Rotoscoping is specifically tracing over a sequence of images - usually video or film frames - to create a sequence of drawings that can be used in an animation workflow.
Artists and animators (like me!) make some fine distinctions between different ways of studying reality and transferring it onto the canvas.
Using a model is posing a live person and/or some objects and setting up lights and painting from that. Artists have done this for years. I've done this. Rockwell did this.
Using photo reference is taking photographs (yours or others') and working from those. I've done this. Rockwell did this too!
Tracing is placing your reference image beneath or over your canvas, and tracing the contours you see in it. Tracing paper, chroma-key, projectors, camera lucidia, tracing the image onto acetate and taping that to your Amiga's monitor to trace it again in DPaint, dropping ref into one layer in Photoshop and working over it in another one, these are all methods of tracing. I've done them all! Rockwell probably did this now and then, with the caveat that a pro's tracing is a very different beast from a beginner's - it's easy for a beginner to just trace the contours with no thought as to how they come together into a 3d shape, and get a drawing that feels dead and lifeless and subtly wrong. Saying someone's work looks like a tracing is kind of an insult.
Rotoscoping is explicitly a process of tracing/referencing a sequence of images to produce a sequence of images rather than a single image. It is related! But this article is entirely discussing the way demoscene artists would reproduce a static image, so roto does not apply here. Rockwell painted static images; he never did this.
(It's certainly possible that Rockwell could have taken single frames of film and had them printed for reference, but that's still not roto. Roto's explicitly an animation process that results in a series of drawings based on your film/video ref.)
Mac doesn't require an Apple ID to use. iPhone only needs one for installing apps, and my only complaint is it's the strictest auth check on the entire phone besides disabling the account. Shouldn't need to input the Apple ID password just to install a free app, shouldn't even ask for passcode.
So you can't have Firefox, Organic Maps, good ad blocker, popular chat and video apps and numerous other things without it. Do you consider that normal?
Yes. Considering that Apple created the smartphone as we know it, and it had this limitation from the start, seems normal even though I don't really like it. This wouldn't be acceptable on a PC or tablet (hence why iPads suck).
Even granting the idea that game theory can be applied successfully here; that does not really help with one-off events. Consider, knowing the odds of a coin flip does not grant you any real help in knowing what the next coin flip will be.
This is also ignoring that game theory of partisan games breaks if any of the participants knows what the other will do. Is one of the more famous ideas.
To that end, if you want to predict what someone will do, more often than not you are best looking at their experience doing said thing.
I mean, this is the case for a lot of things? Has always been the case.
If you host friends over for dinner at your house a lot, nobody will ever say you are subject to the same rules as a restaurant. You start letting other people host dinners at your house, and things could change. You start letting people solicit your place for paid dinners, similar outcome. Do it once, nobody will probably know or care. Continue to do it at scale, though, and I don't know why you would expect to not be subject to regulations.
The problem is obviously that the government shouldn't be regulating private speech. They pass these rules by saying "look how big Facebook is, they need to be regulated" when the actual problem is that they need to be decentralized. But then the rules don't apply only to Facebook, and worse, are designed under the assumption of a centralized service so that they entrench the thing that should be eliminated.
But there is nothing obvious about this? For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means. You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example. For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house. You similarly could not claim free speech to rent or loan out rooms of your house for storage.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.
Do I think there are probably some concerning ways those burdens can be placed on folks? Certainly. But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection. See the food industry.
> For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means.
This is the fraud every would-be censor perpetrates to establish their chokepoint. First, invent allegedly "neutral" rules that only large entities can comply with, causing only large entities to remain. Then lean on the large entities to censor whatever you want in exchange for political favors or lack of enforcement of other laws.
> You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example.
Which is another great example of them doing the thing. The government couldn't spare a single frequency for unlicensed long-distance directional radio communications?
Moreover, the excuse for censoring the airwaves is that there is finite capacity in a broadcast medium, so how is that supposed to apply to a unicast service whose transfer capacity can be increased without bound by running more fiber?
> For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house.
So if the government wants to declare that you meeting with two other people for the purpose of conveying information to them is a "concert" and prohibit it from any place that isn't a "concert hall" (which is prohibitively expensive for you to own), that seems fine to you?
> As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.
All you have to do is the thing which is morally and economically unsound.
> But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection.
Except that now you want to do it even when they are doing it at home.
People have this tendency to want to do reasoning by analogy, but then if you look at the things they're analogizing to, a) they're often distinguishable in significant ways and b) they even more often don't actually address the criticism, they're just an example of the bad thing we should be trying to prevent already happening somewhere.
What am I supposed to do other than point that out?
I don't understand you, here. If anything, you seem to just be describing your own argument.
You ask why we couldn't have a single frequency for long-distance radio communication. Which is either willfully ignoring all of the frequencies that we can use for directional communication. Or shockingly ignorant over how many people could use a "single frequency" for anything long distance. (Indeed, this was the wishcasting that I found off putting.)
You then reduce to absurd the idea that you could have a concert between two other people. Which, I feel fairly confident saying nobody cares if you are running small two person concerts at your house. Unless you are violating noise concerns of your direct neighbors.
And then, your entire "they are doing this in their home" argument ignores that the problem here is open solicitation across the internet. If you are setting up a LAN equivalent where only direct friends ever gain access, this is just not relevant here.
I find it amusing to jump straight to the "because some species lack watches." It isn't like humans started with them. Kids aren't even really able to use a clock for quite a few years.
Article is still neat, mind. I am curious why it is not more compelling to think in terms of reserves and duty cycles. Build up enough energy to get you through periods of needed energy and you will settle on a cycle that matches when energy is available. At least, if you want to minimize complete depletion. Which is about the only thing I would expect evolution to fully avoid. Or, at least, the ones that didn't will have died off.
Oddly, I would say that this often exposes complexity? Not that that is a valid reason to go all in on it. But some things, like updating service contracts, are complicated. Indeed, anything that makes it look like many services all deployed in unison is almost certainly hiding one hell of a failure case.
While I can kind of see what you are aiming at, a basic button down and clean pants go a long way. Keep it ironed and clean, and you go even further. No need for the anything that looks like a uniform.
reply