He/Him Jack of all trades, master of none

  • 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 10th, 2023

help-circle






  • I’m not a computer graphics guy, but I wanna math. Theoretically, if I wanted to make the smallest possible 3d model, I would define it as four interconnected points. Each point has x, y, and z coordinates, so each model takes a theoretical minimum of 12 bytes of storage. Someone who knows computers can correct me if I’m off by a bunch.

    The lower estimate is around 100,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way. That’s only 1.2 terabytes worth of my theoretical minimum 3d model. Doable! But you said all stars. The lower estimate is around 10^22 stars in the universe. That would be 120 zettabytes. That’s only a few orders of magnitude off from the total available worldwide datadata storage!

    Edit: I might have thought of a way to define a 3D model in just 2 bytes. You need four points that each have values for x, y, and z. They don’t need 256 possible values for those, they can get by with two each. One bit can store two possible positions, so we can use as little as two bytes to define every point’s position with 4 bits to spare. Behold, a tetrahedron: 0000 0100 1010 1110

    Each set of four digits defines the x, y, and z coordinates for each point, as well as one extra dimension. You could use those extra four bits however you want. An extra spatial dimension, defining a color, etc. The theoretically smallest possible 3D model. Take the numbers I said up there and divide them by 6. A model for every star in the universe, and it would only take 20 zettabytes.





  • I mean, in LEO they kinda do. The majority of our satellites are in low orbit, and require regular boosts to stay in orbit. Atmospheric drag is still a problem out to thousands of miles. Also, I can’t stress this enough, space is bigger than you think, and satellites are tiny. There is only a risk of collision at the point where two orbits intersect, if both satellites are at that point at the same time. Maybe if you have 12,000 satellites all orbiting at the exact same altitude with different inclinations, it could be an issue for those satellites. I’m not convinced that it’s ever going to be a barrier to space travel.




  • The reason athletic sports are segregated by gender is because physically, cis men vastly outperform cis women. Like, if we got rid of gender divisions altogether, cis men would be the only ones competing. I think it’s unfair to both cis and transgender female athletes to effectively bar them from competitions altogether.

    For nonathletic sports, it’s more complicated. In chess, for example, the best female chess player in history is the 64th best chess player overall. The second best woman doesn’t break the top 140. I assume this is because of historical discrimination against women in the chess community leading to them being underrepresented at the top. Having women’s divisions is good because it encourages women to play.

    To be clear, trans women are women, so it only makes sense to have them compete against other women.