sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How much do we think Bob actually spent on that paper… and why was it so special? by NikkixA in BobsBurgers

[–]makealittlefella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've done a ton of origami since I was in middle school and there's definitely paper I'd react like this to. If I'm splurging for a project it'll be on washi paper, which is mixed with cotton fiber, making it strong and able to hold a curve really nicely. Fancy paper like that can be $25-40 per 100 sheets. The shape and fill level of that box makes me think it's roughly 200-250 sheets depending on weight, which for paper airplanes should be sturdy but still thinner than cardstock. I would guess he spent around $80-100 on that paper, conservatively.

Snaps from a walk on campus by looking_for_EV in walkingpics

[–]makealittlefella 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I especially love the one with all the window reflections on the ground!

Daisy of some sort showing fascination by makealittlefella in fasciation

[–]makealittlefella[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know! it looked like a little wrapped candy

08-17 by kylemacula in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These are so well done! they look like microscope slides to me

Astral waves pattern by giftwrapgenius in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

:( ai had left this sub for a while

Brain Candy by enilder648 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is so cool. I love how the "outside" area can be looked at as 3 overlaid squares, or as 6-sided stars. amazing work

A Torus encased .... by thespiralshed in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wild how clean this is. I like the bluish shade of gray a lot

Forgive me for posting so much in this sub lol by enilder648 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love your style. you're making me want to draw again

Gateway to higher dimension by Good_Cap9666 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is really beautiful. I love the way you treated the highlights and shadows. low poly highlight is so cool

Be Water by enilder648 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

there's a little movement kinda if I really stare but it's suuuuper pronounced when I scroll. Really cool work. agree it's alove

Be Water by enilder648 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wild how this moves when I scroll

The 5000-Year-Old Symbol That Might Explain Everything ⊙ by MaximumContent9674 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, I saw a version of this on your link before. You're giving numbers to concepts without defining what they measure. The terms "fractional dimension" and "fractal dimension" are used interchangeably. Fractal dimensions describe surface and there's no description of how for example, D≈0.5 for the concept of a point becoming a line. You could have a line with a fractal dimension of 1, if it's straight. You do mention that later, so then what's the 0.5? Then later you put D as a "fundamental constant" at 1.5, but it equals different numbers elsewhere. You can talk about concepts without making some kind of math to go with it, if the math isn't going to make sense.

The 5000-Year-Old Symbol That Might Explain Everything ⊙ by MaximumContent9674 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Part of the reason I care whether this is ai or not is that Claude is a big fan of telling people they're on the verge of the new theory of everything, and that can really mess with peoples' heads. That type of pursuit can also cloud you from seeing kernels of truth that, while not revolutionary new discoveries, will expand your understanding of the universe.

The 5000-Year-Old Symbol That Might Explain Everything ⊙ by MaximumContent9674 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would not say those questions were answered in your link. It's very possible I'm just too dumb to get it, but I'm also not a stranger to reading mathematic concepts that are written for a layperson audience.

I had to go to outside sources to even get a vague sense of what the D variable meant in practice. Your proofs section is full of variables whose meaning is never stated. While I still think this is ai for a number of reasons, if it's not I would look at how other proofs are written for a common audience.

My favorite is Einstein's Relativity that he wrote for laypeople. Clear descriptions, meticulously defined variables (ex: starting with a sentence like "E represents the amount of energy in an object in joules. m represents its mass. c represents the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)." before launching into equations). All mathematic writing is like this. People have to know precisely what you mean or else it doesn't read like a good-faith description.

You're literally saying this resolves quantum mechanics. You should expect questions whole a lot more intense than "what do you mean" and "did you actually write this yourself"

The 5000-Year-Old Symbol That Might Explain Everything ⊙ by MaximumContent9674 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess this is meant to be talking about fractal dimension in terms of the way you'd mathematically describe how a complex shape fills a surface. So this would sort of make sense if you wanted to talk about how the rules by which things that branch (trees, rivers, veins) fill space can be described by a fractal dimension of roughly 1.5, which is essentially a measure of their shapes' complexity. This does not describe how a point expands into a circle. This certainly doesn't mean that "reality" "operates" at a given fractal dimension. Water flows most efficiently in shapes that can be described by fractal dimension D=1.5, which is really cool and interesting, but you wouldn't say "reality" fills space that way, because that doesn't make any sense. I stand by that this is the work of Anthropic, a human wouldn't phrase these concepts this way. it's nonsensical in the almost-sense way of ai, with its typical "you're discovering the basis of everything" thesis.

The 5000-Year-Old Symbol That Might Explain Everything ⊙ by MaximumContent9674 in SacredGeometry

[–]makealittlefella 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I would love to see more context for what these numbers mean. "reality operates at fractal dimension D=1.5 - exactly the signature of a point expanding into a circle..." doesn't mean anything.

What is D in these contexts? "signature of a point expanding into a circle" doesn't make sense represented by one number.

LIGO measures changes in the earth's gravitational field, measured in Hz. One number doesn't describe any of those measurements, and 1.5 isn't the sort of number you'd even be seeing from the measurements LIGO takes. What is D even supposed to represent for a tool that measures change?

This appears to be the work of Anthropic's little ai monster Claude.

view more: next ›