Leaderboard

TIL how to "chain" animations together in Blender. Just to explain bit:. When you animate, there are times when certain actions, ( like walking) is a simple repetition of the same motions. And rather than have to manually assign these motions over and over again, Blender allow you to automatically cycle them. So once you've animated a particular set of motions, you can have Blender just repeat them over and over again. So example, left foot forward, then right foot forward, left foot forward... The problem is that unless you tell Blender to stop, your character will just keep walking forward forever. And if you do put a limit on how many times to cycle the animation, After it hits the limit, everything jumps back to the beginning. What if you want the character to stop walking across the floor and begin to climb some stairs? You just can't add a new set of motions, as Blender treats them as part of the original cycle. (instead of walk forward 10 steps, then start the stair climbing cycle, you get: Take two steps forward, then climb two steps, take two steps forward... ) This bothered me for quite a while. There are way to get around this but they can be tedious, And I knew there should be an easier way. Today I found it, and its been there all along. It turns out that there is a editor you can open that will turn any animation sequence into an "Action". So you can take your "walk 10 steps forward" and convert it to an action in this editor. Then, when you go back to the animation editor, you are back to a "clean slate". While all your objects are still there, all the motions you gave them are gone, and they are where they would be at the end of the the action. In other words, if you had your character walk forward 10 steps, it will be where it would have ended up after doing so. You can now assign it an animation set (climbing steps, for example) using the same cycling trick as before. This can then be converted into an action and appended to the end of the previous action. Repeat as needed. Here is a simple example: The first action is a descending stairs animation cycled until it reached the floor, then an action to bring the trailing leg to floor level, then a repeated forward walking forward cycle action, an action to lift one leg onto the first step, and lastly a repeated stair climbing cycle. It may not look like much, but learning how to do this opened up a whole new world of animation possibilities for me. (BTW, the color pattern on the floor is due to optimizing the animation file to make it as small as possible.)

I think you can take your racist, ignorant ass elsewhere.

You're not the first to miss what an infinity of decimal places is doing here. Search for discussions on 0.999... = 1 Math says 'yes', a few individuals argue 'no'. I'm not going to get into it further here, just to note that reinventing math itself is not a good way to introduce a new symbol.

Too late. He’s already declared a federal hiring freeze, which impacts the VA, though some democrats in the senate are trying to have the VA exempted https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-23-Letter-to-POTUS-on-VA-hiring-freeze.pdf Because Biden took them away?

9.999... does equal 10. 0.0...1 is meaningless (except maybe in the esoteric infinitesimals) as you cannot stick a 1 after infinite zeroes. (I'm using "..." as the more common way to represent your "(n recurring)".)

You CAN'T be that obtuse, I refuse to believe anyone can! "I love the poorly educated!" -- TFG

! Moderator Note We don't discuss creationism here. It's been shown that it's a waste of time. All of these points have been refuted over and over again. Don't bring this up again, anywhere on this site. You've already wasted SO much time you could have spent studying science instead of criticizing from ignorance.

Maybe people on a science discussion board would rather discuss…science? As opposed to getting exhausted talking about things probably meant to exhaust us.

Government by trolling

Maybe others have said enough, but I want to suggest that this kind of equivocation is removing clarity and precision from your postings here. Actual thought, aka cognition, is an emergent process in large networks of neurons, which opens up to holistic descriptions. This doesn't mean there are tiny thought processes in individual cells, or that cells have the same causal powers (in miniature) that sentient creatures do. This opens a trapdoor into panpsychism and metaphysical conjectures that are untestable pseudoscience. Remember, when a biologist uses a word like "communication" to refer to chemical interactions between organelles or between cells, it is a specialized usage that does not imply anything akin somewhat to thought . Or when a biochemist speaks of a reaction, it is no way like a person reacting to shocking news. Different functional levels may use the same nomenclature, but the terms refer in very different ways.

During my vacation I learned, among other things, that Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle can be seen as a formalization of Occam's Razor in the context of statistical modelling and data analysis. Thanks @joigus for sharing this that triggered my curiosity: I had some practical experience from related areas such as data compression and communication. But I did not know much about the science that formalize and quantify intuitive but vague concepts (for instance complexity, simplicity, randomness of individual objects) and hence allows one to talk about them in a rigorous way.

