One of the big use cases for Genlock these days is when you're doing virtual production with LED walls; you want to make sure the screen refresh of the wall is locked to the shutter of the camera. It's almost like 'vsync' in video game video settings, without it you risk seeing tearing in the backdrops.
Another way I like to think about this is finding 'closeable' contexts to work in; that is, abstractions that are compact and logically consistent enough that you can close them out and take them on their external interface without always knowing the inner details. Metaphorically, your system can be a bunch of closed boxes that you can then treat as boxes, rather than a bunch of open boxes whose contents are spilling out and into each other. Think 'shipping containers' instead of longshoremen throwing loose cargo into your boat.
If you can do this regularly, you can keep the _effective_ cognitive size of the system small even as each closed box might be quite complex internally.
I imagine the lossy encoding process could use a bunch of stacked filters to cut away imperceptible frequencies, but filters in the general case are implemented by summing delayed copies of the input and can smear the output in the phase domain. (There’s a branch of filters that avoid this but require computing the introduced delay and shifting the output to compensate.)
It’s a noticeable problem in audio production if e.g. a filtered kick drum goes out of phase and sucks amplitude when mixed with the original.
Yeah, I think that’s traditionally the route when you’re not running with near-real-time constraints. I’m out of practice with DSP/filter math but I think there’s a constraint such that any theoretical filter that doesn’t impact phase must be symmetrical around the time axis such that it requires “knowledge from the future” that’s not available in real time.
EDIT: And I think with the two-pass approach you need to calculate the filter such that you get the desired effect after two applications instead of one.
I feel like the thrust-to-weight dynamics on multicopter drones don’t really lend themselves to heavy payloads like water bombing in the quantities needed. An additional issue is that, due to wanting to maximize power density for the high amperage motors, you often end up using lithium-polymer battery formulations that are less than adequately shielded for the possible impacts the drone might incur. I would be concerned that the risk of a drone failure itself igniting a new fire in a remote area would outweigh the potential.
My take is that this (and similar effects in other media) is the consequence of the rise of targeted advertising. Prior to the advent of surveillance capitalism, there was a vested interest in the development and refining of subcultures.
Someone in the media would identify a new nascent subculture, invest in catering to it, and in the process create a new demographic that advertisers could pump money into to address a specific audience. Ugly and capitalist, sure, but on the flip side, if you were a member of one of those subcultures, there'd be a steady flow of investment into the community you considered yourself a member of. If you listened to the Grateful Dead, someone would be there to sell you peace signs and tie-dye shirts. If you listened to emo punk, well, Hot Topic. The money the advertisers paid would go back into the magazines, critics, studios, etc. that would then further promote, develop, and refine the subculture--a virtuous cycle of sorts.
Google et al. negate the need for any of this. If you want to sell tie-dye shirts, you buy a slot on the "tie-die shirts" keyword. It's (arguably) more efficient for the advertiser, but, it eliminates the economic incentives for subcultures to exist. So they don't. Everyone is their own one-person-addressable subculture, which is essentially identical to one sprawling morass of culture.
What little money remains flowing into the media system chases the spontaneous flash-in-the-pan meme hits that broadly appeal, because that's all that's left.
I feel like the most novel aspect of this image is an implication of the shape of the reflective casing at the far rear of the device--it seems to suggest a parabolic "shaped charge" sort of focusing element that likely helps to boost the neutron flux and initiate the "spark plug" from the rear at the same time as from the front.
Hmm. I've read every book on the subject and I have a feeling I've heard this arrangement already somewhere (shape of the mirrors used to direct the radiation pressure, not neutron flux).
I suspect that would fall under the rule that if two black holes’ respective event horizons ever cross, they merge and initiate the eventual merger of the two respective black holes.
I've seen this vaguely referenced, but when I dig in I don't find support for it.
It's far from obvious that just because the event horizons (which is just a mathematical concept and a 3D area of space) should control the trajectory of the singularity.
With two identical blackholes, with a event horizon of radius R, why should a singularity 2R away be unable to escape?
Not only are these aircraft hangar sized buildings with soundproofing, they’re also likely wired for hundreds of amps of lighting, including truss and catwalk systems to he able to position and distribute that lighting.
I suspect if you're wary about fomite spread of disease (later shown to be airborne for COVID but initially assumed), then it's easy to pick up a phobia of grappling the handlebars of a scooter that a stranger has recently used.
Additionally, at least anecdotally here, as the city centers hollowed out of normal business/leisure traffic, a lot of the rental vehicles were visibly breached and used by homeless folks, which often tarnished the literal appearance and reliability of the rental units in addition to damaging the brand.
