Despite my background in color science, I find RGB more intuitive. With HSV I have to remember the chirality of hue and it's zero point, and when changing hue I find it difficult to reason about saturation. In practice this means I must "nudge and judge" with both systems. With RGB I can always make progress. With HSV I guess hue wrong about half the time. I could probably improve this.
To be fair, I'm also colorblind. That's probably relevant.
Anyway, I'd say the answer to both your questions is: "sometimes"
What defines a bad tech vs a good tech? Similar arguments can be made for most research including nuclear fusion, AI, vaccines, space, polymers, combustion engines, electric motors, semiconductors...
Good tech empowers individuals and subverts authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments. Bad tech subverts individuals and empowers authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments.
I have always appreciated the concept of thinking of colors as a cube (even though I now view them as triangles or weird pyramid things). Thinking of cubes as a 10x10x10 cube composed of 1000 smaller cubes is another mental model I've returned to often. I actually kinda like this for hacking on stuff like terminal colors.
The parent comment is not suggesting that Yon is about physics/metaphysics.
Understanding is important for readers. Demonstrating understanding is important for writers of both technical documentation and internet comments, and of critical importance in the era of AI.
Understanding goes both ways. OP was just sharing something they thought was interesting. The Ted Chiang piece was horribly written logically and yet it was "written well" in prose. We should look past the writing and learn (if any) the interesting parts.
Teslas spend a tiny percentage of their life at highway speeds, and a major selling point of the platform is that their compute would be used to pilot the vehicle.
If they could train using Teslas they wouldn't have needed Dojo.
Bifocals in general are quite useful. It's nice to be able to see the road and the speedometer using the same lenses.
Traditional bifocals and progressives are different beasts. The hard outline on traditional bifocals means you get essentially two different lenses, both able to function as intended. The soft blend on progressives means you get essentially one big blurry lens that does not have well defined properties anywhere.
> The soft blend on progressives means you get essentially one big blurry lens that does not have well defined properties anywhere.
That seems to be exactly my experience with them, stated very succinctly. I've had these about 9 months and I'm still struggling with the ergonomics daily. I think I made the wrong choice.
I used the wrong term, sorry. My concern applies to both bifocals and progressive lenses, though: aren't drivers trading off convenience over safety? Shouldn't we have at least two pairs of glasses - one for driving, and another for everything else?
When driving, I need to see things far away (mostly) but also on my dash/instrument cluster.
I am near-sighted overall and have needed distance glasses all my driving life. I got progressives last year and driving is safer now as I have a small area that I can use to clearly (and quickly!) read the instruments, the radio (read: map), defroster controls, etc.
In my case, not having multi-focal lenses was prioritizing convenience/laziness/cost over safety.
The impact is a lot less than you may expect. Brains are ridiculously good at filling in incomplete information. For example, did you know that you have a roughly sun-sized blind spot slightly off center in each eye (where the optic nerve attaches)?
Now imagine needing to switch glasses to read your dash. Inconvenient and unsafe!
To be fair, I'm also colorblind. That's probably relevant.
Anyway, I'd say the answer to both your questions is: "sometimes"
reply