And being omnipotent, when he created me, he KNEW that in 100 years he was going to cast me into hell. What a dick. If god were moral he would not create me in the first place as he knew I would be damned to hell when I died.

i learned from the newest member of the Vat household that five week old kittens will eat unscented cat litter, even when high quality food is available. (the mom cat's human had a baby last night and, due to circumstances, the adoption we were going to do at 7-8 weeks was moved up; fortunately the weaning process was well underway, so the litter snack didn't displace dinner too much)

If you’re new to interpolation or curve fitting, a great way to get started is by using online curve fitting tool https://splinecloud.com/features/curve-fitting/. It allows you to input your data points and experiment with fitting custom equations

A reasonably in-depth search has uncovered several significant challenges to the theory of abiogenesis: Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is no definitive proof showing the exact transition from non-living matter to life, making it difficult to understand how life emerged. Complexity of Simple Organisms: Even the simplest living organisms exhibit high levels of complexity, with intricate biochemical networks, raising questions about how such organisms could have spontaneously arisen from disordered molecules. Formation of Complex Molecules: Life depends on complex molecules like proteins, DNA, and RNA, but the process by which these intricate structures could have formed from simpler molecules under early Earth conditions remains unclear. The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: DNA needs proteins to function, while proteins are made using DNA, creating a paradox: which came first, and how did they become interdependent? Hostile Early Earth Conditions: Early Earth was characterized by intense volcanic activity, high levels of ultraviolet radiation, and extreme temperatures, which may have impeded the delicate chemical processes necessary for life to form. Instability of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules are inherently unstable and prone to degradation, making it unclear how they could have formed and maintained self-replication and selective permeability. The Mystery of Chirality: Life relies on molecules with a specific "handedness" (chirality), but the origin of this uniformity remains a mystery, raising questions about how this property arose naturally. Limitations of Theories: The RNA World Hypothesis and Panspermia attempt to explain the origins of life, but both have significant challenges and uncertainties, making it difficult to determine their validity. The RNA World Hypothesis: This theory proposes that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules, but it's unclear how these molecules formed and started replicating without help from existing enzymes or machinery. Self-Replication and Evolution: Creating a system capable of true self-replication and evolution remains an unsolved challenge, and it's unclear how life could have emerged and evolved without this ability. Experimental Limitations: Accurately simulating early Earth's conditions in a lab is a major challenge, making it difficult to test hypotheses and understand the origins of life. In summary, the primary issue with abiogenesis is the absence of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of complex life forms from simple molecules. This challenge, often referred to as the "origin of complexity" problem, remains a major obstacle in understanding how life originated on Earth. While this and other stated challenges do not necessarily disprove abiogenesis, they do prompt further scrutiny and make it increasingly reasonable to ask whether we might be overlooking a crucial piece of the puzzle in our quest to explain the origin of life.

I’ll say it again—there’s no magic, and likely no deity involved. But looking beyond the obvious, exploring new possibilities, is at the heart of good science.

Respectfully, my position—and the points I’ve raised—have no connection to creationism. These points are based on a general consensus provided by those aware of or studying abiogenesis. None of it is creationism. You’re right. I think that I should have used the term "model" instead. Nonetheless, they are still challenges to abiogenesis. My intention was to list the issues, not to imply they are insurmountable. I even mentioned that they don’t disprove abiogenesis. As I mentioned earlier, all of the points have nothing to do with creationism, just chalenges noted in the field of abiogenesis. I’m not trying to lecture anyone about good science; science is good. I’m simply trying to have a constructive discussion about potential issues in science. It is happening! Those in quantum biology and proponents of the holographic principle are actually doing this.

Before deciding if a discussion is pointless, there actually needs to be a discussion in the first place—which isn’t happening right now.

Harris was a threat to my guns I was told. Trump is also protecting the southern border against those evil cartels. Those wetbacks have come into America to murder children. The VA has the MISSION Act so that Vets can choose private healthcare providers in the community to be paid for by the VA.

I don’t care what Trump did when he was kid but what he is doing now. I’m not sure if he so sexist he believes women have no right to get government job and most of all his appointees are all men.

So why are other forums talking about this? What lies ? Trump made it very clear who he is and one that is he hates the liberals and every thing they are doing or have done. Trump is center of the room of attention that who he is. If Biden remove the 14 the Amendment Trump will probably bring it back. Why because trump hates the liberals. The liberals also not into tariffs but he is and he knows that make liberals skin craw. Trump hates illegal immigration so oblivious he is going to remove citizenship to kids born in the US by illegal immigration. Be it morally sound is other topic.