Invidious: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=VOORiyip4_c

YouTube: https://youtu.be/VOORiyip4_c

The video talks about a new paper in a techniqe to eliminate clipping of vectors. The only problem is, it is extremely computational expensive. I compare this to RayTracing, which will be viable in the future only if all the tools implement it. I assume the hardware chips that support RayTracing could be used for this new technology too, but that is just my personal assumption here.

I left the original title of the video, as it would be editorial otherwise.

Video description (only relevant parts):


📝Paper: drive.google.com/file/d/1OrOKJH_im1L4j1cJB18sfvNHEbZVSqjL/view Code and examples are available here: github.com/st-tech/ppf-contact-solver Guide on how to try it: drive.google.com/file/d/1n068Ai_hlfgapf2xkAutOHo3PkLpJXA4/view

Sources: youtube.com/watch?v=5GDIoshj9Rw youtube.com/watch?v=X53VuYLP0VY youtube.com/shorts/x0WjJgotCXU youtube.com/watch?v=Qu4Of18Kf2M

📝 My paper on simulations that look almost like reality is available for free here: rdcu.be/cWPfD

Or this is the orig. Nature Physics link with clickable citations: nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01788-5

  • gerryflap@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Two minute papers has really gone down the drain. Or my perspective changed. I used to love the channel, but it got increasingly clickbaity and shallow. Rather than explaining the contents of the papers the videos became hype talks that made it all sounds way more impressive and revolutionairy than it was.

    • thingsiplay@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I’m not much familiar with this channel. It’s really a shame, because the content itself is interesting and he does actually a good job visualizing it in simple terms. I use plugins that replaces clickbait titles with community suggestions on YouTube.