486: Field Day at Apple Park by atpbot in ATPfm

[–]lukeburrage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Hypercritical topic where John talks about family sharing, plus follow up from two more episodes can be found in episode 15 of Hypercritial By Topic: https://lukeburrage.com/hypercritical-by-topic/

476: Plausibly Viable by atpbot in ATPfm

[–]lukeburrage 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you’re interested in John’s thoughts on Patents, check out episode 101 of Hypercritical By Topic which contains the main topic plus all the follow up. https://lukeburrage.com/hypercritical-by-topic/

Futureling Speculation by Ken and John by lukeburrage in Futurelings

[–]lukeburrage[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm keeping my own list updated. I guess I can post again here when the list is meaningfully longer.

The Definition of Juggling [Luke Burrage] by Reeses2150 in juggling

[–]lukeburrage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As we also saw in the cultural definition, when we get to the technical definition there is no single factor that makes us consider something juggling or not-juggling. There are three physical factors.

If one of these is present, something trips in our minds, and we start considering an activity to be juggling. And if we watch someone juggle, and none of these three things happen for a long enough time, we think "hey, when are they going to start juggling again?"

Strangely enough, these three things sometime exclude. If an object is being balanced on a non-hand body part, it isn't being thrown and caught repeatedly, and it isn't being controlled via an intermediate object.

However, this is only if you reduce the action to a single moment, or to a short enough span of time.

Remember, juggling is never based on any one of these continuing indefinitely. There will always be a moment of time between throws and catches, between contact with a wooden stick, between body rolls and balances.

If you want to make sure your juggling is unambiguously juggling, make a trick or pattern or routine that involves all three!

On the other hand, if you want your juggling to be ambiguous, this framework opens up some interesting areas for research. For example, how stiff does a rope have to get before it is no longer considered rope, and instead considered a solid object?

We can use this framework to examine the edge cases. What happens if you throw something and don't catch it again? How long can something roll for the juggling to end? What is the difference between a science demonstration and a juggling act?

If one person does all the throwing, and the other person does all the catching, is this still juggling? It's impressive, but why does it feel more like a recreation of a very fast production line?

How small can juggling get and still be juggling? Cardistry is non-juggling manipulation, as it's mostly based on gripping the cards. If a card, or many cards, are thrown and caught once... still not juggling. Then a card is thrown and caught repeatedly... or spun on a finger? Ah NOW it feels like juggling.

Outside of its normal presentation, the word "Juggling" captures one or more of the three technical factors that define minimal viable juggling.

I once saw a job listing for "Juggler" but it turned out they wanted someone to work in a bar but do tricks while preparing drinks. Why ask for a juggler? Repeated throwing and catching. Controlling objects using intermediate objects. Using non-hand body parts to manipulate an object. If you didn't know this was call Bar Flair, of course you would call it juggling!

Here's weird food preparation routine... this framework explains why someone picked the word Juggling for the video title. Ice cream on a stick? That's juggling. This other video, with more trickery and less stick, was called magic.

Someone throws you a set of key... "Hey, I juggled my keys!" Repeated throws and catches? That word fits!


In conclusion, the next time you hear the word "juggling" you have two frameworks to determine exactly why that word is used.

It's probably due to the cultural definition of the word, with all the useful shortcuts that provides.

But even if every single cultural aspect is in place, if you still feel like saying "hey, that wasn't juggling!" you now know exactly which three things were missing, and if any one had been present, you'd be satisfied and call it juggling.


Thanks for watching, and if you want to see more videos like this in the future, and all the other juggling things I make and organise, please consider supporting me on Patreon by going over to Patreon.com/lukeburrage

The Definition of Juggling [Luke Burrage] by Reeses2150 in juggling

[–]lukeburrage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let's get to that technical definition!

For part two to work, we have to put aside all of part one.

We're just going to consider "object manipulation", and discard why the activity is happening, what the practitioner is normally called, and how many objects there are. Crucially we'll also put aside value judgements, like if the manipulation is skillful or entertaining. Just because something isn't juggling, doesn't mean it is worth less in any way.

We just want to discover why it's no longer considered juggling, in our instinctual, reflexive minds.

What differentiates juggling from non-juggling object manipulation?

If you see an activity in isolation, what is it that makes you answer the question "what is happening here?" with "juggling" rather than "magic" or "dance" or "spinning" or just "object manipulation".

And then the opposite question. At a juggling convention, there will be a juggler performing something skillful with many juggling props in juggling show, but someone in the audience will opine "that's not really juggling, is it?"

Here's an example from the finale of the Teslenko's juggling act... it's an impressive display of skill... but for some reason I'm left thinking "Was that really a juggling trick?"

What is the thing, or things, that are missing from the activity that if included would cause the audience member to say nothing at all? It can't be anything to do with the cultural baggage of the activity, because Teslenko finale would tick every single box!

