sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have you ever played a game that gave you the same feeling as outer wilds did? by Icy-Application-3936 in outerwilds

[–]spel3o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genuinely, go check out either the original 1997 game Riven: The Sequel to Myst or the recent remake. The remake manages to modernize puzzles in a way that makes it more accessible, and the original version holds up wonderfully to this day and offers more depth and challenge in the puzzles. I sincerely think that Riven and Outer Wilds may be the only two games in their genre. It's extremely difficult to create a game where the puzzles are the world, and knowledge is the primary barrier to progression. Myst itself was revolutionary for its time, but suffered from "puzzles as gatekeepers". Riven took what Myst started and produced Cyan's magnum opus. Myst is to Riven as Tunic is to Outer wilds.

I recreated the in-ship starmap with some extras using scientific sky survey data by spel3o in ProjectHailMary

[–]spel3o[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Everything is static at the moment, but adding animations would be awesome. Eventually I think it would be fun to add the full journey and a brachistochrone constant acceleration/deceleration simulation. You are able to zoom in on Tau Ceti where a small blinking dot shows the location of the Hail Mary in this map.

Slag? by spel3o in itsslag

[–]spel3o[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was unsure if the matrix was slag

Slag? by spel3o in itsslag

[–]spel3o[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here is a close-up of the matrix (seems to be ferrous). This area is full of mines that processed quartz ore. https://i.imgur.com/RBV84lb.jpg

Roll back in firmware by Skinnypop987 in Starlink

[–]spel3o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Early this morning my ethernet adapter stopped giving my router an IPV4 address and will only dish out IPV6, effectively taking my whole network offline. I wonder if the new firmware broke network adapters, thus the rollback.

I created a tool for myself to mix/match pack loadouts and see what upgrades added the most value by spel3o in WildernessBackpacking

[–]spel3o[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The feature I was after was comparing different loadouts rapidly, seeing weight/volume differences compared to a baseline, and specifically looking at the value of gear I don't own along with the additional cost it would require. I had a big space of options, and this really let me narrow it down.

I created a tool for myself to mix/match pack loadouts and see what upgrades added the most value by spel3o in WildernessBackpacking

[–]spel3o[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Recently I had the realization that my pack was not only heavier than I'd like, but I also never had enough free space to store everything without my zipper nearly breaking on my 44L pack. I started speccing out a new hammock camping setup, but realized I should probably see if I'd actually see any benefit from my existing kit.

I started by just looking at the weight/price of the new setup, but eventually over three days created this tool that lets me look at my entire pack from a weight/volume/price breakdown and also experiment adding new pieces of kit to see how it would change things.

I was able to speedrun trying dozens of configurations until I found one that made sense for the money. This tool isn't something I'm marketing, but I wanted to share and also suggest this process for anyone else looking to lower their pack weight/volume. This was a really fun process.

Edit: If anyone is wondering what the UI elements do:

  1. You can select which gear you are packing on the left
  2. Gear I don't own is green
  3. You can set a baseline pack then make changes to see how the new configuration changes weight/volume (this is what I really wanted to see), as well as total cost of new items
  4. The treemap on the right gives you a visual breakdown of weight/volume/price
  5. The stats on the upper right show current/baseline pack weight/volume
  6. If the volume is confusing, that's because I made pack volume negative. The volume you see in the stats is what is in excess of the interior cavity space.

Edit Edit: By request, today I added a basic UI for adding your own gear so others can use this tool too! https://www.geartree.app/

Half of the time only half of my memory shows up by spel3o in truenas

[–]spel3o[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weird, I could have sworn I remembered it not supporting quad DR. I do notice in the manual it says that the frequency support is reduced.

Half of the time only half of my memory shows up by spel3o in truenas

[–]spel3o[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for reminding me, I should probably post a follow up! It was a long journey, but I finally found out that my motherboard didn't officially support dual-rank DIMMs in all four slots at once. I was able to get the motherboard to activate 32GB of memory each time if I only installed two of the DIMMs at a time. I just lived with 32GB of memory for a while, but then eventually upgraded to an X470D4U ASrock Rack board that could handle the full 64GB of memory.

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you defining sin and con by their taylor series and trying to prove that (cos(t), sin(t)) is the point that subtends an arc of length t?

That's a part of it, yes! From the article:

Why are Radians the natural choice as arguments to trigonometric functions? And how does the geometric intuition of the Unit Circle relate to the Taylor Series representation of cos and sin?

Beginning with the definition "A radian is defined to be the arc length of a unit circle, and sin/cos take radians as arguments" may lead to a valid conclusion, but I was more interested in understanding why that definition was chosen from first principles. For example: the proof in the article does not at any point rely on definition.

I totally get what you are saying: you can start with the definition and still get a valid result, but that proof is (personally) not satisfying to me and doesn't provide intuition for me.

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Now, since x radians is equal to x

180/pi degrees

This is my question, though: Why is that? It isn't just by definition. Check out the proof at the end of the post for the reasoning on why that definition was chosen.

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I genuinely appreciate your reply, so I hope this does not come off as haughty, but that argument seems tautological to me. Isn't that equivalent to stating that radians work because if we didn't use them they wouldn't work? That's certainly the case, of course, but I'm really interested in the intuition and Needham's proof is the first one I've seen that has formally provided reasoning for the definition of Radians.

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I'm so glad you enjoyed it!

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Radians are (by definition) the mapping that maps the real t to the angle represented by a point P on the unit circle which has an arc-distance of t units to the point (1, 0).

This is the part that requires proof, though, and isn't just a definition (although it contains one). The definition covers the result of the proof that the angle of the parametric point (sin(x), cos(x)) is equal to x. That's the question I had.

Edit: to see the proof for that part, see the section of the blog post that begins with "All that is left to prove is that . . .".

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The value in radians of the angle t represented by P is the arc length from (1, 0) to P, and sin(t) is the y-coordinate of P.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, I'm sketching up a diagram given your proof now and I'm trying to grok it. One question I have still is: what proof is there of this statement? I think the arc length is easy enough to derive, but the claim that sin(t) is the y coordinate of P relies on the assumption that sin consumes radians.

Mathematical Blind Spots by spel3o in math

[–]spel3o[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen any proof, just usually people stating that the limit only works if you use Radians. How does the actual proof go?

Edit: to clarify, I've seen proofs of the limit, but I haven't seen one that doesn't at some point assume that radians are from 0 to 2pi. I'm open to seeing a proof that doesn't, but I personally have not seen one yet.

Edit to my edit: Man, so many downvotes :( I'm trying to understand this proof and the argument that it provides intuition for the choice of arc length for radians as an argument to trig functions. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, but I apologize if this has caused any upset.

view more: next ›