seems to rotate around a central point is
No. These are different things. One’s an illusion. One’s real.
seems to rotate around a central point is
No. These are different things. One’s an illusion. One’s real.
You’re right. It’s just cheap junk, boring and drab.
so I skimmed
Okay.
It looks like a twist because it does a twist.
No, it’s an illusion at scale. You almost say so yourself in your next sentence.
There’s no angle where you realize the windows don’t actually change planes.
Discreet flat planes constitute an illusion of a curve at scale. There are no curved components. They used offsets and angles in the outer layer. All the windows are flat planes. You can see the rectangles yourself just as you can see the triangles in a geodesic structure’s approximation of a complex curve.
A modern true curve is still often made from wood. If there’s money it’s laminated I-beam. But, curving or twisting structural steel is breaking all sorts of cardinal rules. Assuming safety is valued, cost rises exponentially from construction through build out and into maintenance and repair. An exception is large ships. That’s why they’re so expensive.
It’s very obvious you’re now trying to make a point
An artist and an engineer were given a modest budget and found a way to ask an obvious question to which the is answer is: It depends upon the perspective each of us chooses.
If you look closely you can see the flat planes and angles. There are no curves. You can see the truth of it yourself. It’s right there.
They’re obviously some intelligent people to be designing such things at all. Imagine how many times they’ve been talking about some subject or another and said, “Hey, friend, if you look more closely you can see (whatever truth) for yourself.”
Then the other person says, “It twists.”
Amazing piece of art, huh?
I’m “on about” the quality of communication that defines humans from the other animals, which has been in a nosedive for a quarter century, which is now so heavily corrupted it’s leading us to our doom.
What are you on about? Minimization and what else?
So, it’s an illusion made out of entirely untwisted components. Imagine that.
It’s truthful. I cared enough to tell them.
Neither is publicly traded. Neither of us know the numbers.
Does Steam make money on hosting indie games?
How does one research such a question?
I don’t need answers. I had them before I made my second post above.
Good luck to you.
Hijacking a phone connection like that is fucking HARD
Man in the middle at the demark, flower pot, or ped. It’s “clipboard and safety vest” easy until underground or past the mux.
At the time of your post at least 38 people were too stupid to get it. But, you’ve a few brain cells to rub together. Now, pickup The Conquest of Bread. If you’ve questions about the reading feel free to PM me.
That’s my roots. Maybe that’s why it appeals to me.
Wow. I’ve never before seen a comment history so devoid of content and with so little care for presentation that it was reasonable to no longer want to see their posts.
deleted by creator
Clear, concise, and with respect. That seems exceptional for a modern parent.
Yeah, it’s funny. But, OP, please tell him he’s awesome for me.
It’s a cut into the exterior that creates an illusion, leaving the core intact. If it was anything different then it’d not be standing.
I know enough about aerodynamics to speak generally about typical designs. But, this isn’t a typical design. Insight needs an aero engineer with some experience.
I think the architecture is really cool because it looks like a twist at first glance, but isn’t.
That’s what we do with trash. But, some of the bits down at the bottom seem like they can be recycled.
Karlatornet (lit. ‘The Karla Tower’, initially called Polstjärnan) is a skyscraper under construction by Serneke in Lindholmen in Gothenburg, Sweden.
I’m way ahead of you. I don’t vote for politicians that accept corporate money, be it foreign or domestic.
It’s the before times, analog days, and the Internet was in it’s infancy. Stephan Hawking, a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author, said the following:
Computers have been very effective applied to vehicles. In my life I’ve seen the advent of the aluminum block, anti-lock brakes and stability control, variable ignition and valve timing, more aerodynamic body, paddle shift and continuously variable transmissions, drive by wire, now even hybrid and electric drives. This has allowed leaps forward in safety, efficiency, and performance.
Then, we enshitified. Today there’s barely choice in the vehicle market. Toyota/Honda; Hyundai/Kia; Ford/Chevy/Chrysler and a trim package defines everything but trucks. 1/2 ton trucks as symbols of identity break repeatedly if regularly used for payload and towing. “Choice” is a 1/4 Ranger, 1/2 Chevy diesel, or 3/4 Ford/Chevy/Ram. They didn’t make the first two for decades, still scarce and expensive for what they are. And, for all vehicles one now often needs to remove inaccessible bolts in tight spaces, for several parts, to get to the part that’s broken.
Profit optimization through technology is why there’s little choice in vehicles; Why you can envision a Walmart and Lowes strip mall and every American knows exactly what it looks like and where the closest couple copies are; Why we can’t replace phone batteries and screens. An out-of-the-box idea from AI that’s also conveniently practical for humans will probably cure cancer. AI is also what’s analyzing all the data being collected, just as inhumanely. The vehicle manufacturers want their cut.
Did Herbert envision that the spice of prescience was computational cycles?