Bartosz Ciechanowski's blog brings back the joy of surfing the web during the heyday of Adobe Flash (minus the 100% CPU).
It's so much fun manipulating things, exploring and getting surprising feedback.
I know it's not really fair to compare this highly scientific masterpiece to the artistic flash websites of the past, but for me at least it immediately evokes the same feelings.
Cameras and Lenses and photography has been such a fascinating and open and do-it-yourself tinkering medium for well over a century: when are we going to get to be able to play around with what's inside iPhone, Samsung, and Pixel cameras?
I am amazed by people like Bartosz Ciechanowski and Andrey Karpathy. What would be a lifetime side project for other smart and curious people, they seem to release every quarter. How do they do it?
Most people who are smart and creative are nowhere near as productive. And most people who are extremely productive don't get sidetracked by side projects.
I am always on the lookout for the classic sin of making it look like electromagnetic waves wiggle in space like a snake. I know it's convenient to glue the tangent space to the underlying physical space, but I think it confuses students.
To be clear: the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields (and hence their components in each direction) oscillate in space/time. Any particular wave though should travel in a straight line (usual caveats apply). Of course you may incidentally also get e.g. sinusoidal variations in intesity perpendicular to the wavevector, but that will be because of the overall beam characteristics.
I don't mean to say I know a better way to show this, and I am aware of many complicating factors. I just think lots of people (my former students and self included) can come away with a wrong idea about how these waves work.
Every time I come across one of Bartosz posts, I drop everything to read it. And I learn so much.
The way he builds up the mental model from a simple photon bucket to a pinhole and finally to a lens system is just incredible.
I particularly loved the section on the circle of confusion. I've read dozens of explanations on depth of field, but being able to interactively drag the aperture slider and see exactly how the cone of light narrows and the blur reduces makes it click in a way that static text never could. This really should be the standard for digital textbooks.
Can we donate to creative individuals like the OP so they keep making amazing stuff? This is the kind of output LLMs will not be able to produce any time soon.
> ̶P̶i̶c̶t̶u̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ Art has always been a meaningful part of the human experience. From the first cave drawings, to sketches and paintings, to modern photography, we’ve mastered the art of recording what we ̶s̶e̶e̶ think and feel.
I use firefox with javascript mostly off (UMatrix) but when I turned it on for fonts.googleapis.com the site and sliders all seem to worke. then I turned it on for gstatic.com fonts.gstatic.com , and not sure if that changed anything else. I'm on linux desktop
It's so much fun manipulating things, exploring and getting surprising feedback.
I know it's not really fair to compare this highly scientific masterpiece to the artistic flash websites of the past, but for me at least it immediately evokes the same feelings.
(maybe we already can, I'm simply asking)
Most people who are smart and creative are nowhere near as productive. And most people who are extremely productive don't get sidetracked by side projects.
I am always on the lookout for the classic sin of making it look like electromagnetic waves wiggle in space like a snake. I know it's convenient to glue the tangent space to the underlying physical space, but I think it confuses students.
To be clear: the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields (and hence their components in each direction) oscillate in space/time. Any particular wave though should travel in a straight line (usual caveats apply). Of course you may incidentally also get e.g. sinusoidal variations in intesity perpendicular to the wavevector, but that will be because of the overall beam characteristics.
I don't mean to say I know a better way to show this, and I am aware of many complicating factors. I just think lots of people (my former students and self included) can come away with a wrong idea about how these waves work.
Cameras and Lenses - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25357315 - Dec 2020 (213 comments)
The way he builds up the mental model from a simple photon bucket to a pinhole and finally to a lens system is just incredible. I particularly loved the section on the circle of confusion. I've read dozens of explanations on depth of field, but being able to interactively drag the aperture slider and see exactly how the cone of light narrows and the blur reduces makes it click in a way that static text never could. This really should be the standard for digital textbooks.
To be honest, though, this seems like ideal content for an LLM to produce. It's basically fact regurgitation.
Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25357315