I am a Silicon Valley native, graduated from Stanford, worked at Google for a decade. Never felt like I belonged there socially or in terms of viewpoints.
I left to complete the journey to financial independence without the burden of California state income tax. I got no benefit from being around a bunch of one dimensional software engineers with zero creativity in their lives outside of tech, no sense of independence or adventure.
I noticed that most if not all of these questions are applicable to doors in even simple 2D games.
Whereas the physics engine and real-world realism aspects are what the video talks about.
If the problem is that doors are inherently difficult to design, the counterpoint is that these questions have already been answered in multiple ways over the past 30+ years of video game history. It's easier today than ever to answer these questions by drawing on previous games.
> A planet orbiting the sun is accelerating toward the sun.
How do we know that the sun isn't orbiting the fixed earth, and accelerating toward the earth? Everything would look _exactly_ the same to everyone.
Yes, the math works out much easier and more neatly, so that is likely what is happening in reality. But from a purely relativistic framework.. you can consider any point in space the frame of reference, and all motion relative to that "fixed" point.
It makes me think that relativity is actually describing a more subjective experience, rather than the objective reality where we "know" the earth orbits around the sun.
> How do we know that the sun isn't orbiting the fixed earth, and accelerating toward the earth? Everything would look _exactly_ the same to everyone.
That wouldn't work out. You can take the earth as a fixed point and describe the Sun's motion relative to it, and it would be perfectly valid, but it wouldn't look as the Sun orbiting the Earth in any kind of almost constant speed elliptical orbit, it would look like a very different kind of motion.
Well, maybe, but I think you're mixing the everyday definition of "relativity" (i.e., things are relative) with what physicists mean by "relativity" (i.e., the Theory of Special or General Relativity, both theorized by Einstein).
> but I think you're mixing the everyday definition of "relativity"
Well, yes.. because Einstein's theory beautifully makes all the math work out, explaining one interpretation of motion as the real one. But what it did at the same time was show that there is no "fixed grid" of space independent of the objects themselves. Which is what leads to my uneasy feeling of how we ever can say one interpretation is more real than another -- i admit it may just be a nonsensical perspective.
As for what all physicists mean by relativity in general... I can highly recommend this old series from the National Science Foundation:
How should I respond if I tell them it's a warmup that shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, and they're still having trouble? Isn't that going to demoralize them?
I've gotten some candidates who come from backgrounds with non gregorian calendars. In those cases we spend a minute talking about their calendar and then I ask them to write it for their calendar.
We don't explore it from every angle. I try to speed them up by saying things like "first 3 months have 31/28/31 days, and use '...' for the remaining days so you don't have to write it out.
A few candidates have finished in under 5 minutes.
Great, I take everything back. Ask the warmup, and the warmup alone, as that seems to yield precisely the desired subset in five minutes time, and you can go back to your real work.
There's no real consensus about it, though in the US it's fair to say that most Jews can be included under the "white" category.
I think it's evident that there is a genetic makeup that can be considered "Jewish", in that it ties back to the genetic make up of residents of Judea and Israel in 500bc, but 2500 years of exodus brings about a strong difference between the genetically Jewish, and the culturally/religiously Jewish. While we Jews were relatively good at keeping it in-the-tribe for those millenniums, a significant portion (maybe most) are mixed in with the genetics of their host nations. Even if they were always religiously and/or culturally Jewish, they might still appropriately identify as racially white, black, or other depending on their exodential* heritage.
*If there's already a word for this, please share with me.
In the little box you check off to select your ethnicity, Jews are in fact expected to check off white.
edit - You can write in "Jewish" but there's no "Jewish" box. This is why I turned against affirmative action (or taking account of ethnicity in any way). Jews are disproportionately rich and successful but they are "white" for the purposes of admissions. Meanwhile Asians, also disproportionately rich and successful, are "Asian". Why? Who makes these rules? Should anyone be making rules like that?
You could improve the situation by only providing ethnicity options that help the application (i.e. remove "Asian" and "white" and just stick to "black," "latino," "pacific islander," etc). This is definitely better but it's still bad in my opinion.
Oh it's sexually suggestive for sure. The point is just that Twitch can't outright say the reason for that. If she had small breasts, there would be no way to call it "bouncy."
BTW That's not her channel. The "bouncy" label might have been added by the uploader of the video
Maybe we have different standards of what revealing means. To me it would be if she were wearing a bikini, showing underwear, having a low V-cut top etc.
She's only "revealing" her cleavage because she has so much cleavage to reveal. Which proves my original point that this wouldn't be an issue with a woman with the same clothes but small breasts.
I left to complete the journey to financial independence without the burden of California state income tax. I got no benefit from being around a bunch of one dimensional software engineers with zero creativity in their lives outside of tech, no sense of independence or adventure.