@rjwatt42.bsky.social Greetings.

Across your research into spatial cognition, did you examine how Coulomb’s law might be implicated in the cognitive construction?

Because that isn’t how the retina works.

Many papers, but an introductory might be:

Westheimer, Gerald. “The ON–OFF Dichotomy in Visual Processing: From Receptors to Perception.” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 26, no. 6 (November 2007): 636–48. doi.org/10.1016/j.pr....

False.

If you are at SIGGRAPH, reach out.

Thank goodness we don’t have any discrete scalar measurement biological capabilities, then!

WRGB has the added accidental upside of taking poorly formed pictures and creating a less busted up presentation out of them.

Duane Puryear holding the AIDS quilt panel he completed before his death. It reads "MY NAME IS DUANE KEARNS PURYEAR. I WAS BORN ON DECEMBER 20, 1964. I WAS DIAGONISED WITH AIDS ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1987 AT 4:45 PM. I WAS 22 YEARS OLD. SOMETIMES, IT MAKES ME VERY SAD. I MADE THIS PANEL MYSELF. IF YOU ARE READING IT. I AM DEAD..."

Every time some elected democrat sucks off Reagan, I think about Duane.

Conjuring algorithms: Understanding the tech industry as stage magicians - Peter Nagy, Gina Neff, 2024 In this article, we introduce the term “conjuration of algorithms” to describe how the tech industry uses the language of magic to shape people’s perceptions of...

Sam Altman says GPT-4.5 has "a magic to it i haven't felt before."

I'm reminded of Peter Nagy and Gina Neff's article about "the conjuration of algorithms—a strategically deployed narrative device that uses the principles of magic to manipulate the public perception of technologies."

I post over on Mastodon because I’m reluctant to labour for free for yet another bunch of tech bro billionaires. I also respect that not everyone will use Fediverse apps.

bsky.app/profile/troy...

Ottawa fans booing the American anthem is what we all need.

How on earth do you trust the assembled viable sequences *in research*? It’s made up!

I am incredibly skeptical that *you* want a computer to generate content slop for you?

It’s like the worst DnD random dungeon.

Assembled Statistically Sequenced shit is so fucking dull and worthless.

It’s like a fucking budgie mirror for idiots.

The fascinating part is that even when you understand what is coming, the meaning is impenetrable. And likewise, once you’ve heard the meaningful representation, it is impossible to hear it naively again.

users.sussex.ac.uk/~cjd/SWS/ind...

You’ve seen the Sine Wave Speech demonstrations?

Indeed. And the decoding of air waves to sound is at least as complex as pictorial depiction decoding of stimuli into forms.

It just drives me to distraction that folks have this myth of “idealized pictorial depiction is a simulacrum of the stimuli” forced upon them, reinforced by the seduction.

“Filmic”, or more accurately, the unique relationship between total energy within a given region and the interrelationship of chrominance to luminance, is akin to a grammatical writing tool. Without it, we have a higher cognitive tax on the interpretation of the forms within a pictorial depiction.

Bingo.

And the deeper problem is that there is the incredible cognitive mechanisms that decompose and segment stimuli into forms that no one realizes without paying close attention.

The “essence” of the all-too-abused “filmic” term is what we all ought to realize as *a cognitive text*.

We are *so* brain wormed by the legitimated orthodoxy that no one has stopped to ask what we are trying to do.

There’s also a founding myth prevalent; that a pictorial depiction is idealized when the stimuli is presented as it was in front of the camera.

This brain worm needs to stop.

Indeed.

Ekroll was involved with a wonderful paper on the subject of techniques to avoid “Illusory Essences”.

doi.org/10.1177/1745....

Hence why undermining the language is important to create a friction between what folks *believe* they comprehend, and what is actually happening when we shape and form pictures from sensor energy catches.

Expected. It doesn’t exist as a construct beyond a few folks who have thought this through.

I’m sort of wrestling with a post on this subject, hence why I wanted to borrow the quotation.

Pictorial depiction is something folks need to focus on. Not the bullshit of “scene” and “display” rubbish.

May I borrow your quote?

Someone gets it.

In fact, calling the picture formation a “tone mapper” or “display rendering transform” is obfuscating nonsense.

It is quite literally the algorithm that crafts the pictorial depiction.

I’ll be long gone before folks abandon Giorgianni-Kodak’s bullshit ideology.

"how do I match these cameras"
"why do smartphones look like this"
"why are these skin tones different"
"how come these PTZ cameras have weird contrast"
"why do broadcast cameras use these charts"

the real question: where is the tonemapper?

Capitalism, working as designed.

I feel seen. Deeply seen.

You could inject the HDR, no?

And a complete biologically untenable pile of nonsense.

Vendor endorsed widget selling rubbish.

Can you elaborate?

And here I was thinking the United States second amendment was potentially an anachronistic clause…