Not always true. My landlord recently had a contractor call me. I did my usual "pick up and don't say anything" routine for unrecognized numbers, and the contractor silently hung up and never called back. Thankfully my roommate actually answered the call, but pick-up-shut-up prevents legit people from leaving voicemails and sometimes prevents legit people from reaching you entirely.
Personally, I would utter a confused "hello?" if I was calling somone, the ringing stopped, and no one said anything, but I guess not everyone would.
I could easily see someone like a contractor calling from the road or otherwise not paying full attention to their phone. They likely never realized you answered and needed the "hello" to refocus their attention.
As with 'craftkiller, I've noticed that I do need to make some kind of noise. I've settled on subtle light coughs or grunts (nothing anyone would think twice about, but which will definitely trigger a "oh this is a human!"). I figure it might still fool some percentage of automated systems which detect whether a human (and which human) is actually there or not based on automated transcription.
The Altair 8800 came out in 1974 with no video output. The Commodore PET and Apple II were released in 1977 as non-kit computers with video output. VisiCalc came out in late 1979. We are approximately at the VisiCalc release date now with LLMs.
This is ridiculous. I’ll tell you why. Here I quote:
“All parts in the assembled model must be made of paper.
Each part must be a single, solid color. The parts must not use any printed textures or designs.
The model must be represented as a simple polyhedron.”
Must. Must. Must.
This is a game. Or an art school exercise.
Modeling is concerned only with attaining the necessary accuracy. Not conforming to a methodology.
> Modeling is concerned only with attaining the necessary accuracy. Not conforming to a methodology.
Maybe to you. More in general, your claim is simply wrong.
This is actually answered in TFA:
> Constraints: Let's set some constraints for how we're allowed to model our creation. These are self-imposed limitations that fit my preferred-style for model design:
> Why constraints? It may feel weird to impose constraints on an art. However, I find that these constraints encourage a better designed model that can be assembled easily and predictably, including by others.
It's ok if you disagree with this because you enjoy your model-making in a different way. The author explained why they chose this path, and it makes sense: a lot of art is about constrains ("don't do digital", "use only 2 colors", "origami without any cuts", etc).
"These are self-imposed limitations that fit my preferred-style for model design... I find that these constraints encourage a better designed model that can be assembled easily and predictably, including by others."
You're right, it would be easier in every single way.
It would also be different enough that it's not a useful or meaningful comparison. You might as well say "bake a cake while standing on stilts, then we'll talk".
In the stacks of the Main Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library, if you went to 612.6, you saw that a librarian had direct view of that aisle from her desk. But she was often not at that desk, so timing was involved.
I’m a physicist. I can align and maximize ANY laser. I don’t even think when doing this task. Long hours of struggle, 50 years ago. Without struggle there is nothing. You can bullshit your way in. But you will be ejected.
A master blacksmith can shoe a horse an' all. Laser alignment is also a solved problem with a machine. Just because something can be done by hand does not mean it has any intrinsic value.
Yes. We have a low end industry, but China has the ability to kill it. Haas is already importing from China. And at their current list prices, their machines, with known problems, are not that competitive with imported products costing 30% more, but using higher tolerances and heavier components.
reply