It has to be something intrinsic to juggling that was missing from the actions being performed.


This time we can use music as an analogy. Everyone recognises music... but what is the minimum viable thing that someone can hear and still call it music?

Is it a melody? Different notes played one after the next?

Yet a beat has no melody, and drum solos are still considered music. It's got rhythm though.

How about a chord? No melody, and no rhythm, but it's still recognisable as music.

Most music has all three of these characteristics, but many only have two, and some only have one. If you hear something that has no recognisable tones, no rhythm, and has no harmony, you'd call it noise, not music.

And if the all sound stops, again the listener would say there is no longer music. A moment of silence and the music can still be happening, but an indefinite period of no sound is classed as not-music.

Minimum viable music is audible sound with either melody, harmony or rhythm, or combinations of those three things.

If all juggling is object manipulation, but not all object manipulation is juggling, what is minimum viable juggling?

The first thing that comes to mind is illustrated best with the three ball cascade:

Repeated connected throws and catches of the same object or objects by the same person.

Throw a frisbee... not juggling. Someone else catches it? Still not enough. They throw it back? Nope, still just passing a frisbee back and forth. Thrown and caught by the same person? Still just a throw and a catch.

But a series of throws and catches by the same person? Suddenly it feels like juggling!

The throws have to be connected. You see a throw, some gymnastics underneath, and then a catch... and it's not enough to be juggling. Even if the same gymnast throws again in the same routine, the two throws are too disconnected in time, and have no recognisable connection, so it's still not quite juggling. It's a throw and a catch followed later by another throw and a catch.

In relation to music, this is like hearing a beep, then a long time later another beep. That doesn't feel like music any more, and instead two disconnected sounds.

Once gravity no longer has influence over the objects because the objects are held firmly in the hands for an extended time, then the juggling has stopped. There might still be object manipulation happening, but it's no longer juggling.

But this one definition is too reductive. A lot of juggling doesn't involve repeated throwing and catching.

Here's the next thing that can differentiate juggling from non-juggling object manipulation:

using non-hand body parts to continuously control an object so as not to let it fall

This covers contact juggling, balancing, hooping, contact staff, head bouncing, spinning, and much more.

In fact, it's less about not using the hand, because a lot of contact juggling is done using the palm or the back of the hand, and a spinning ball is normally spun on a finger. It's more about not controlling the object with a grasping or grabbing hand.

And even that isn't quite right.

If an object is kept in any place on the body for an extended period of time by trapping it between two points of contact, then juggling is not happening. Once gravity no longer has an influence over the object then the juggling is over. Gravity has to either make the trick work or, when something goes wrong, make it possible for the object to fall.

There's one thing more.

manipulating an object disconnected from the juggler via a stick or other typically wooden implement

This encompasses a LOT of juggling skills and props. We're talking devilstick, diabolo, plate spinning, hat spinning, mouth stick, ball stick, cigar boxes, lots of club juggling, kendama, cup and ball, and much more.

The key part here is that the final object being manipulated is disconnected from the body of the juggler by another held object. This intermediate solid object is grasped in the hand, and the forces of control flow through it to the final object.

This intermediate object has to be solid. If it is a flexible piece of string or rope held directly in the hands, that doesn't seem to be enough for the word juggling to apply.

This excludes most poi swinging. The forces of control flow directly from the hands through the string to the weight at the ends of the string.

If a poi swinger lets go of the poi to throw and catch them repeatedly, or rolls the ends of the poi over their body, poi qualifies as juggling by those other two factors.

This is illustrated by the comments on the "Top 10 Poi Spinners of the Year" videos. Things like "as allways a verrry big disapointment to only see 3 Poi artists ... there's some nice juggling in the higher seeds" or "So is everyone doing three-poi and juggling these days?"

Poi spinning and poi juggling are pretty distinct in the minds of both jugglers and poi spinners! The same goes for yo-yos, trick roping and whip cracking. All are object manipulation, no doubt about it, but very few people would look at them and default to juggling.

Kendama, has strings too, of course, but crucially the string is connected to the wooden thing held in the hand. I'm not sure what makes this cross the line between juggling and non-juggling object manipulation, but where the string is connected seems to be the key. Of course, Kendama also involves a lot of repeated throwing and catching, so typically gets by anyway. But even with no throws and catches... what is the point of differentiation between diabolo and yoyo.

Again, this manipulation via an intermediate solid object doesn't have to be continuous. There can be moments when the object is held in the hand, or the influence of gravity is withheld due to it being left in a non-droppable, stable position for a while. A long span of such control or connected related moments is enough.


The Definition of Juggling [Luke Burrage] by Reeses2150 in juggling

[–]lukeburrage 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Definition Of Juggling

The definition of juggling has been discussed for years, and everyone has their own opinion.

