Oh yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of! Seems like it would be very useful for expert models with domains with more definite "edges" (if I'm understanding it right)
As for the fragmentation of progress, I guess that's just par the course for any tech with a such a heavy private/open source split. It would take a huge amount of work to trawl through this constant stream of 'breakthroughs' and put them all together.
This reminds me of having to go into spotify's package files to track down their version of this animation (an animated svg of a bar chart) and kill it, because it would destroy performance on my PC so badly that it was affecting other programs, causing hitches and freezes.
The animation's still there — and my PC is better now, so it doesn't stutter — but I'm willing to bet it's still burning waaay too many watts, for something so trivial.
Picking up a bundle of loose pipes actually seems like a great benchmark for humanoid robots. Especially if they're not in a perfect pile. A full test could be something like grabbing all the pipes, from the floor, and putting them into a truck bed, in some (hopefully) sane fashion
You're telling me I've had 'Cry of the Chasmal Critter Chain' in my regular rotation for 20 years!?
I'd implore anyone with even a passing interest in VGM to find their favorite game on OC Remix and listen to some of the different remixes people have made. It's all very good stuff!
Isn't the problem with that analogy that there are things like NURBS which are pretty directly analogous to vectors (and isn't a surface a boundary?)
Edit: Along with the fact that blender has a lot of non destructive workflow steps (that usually get baked out into the "bitmap", to further your analogy)
Blender's got a constraint solver for IK, right? How much spaghetti code do we need to add to give it a full CAD kernel? It already does everything else!
I've honestly wished I could use it to make vector graphics sometimes, but that also needs some of the basic elements of CAD (parallel edges, radius constraints etc). It's so close to parametric modeling too, with the mesh modifiers, drivers, and now geo-nodes.
Of course, I believe there are a few CAD plugins, but I've never used them, so I can't speak to their efficacy.
I've played with it a bit (I made a local nonsense social media thing, reading llm content), and its surprisingly easy to get text to display in sync with the audio. It works with voices that are installed on the users system.
It seems like all the arguments there are predicated on the "meat" being actual muscle cells in a vat, though. Wouldn't it be just as likely that the successfully engineered food ends up being just, like, kelp with GM'd amino acid byproducts or something? Or chicken-of-the-woods with more random proteins thrown in? (I mean as long as they don't kill the culture, it doesn't matter if it benefits the host organism.)
I'm sure that's all harder than it sounds. But I doubt it's the same "wall of no" as muscles in a vat.
I absolutely understand. For me it's the _only_ exception to this feeling. Probably something to do with it not being a programming language, and my own preference for as little nested elements as possible, though I can imagine how anything close to div soup would be completely untenable.
An official mention of Pug? Now, they got me listening.
Maybe it's because it's (mostly) markup, but Pug is the only whitespace language that I really gel with. I wish it had more support across the board!
Maybe it's the years of Emmet use that's got me biased. I remember getting excited about both of these before they each changed names.
As for the fragmentation of progress, I guess that's just par the course for any tech with a such a heavy private/open source split. It would take a huge amount of work to trawl through this constant stream of 'breakthroughs' and put them all together.