The classic “use cutlery from the outside-in” still holds, but I realised there’s a little more to it than that. And I learned what a charger is. Amalgamation of tips from the cookbook I use most, the Joy of Cooking.…The classic “use cutlery from the outside-in” still holds, but I realised there’s a little more to it than that. And I learned what a charger is. Amalgamation of tips from the cookbook I use most, the Joy of Cooking.WWW…
Usually the layers are just out of synch and taking the top layer over the top will put all back in order. Randomly, I remember seeing this explained on a kids TV show possibly decades ago.…Usually the layers are just out of synch and taking the top layer over the top will put all back in order. Randomly, I remember seeing this explained on a kids TV show possibly decades ago.WWW…
Unless you were a maths, physics or Greek major, chances are your knowledge, like mine, may not have gone much farther than epsilon. I like how the letter names and shapes map or don’t to the Roman or Latin alphabet.…Unless you were a maths, physics or Greek major, chances are your knowledge, like mine, may not have gone much farther than epsilon. I like how the letter names and shapes map or don’t to the Roman or Latin alphabet.WWW…
A remarkably common pattern for the evolution of many things. You see it all the time in the evolution of technical things, but also many systems in general. When you start to reach the top of the limits of what one system can do you’ll start to see a focus on efficiency, cost reduction and small improvements and optimisation. This is great because it forces a new creative solution to arise in order to make any real progress. An image search gives a few examples. Also see: The long nose of innovation designing for adoption understanding the chasm…A remarkably common pattern for the evolution of many things. You see it all the time in the evolution of technical things, but also many systems in general. When you start to reach the top of the limits of what one system can do you’ll start to see a focus on efficiency, cost reduction and small improvements and optimisation. This is great because it forces a new creative solution to arise in order to make any real progress. An image search gives a few examples. Also see: The long nose of innovation designing for adoption understanding the chasmWWW…
There’s a famous photo series by Eadweard Muybridge that shows, unequivocally, that while galloping, all four of a horse’s legs leave the ground. I’d always heard that’s what they were trying to find out at the time, but from what I’ve read, it was more a question of at what points a horse’s legs leave the ground. The photos show the somewhat surprising state of leaving the ground while the horse’s legs are tucked, not when they are outstretched. It’s a lovely example of what Edward Tufte calls small multiples.…There’s a famous photo series by Eadweard Muybridge that shows, unequivocally, that while galloping, all four of a horse’s legs leave the ground. I’d always heard that’s what they were trying to find out at the time, but from what I’ve read, it was more a question of at what points a horse’s legs leave the ground. The photos show the somewhat surprising state of leaving the ground while the horse’s legs are tucked, not when they are outstretched. It’s a lovely example of what Edward Tufte calls small multiples.WWW…
A 2.5D shape is three-dimensional, but the use of the third dimension, usually height, is limited to simple top-down operations. I learned about 2.5D, or two and a half dimensions, from my engineering days. It turns out it’s really quite common to make 2.5D things because, for example, it’s easy to drill or mill down into something, and it's a pain to turn something on its side and drill from the other side. Or, as with vacuum forming, it’s easy to suck plastic onto a mold but a pain to get it off if you’ve got any overhangs as you can’t lift it straight up again. Hence, the plastic sandpit in our garden is a 2.5D object rather than true 3D. As we become more sophisticated at making things, more objects will be true 3D rather than 2.5D. But the simple two-and-a-half-dimensional option is still generally cheaper and easier and will not disappear soon. Civilization, in general, looks rather 2.5D from the air as we tend to build upwards, but we don’t find overhangs that easy or practical, thanks also to gravity, e.g., the Pyramids. I recorded a video of the drawing of this sketch. Watch making a sketchplanation—2.5D Also see: Orthographic projection Isometric projection One-point perspective Two-point perspective Three-point perspective…A 2.5D shape is three-dimensional, but the use of the third dimension, usually height, is limited to simple top-down operations. I learned about 2.5D, or two and a half dimensions, from my engineering days. It turns out it’s really quite common to make 2.5D things because, for example, it’s easy to drill or mill down into something, and it's a pain to turn something on its side and drill from the other side. Or, as with vacuum forming, it’s easy to suck plastic onto a mold but a pain to get it off if you’ve got any overhangs as you can’t lift it straight up again. Hence, the plastic sandpit in our garden is a 2.5D object rather than true 3D. As we become more sophisticated at making things, more objects will be true 3D rather than 2.5D. But the simple two-and-a-half-dimensional option is still generally cheaper and easier and will not disappear soon. Civilization, in general, looks rather 2.5D from the air as we tend to build upwards, but we don’t find overhangs that easy or practical, thanks also to gravity, e.g., the Pyramids. I recorded a video of the drawing of this sketch. Watch making a sketchplanation—2.5D Also see: Orthographic projection Isometric projection One-point perspective Two-point perspective Three-point perspectiveWWW…