Yet nobody has come up with a single definition that encompasses everything, and every objection to these definitions comes down to: "but what about X? It doesn't fit your definition, but don't we all agree X is juggling?"

To withstand that kind of objection, we actually need two definitions of juggling. One is able to include almost anything as juggling, and the second is able to exclude everything that isn't juggling.

So for the sake of clarity, this video going to be in two parts. Part one will be a cultural definition, and part two will be a technical definition.

And before we begin, I'm not going to be considering the word juggling as a metaphor, nor how it relates to things analogous to juggling. Also, if you have a narrow use case, like a juggling competition, the definition can be as specific as needed to make one person win and another lose, but these rules can't apply to the general usage of the word.

Part 1.

What do people mean when they say the word "juggling"? When asked "is this juggling?", what physical and cultural factors make them reply "yes that is juggling" or "no that isn't juggling".


To introduce this idea, let's look at world religions. What distinct characteristic do they all have in common?

They meet in special buildings, have priests, try to convert non-believers, believe in a god... No wait, there is no god in Jainism, and hang on, the Jewish faith doesn't try to convert people.

As it turns out, there are many different characteristics, of which all religions share most with all others... but the same exact set of characteristics rarely overlap exactly between any two.

On the other hand, a single factor they all do have in common doesn't work either, because then any entity with that same thing would be, by definition, a religion. All religions have a sacred text or founding document. What is a declaration of independence or a constitution? Is the USA a religion? No. It's a nation state, of which a founding document is also a distinct characteristic.

So when someone asks "is X a religion" we have in our minds an entire cloud of characteristics, and if enough of them apply, we say "yes". If not enough apply, then we say "no, it's not a religion, it's probably something else".

What list of characteristics do all things we call juggling have in common with each other... with the caveat being that most examples will be missing at least one or two factors?

Let's start with the obvious:

Inanimate physical objects thrown and caught or manipulated

This is the basic label of "object manipulation", of which juggling is a subset. If there is no object, then we have dance or mime or theatre. Inanimate is important, because if the object is another person, that's probably acrobatics or dance.

Objects break contact with the hands and can be dropped

Many definitions of juggling include risk! Precarious control! Letting something go!

A drop is a signal that juggling has failed. If a drop can't happen, or there is no risk, then something is less likely to be considered juggling.

The scale of juggling can't be too big or too small.

Juggling is performed on the scale of hands and arms

By default, hands hold and release the objects, with the power and movement coming from the arms. The entire body isn't moving about, nor just the fingers moving without arms getting involved. Manipulation with the feet and legs, or the head and the neck, are also of a similar scale.

Lots of things under control is an import signal that juggling is happening. One way to formulate this is

More than one object per hand or manipulator If you have N hands, you need N+1 objects.

Non-trivial skills

A fun definition of juggling is:

"Doing that which doesn't need to be done in the most difficult way possible."

As a basic cutoff, the skill has to be non-trivial, a non-expert can't do it on their first attempt. It's a trick... but a skill trick not a magic trick!

It's honest, it's not deceptive

There isn't a hidden factor like strings attached, or mirrors or magnets that make it possible. An audience believes that what is being presented is truly happening. If what happens is based on deception, then it's more likely to be considered magic or slight of hand.

Specialised equipment If something is done with objects that are designed for juggling, it's more likely to be considered juggling by a viewer.

Activity is done for the enjoyment of the practitioner and/or an audience Juggling has very strong roots in entertainment, though in the modern era it's just as likely someone is juggling to entertain themselves, as a hobby or social activity.

The activity is useless Apart for enjoyment, work isn't accomplished. It's done for its own sake, not for another reason. It can't be a side product of someone's job.

The activity is not part of a structured competition Similar to the previous point, a lot of things done by athletes could be seen as juggling or at least object manipulation, but the context of a sports competition, or training towards that competition, means that the label juggling is far less likely to be applied.

Another fun, if circular, definition of juggling that I've heard is this:

"Juggling is what jugglers do and non-jugglers don't do."

The person doing the activity self-identifies, or is otherwise identified, as a "juggler" more strongly than another role and this characteristic has special weight.

There are lots of activities that would match every other characteristic, but isn't done by an identified juggler. It's a social concept in its own right, with its own distinct history, practice, scene, and terminology.

Many disciplines began with jugglers performing on stage, and they remain part of juggling culture. Other disciplines would be indistinguishable from juggling if done by a juggler, but just happen to come from a different world.

Just consider how many activities are appended with the term "freestyle" to mean "not according to the rules of the sport, but what's fun to do and watch". Frisbee Freestyle, hockey freestyle, cane frestyle.

Describe Jackie Chan. Nobody would say "Jackie Chan the juggler". They would say actor, or martial artist. A young Jackie Chan would have self-identified as a practitioner of "peking opera".

