not classy, but still with style

puking after drinking too much is probably the less glamorous thing a person can do.

however, once in the situation, puking late night from the window of a cab running full speed in the Bay Bridge of San Francisco, is somehow kind of a classy way to do it. somehow. in some way. i think.

mémoires of the past

not for humans

California is not for humans. it’s so dry i don’t understand how humans settled here. in fact, given the latest discoveries, i’m starting to think there might be way more water in Mars than in California.

not again

I never get Uber Pool. But today I couldn’t ride my bicycle, so I gave it a chance. And on our way one of the other three dudes in the car farted. He farted hard and heavy and dense. The driver opened the windows to safe us all. But I’m not taking Uber Pool again. Call me a princess if you want.

a myth

I was thinking, the 10000 hours rule is a myth. Or I think it’s a misinterpretation of how things work, in my opinion.

It’s probably safe to say anybody who’s good at something has invested at least 10000 hours in developing the skill. This does not mean that investing 10000 hours will make somebody good. It’s a one directional implication, and the arrow is unfortunately not in the direction we’d like it to be.

There are many cases of people who have spent their whole lives doing something (say, 10+ years of professional work, which could easily add up to 15000 hours), and they are still not good at it.

from what i can see

“i’m working on an opensource library” is the programmer’s equivalent to the artist’s “i’m working on a children’s illustration book”

technology is human

technology doesn’t make people less human. technology IS human. it differentiates us from other animals for sure. it’s our identity

(the weapons, paints, wheels and clothes tribes use are technology too)

consistency

we are all striving for equality at home, work and social live. however, for many (americans for example) romance is an exception and the woman is still regarded as a passive player who will not buy the drink, the dinner or the ring.

speaking of what. buying a woman with a ring is very three centuries ago

sets and characters

I really prefer the terminology “sets and characters” rather than “environments and creatures”. To me the later presumes a genre. Also, a car is not a creature. But it can be a character, no?

really

These are some of the security questions I had to choose from when creating an account in an actually pretty serious website. Beware, I’m not making this up, these are totally real.

– what is the name of your high schools star athlete?
– what’s sports team do you love to see loose?
– what is the last name of your favorite sports hero?
– what celebrity do you most resemble?

Not only I wouldn’t be able to pick one, but they all insult my intelligence. In fact, the offence transcends my own ego, I feel we are all being somehow insulted as society. These are the type of things kids think about when they are twelve. If they are intellectually challenged. And I can tell you this website is not visited by twelve years old dumb kids.

I don’t need the questions to be about german philosophers or particle physics. Just something less insulting and more mundane. Like, what country you visited you’d liked the most, what’s the color of your preferred sex toy, what’s the name of the song you sing the most, what’s your favorite ice cream flavor or in which street is your favorite restaurant located, or the name of the school teacher you liked the most, or what’s the company with the most insulting online registration process.

enough of a reason

besides my office where xmas lights (which are always on) and the glowing xmas tree in the living room (which is a constant), now the balcony has permanent xmas lights as well.

because it’s pretty. and that should be enough of a reason!

communication

scientists: “we don’t know what it is, but it’s most likely dust, comets and asteroids”

reporters: “scientists think it could be aliens!”

scientists: “wait, no, no. it could be anything. as said, probably dust, comets and asteroids”

people: “scientists believe they’ve found aliens!”

not a render

This is not a render, but a real photograph. However it looks like a render of an incomplete shot – an untextued model with a temporary lighting rig of two diffuse bounces of a blue dome and yellow key. Reality is sometimes cheap and disappointing.

why a princess

There’s a new animated Disney movie. And in it, a female protagonist. Regardless of her character (which can be a warrior, a cook, a scientist) the press automatically makes here a “Disney Princess”. Why.

Same treatment is not applied to male protagonists, who are only a “Disney Princes” if he actually is to inherit a kingdom.

labeling

Why are there American Born Chinese, American Koreans, African American and American Italians, but there are not American French or American Born Swedish?

america – a nation of people of all ethnicities and ancestries…

…properly labeled

what have you done to me

the internet is weird and amazing.

in the less ordinary and unexpected of the places of the internet, i just learnt that zoophilia is legal in Brazil. why anybody was talking about that, and why did we need to know that piece of information, i’ve no idea. but now it is in my brain, probably forever.

and i though i’d share that pain with you.

crazy trust

driving a freeway, as a concept, is pretty crazy. it means we are all in one of these 1 ton metallic boxes running at 110 km/h. and it also means it only works because we all count on each other’s desire to be alive, on each other’s survival instincts. and it works. which is crazy.

correct blurring

Quick reminder, if you are doing image blurring or downsizeing (or some other linear pixel operation) and your image is a photograph, you probably want to make sure you (or your hardware) is performing inverse gamma correction before accumulating in the kernel and gamma correction after averaging. Otherwise you are going to lose brightness in the image. Well know fact, but usually ignored.

Wrong way to do it:

vec3 col = vec3(0.0);
for( int j=-w; j<=w; j++ )
for( int i=-w; i<=w; i++ )
{
    col += src[x+i,y+j];
}
dst[x,y] = col / ((2*w+1)*(2*w+1));
Correct way to do it:

vec3 col = vec3(0.0);
for( int j=-w; j<=w; j++ )
for( int i=-w; i<=w; i++ )
{
    col += DeGamma( src[x+i,y+j] );
}
dst[x,y] = Gamma( col / ((2*w+1)*(2*w+1)) );

Where Gamma() and DeGamma() can be just approximations, such as Gamma(x) = pow( x, 1.0/2.2 ) and DeGamma(x) = pow( x, 2.2 ), or even Gamma(x) = sqrt(x) and DeGamma(x) = x*x if you really are in a hurry.

The image bellow shows on the left side the wrong (and most common) way to blur an image, and the right side shows the result of correct blurring. Note how the correct version does not get darker but retains the original overall intensity after blurring, unlike the one in the left.

If you are in the CPU and need to do the de-gamma yourself, consider using a 256 entry LUT with 16bit fixed point values representing the degammaed domain so that you don't lose perceptual precision.

Reference code here: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XtsSzH

internet fact

Internet Fact: every month somebody wants you to see the video of the octopus and the coconut.

she’s not a dream

every night for 50 years he held her hand every night before falling asleep. once i asked him, “why do you do it”, and he replied “to make sure she’s not a dream”