It makes me sad, and to some extent offended, that so many people want to use AI to replace the human element in art. It dilutes what makes art impressive.
In certain ways, A.I. has been welcomed because cost of content had become a true obstacle.
Ask any teacher who’s designed a PowerPoint lecture, or any marketer who just needed some anodyne ad copy and stock photography. They were procuring licenses at $$$ cost, and this licensing takes a lot of effort and a lot of legal counsel to get it right.
It is far more expedient to simple AI-generate the stuff you need, guaranteed royalty-free, unencumbered.
Ordinary computer users can just get a nice wallpaper, or icons we like, without signing up to a sleazy “Free Clipart” site.
This new normal is not born from a hatred of the human element, but I would say it’s because of the naked greed and unforgiving legal pitfalls of intellectual property today.
So I don't disagree that this is all a result of runaway capitalism. But also, and I know this is going to sound extremely anal retentive of me - but I wasn't born with an ability to create art - I learned.
Then when I was doing teaching (broad career, lol) I didn't find it too difficult to product my own content. Additionally I was also working in advertising for ages, and often created my own art. If I didn't want to create my own things, then I wouldn't be in a career where I was creating my own things.
I just don't know man. I was a creative once. I changed course, but I still feel so torn that I'm watching the entire creative process be taken over by non-creatives and then being argued out of the room that it's better.
Not an average software engineer--beautiful page (imperfect spelling)!
Why does detection scale as the 4th root of the RCS? Nice problem for the radiation theory part of a graduate electrodynamics class.
It shouldn't, under the assumptions they are opening up with. Inverse square law twice is appropriate for an approximation that the reflection is entirely diffuse because you assume that the diffuse reflection is uniform in all directions away from the illuminated surface. A single inverse square law is appropriate (with both distances added to each other before squaring) under the approximation that the reflection is specular.
> Why does detection scale as the 4th root of the RCS?
Because the power returned to the antenna scales as the -4th power of the distance to the target, and detection depends on that power being greater than some threshold. If the fourth power (rather than the square) is surprising, think of the reflection as re-transmitting the power that arrived at the target. The incident power on the target goes as RCS/r^2, and the power that makes it back to the original antenna gets another factor of 1/r^2, so the return scales as RCS/r^4.
Thanks. I needed that reminder to sometimes NOT just solve a matrix of 3000 * 3000 equations and merely make an assumption and take an integral, metaphorically.
>where RR is the distance from the target (imagine the radar being very far away) en.wikipedia.org . This formula might look intimidating, so let's break it down:
You didn't even read your own slop. Why should anybody else?
It makes me sad, and to some extent offended, that so many people want to use AI to replace the human element in art. It dilutes what makes art impressive.
In certain ways, A.I. has been welcomed because cost of content had become a true obstacle.
Ask any teacher who’s designed a PowerPoint lecture, or any marketer who just needed some anodyne ad copy and stock photography. They were procuring licenses at $$$ cost, and this licensing takes a lot of effort and a lot of legal counsel to get it right.
It is far more expedient to simple AI-generate the stuff you need, guaranteed royalty-free, unencumbered.
Ordinary computer users can just get a nice wallpaper, or icons we like, without signing up to a sleazy “Free Clipart” site.
This new normal is not born from a hatred of the human element, but I would say it’s because of the naked greed and unforgiving legal pitfalls of intellectual property today.
So I don't disagree that this is all a result of runaway capitalism. But also, and I know this is going to sound extremely anal retentive of me - but I wasn't born with an ability to create art - I learned.
Then when I was doing teaching (broad career, lol) I didn't find it too difficult to product my own content. Additionally I was also working in advertising for ages, and often created my own art. If I didn't want to create my own things, then I wouldn't be in a career where I was creating my own things.
I just don't know man. I was a creative once. I changed course, but I still feel so torn that I'm watching the entire creative process be taken over by non-creatives and then being argued out of the room that it's better.
The instant I realize it's an LLM generated piece. I'm out. Thanks for adding all the animations to make it abundantly obvious.
What animations ?
background
the footer says "made by hand, mostly." not sure what that means, though!
"All visualizations were drawn/generated by me and code can be found in this project's github repo"
Also, I feel it's not who the generator is that should concern you--it's the quality of the text.
I would much rather read something that is clear, concise, and consistent regardless of the source.
The text is low quality because it is un-proofread LLM output.
Not an average software engineer--beautiful page (imperfect spelling)! Why does detection scale as the 4th root of the RCS? Nice problem for the radiation theory part of a graduate electrodynamics class.
It shouldn't, under the assumptions they are opening up with. Inverse square law twice is appropriate for an approximation that the reflection is entirely diffuse because you assume that the diffuse reflection is uniform in all directions away from the illuminated surface. A single inverse square law is appropriate (with both distances added to each other before squaring) under the approximation that the reflection is specular.
> Why does detection scale as the 4th root of the RCS?
Because the power returned to the antenna scales as the -4th power of the distance to the target, and detection depends on that power being greater than some threshold. If the fourth power (rather than the square) is surprising, think of the reflection as re-transmitting the power that arrived at the target. The incident power on the target goes as RCS/r^2, and the power that makes it back to the original antenna gets another factor of 1/r^2, so the return scales as RCS/r^4.
It's a 4th power because you're doing the inverse square law twice, once for the outbound pulse and once for the reflection.
Thanks. I needed that reminder to sometimes NOT just solve a matrix of 3000 * 3000 equations and merely make an assumption and take an integral, metaphorically.
A random professor's academic website is usually barebones, no CSS, only HTML, mostly text. But the value one finds there is incredible.
As opposed to this, vibe coded slop which neither explains the stuff that's already there, nor is pedagogical. Why use AI for this?
>where RR is the distance from the target (imagine the radar being very far away) en.wikipedia.org . This formula might look intimidating, so let's break it down:
You didn't even read your own slop. Why should anybody else?