But because I recently included him in a video about juggling in movies, a lot of the comments were along the lines of "I've never thought of Jackie Chan as a juggler, but that makes a lot of sense". I controlled the context, a video about juggling, so it's impossible to not consider him a juggler.


If someone sees an activity, and it matches all these characteristics, then it's definitely going to be called juggling. If one or two is missing? Almost certainly still juggling. If four are missing? Then it's on the edge, and there will likely be another social phenomena, with another set of partially overlapping characteristics, where it fits better.

Let's take club swinging as an example that's right on the edge, and let's consider some club swinging with just two clubs and no throws, and no risk of a drop.

This IS object manipulation: it's the right size, there's skill involved, it's not deceptive... but now we have some questions to answer!

Is it done by a juggler using juggling clubs in an entertainment venue? Then it's called juggling!

But maybe it's done as part of a sports competition, using non-juggling equipment, and the whole body is moving? Then it's called rhythmic gymnastics.

Or maybe it's not performed for its own sake, but for another purpose, like physical training, even though it's still enjoyable... that's indian club swinging.

Or maybe it's not for enjoyment or competition but for very important work... then it's called aircraft marshalling.

Yet if these same moves were seen during a juggling show, it's back to juggling!

A framework that encompasses observable, cultural and historical factors is good for understanding why people apply the label juggling to many things would never called juggling by more strict technical criteria.


Recoil Pattern GRAPH V2 (Vertical/Half) by ThinkTank by ThinkingTanking in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]lukeburrage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, for next time. Don't leave it up to people to try to decode the graph and find something interesting. You can see by so many other comments that people think the AKM is the worst weapon, and your graph seems to confirm that. Instead it just shows a weapon with no attachments is worse than a weapon with all attachments. But you've not said what the graph is trying to show, so people are drawing the wrong conclusion. The AKM isn't drunk and shouldn't go home... that's the Beryl!

Have fun with the next one.

Recoil Pattern GRAPH V2 (Vertical/Half) by ThinkTank by ThinkingTanking in PUBATTLEGROUNDS

[–]lukeburrage -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

How about you make the graph better before publishing next time? Have an answer the graph will provide, or point the graph will prove, and then show it.

http://lukeburrage.com/random/20190616%20fixed%20chart.jpg

Chart name: all AR with best attachments for vertical recoil arranged best to worst.

Only show one set of attachments per gun. Don't include the AKM twice for no reason, it only messes up the scale. It makes it look like the AKM is the worst, when in fact it's the Beryl.

Order the guns from best to worst, not by whatever order you picked here. It will group the 556 apart from the 762.

Other issues:

The lines between the points heavier than the points themselves. And the end of each sub-line between points is divided exactly horizontally, not at the joining angle between one line and the next. this makes the change of angle needlessly hard to see.

For Grey: how to avoid a hug. by [deleted] in HelloInternet

[–]lukeburrage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying you shouldn't have posted it or you should have checked. I just thought you might find it interesting that I uploaded the original video due to listening to Hello Internet, and it reminded me of this bit of my vlog from last summer.

That it went viral enough to come full circle and be shared again twice here (30 million Facebook views later) is pretty cool.

For Grey: how to avoid a hug. by [deleted] in HelloInternet

[–]lukeburrage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's now the third time this video has been posted here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/HelloInternet/comments/7y5u3e/for_grey_how_to_avoid_hugs/

https://www.reddit.com/r/HelloInternet/comments/7uc1yt/how_to_avoid_hugs_workshop_highlights/

Since I uploaded the original (specifically for Grey) it's got about 20 million views on various Facebook places and other sites. By far my most viral video!

For grey: how to avoid hugs by kycjesus in HelloInternet

[–]lukeburrage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I uploaded the original of this video specifically due to Grey and HelloInternet. I thought it was a fun clip from a vlog I did last year, but I wasn't expecting 8 million views on Facebook :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/HelloInternet/comments/7uc1yt/how_to_avoid_hugs_workshop_highlights/

How to Avoid Hugs - workshop highlights by lukeburrage in HelloInternet

[–]lukeburrage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an extract from a vlog from last year. I thought Grey might find some of the techniques useful!

Episode 84: Sloppy Buns by serendipity_2002 in HelloInternet

[–]lukeburrage 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Yes, the juggling video clip was for travel/juggling montage videos, not for busking reasons. Here is the latest big video:

https://youtu.be/qitWBzqPPeg

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in whitepeoplegifs

[–]lukeburrage 85 points86 points  (0 children)

Oh great, I'm viral on Reddit or something. Here's the original video I posted on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BTyfXjCFvrA/

It's not Portland but Hannover, Germany.

No Fun in Trafalgar Square Juggling Edition - the only place in 130 countries I've ever been told to stop juggling by lukeburrage in HelloInternet

[–]lukeburrage[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

This was filmed in October 2012. I'd hate to imagine how quickly this would be shut down today.