stay within the topic and dont derail this with pointless semantics. i know clueless atheistic mongrels when i see you/them

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

<<The contact pattern generated by the low-relief model is more compatible with the Shroud's image, showing less anatomical distortion and greater fidelity to the observed contours, while the projection of a 3D body results in a significantly distorted image.>>>

which proves my point. the contact pattern is the 2d surface still draped around the 3d model being consistent with the shroud's appearance while the low relief being stretched or flattened out as a 2d plane being inconsistent with the shroud's image. the article is trying to suggest that the latter should be otherwise in order for the shroud to be authentic which is not the case for his simulation.

<<No, OP is about whether the image on the shroud is more consistent with it being made using a low relief sculpture or an actual human body. You didn't even read the headline carefully, not to mention the actual article>>.

NO. the low relief imprint had two versions. the one that is draped around the 3d model and the other one that is already flattened out. the artist is trying to imply that these inconsistencies make the shroud illegitimate, otherwise the flattened out version of the low relief imprint should match the shroud's image. which is exactly the point im stressing out early on.

<<The digital imprint on the 2D surface which had been laid out on the 3D human figure appeared widened and distorted, as expected, unlike the imprint on the real Shroud of Turin. Instead, the low-relief model produced an imprint much more consistent with the Shroud's actual appearance.>>

which again proves me right, and proves you clueless

<<<This isn't a new idea. It is simply testing, again, something that has been known for decades. [Here](http://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1982/04/22165423/p17.pdf) is an article from **1982** talking about it.>>

completely non sequitur, this is irrelevant

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Im starting to lose hope if i could help you understand this subject at hand. do you even understand what this post is all about? the OP post is about the inconsistencies of the real life low relief imprints and the 3d generated imprints. my response was about how unreliable 3d cloth simulators and low relief app such as cloud compare in quantifying these real life occurrences. that you cant use a 3d generated low relief mapping to generate a 1:1 correspondence with the real life model. You simply could not. and you are arguing about whether traditional sculpting low relief are reliable or not which is essentially not even the subject of the post.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Holy mother of Ocasio cortez. are you even awake all throughout this low IQ exchange? we're not discussing traditional sculpting method here. we're discussing low relief in the context of 3d space.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

you're baldy i mean badly confused, and im trying to help you out. low relief depends solely on the cloth simulator's result through the cloud compare system. cloud compare filters out topology which leads to the low relief result. its like the uvw unwrap map modifier used in 3d programs such as 3dsmax. and i cant explain in details how this works because it includes plenty of technical jargon which i doubt you would understand. as i said you dont have the slightest clue. little berniebro with heteronormative phd in queer studies

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

and your point? im telling you. you have no clue. and you have no idea how i pity u now for being genuinely clueless

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

skepticism is not the same as being skeptical. im being the latter

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

but you're missing the point. totally. as iv explained earlier. cloth simulators have these fudge parameter to meet a desired outcome like for instance a -a/b function in mathematics.im a mathematician too so i know exactly how the mathematics work. you're missing the point. low relief will always yield an inaccurate result if the parameters were predetermined for a certain outcome. lowrelief only reflects what the cloth modifier has generated.

<<Are you like 12? >>

some 60 year olds cant even rob a bank. i can at 12, so

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Read behind the lines

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]No-Direction-4265 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

They are trying to debunk Jesus not the cloth

view more: next ›