Will it not get all bunched up near the poles though? and maybe have seam where the ends of the tiles meet?
edit: Perlin noise and similar noise functions can be sampled in 3d which sorta fixes the issues i mention , and higher dimensions but i am not sure how that would be used.
Yes, you can use a 3d Perlin noise field and sample it on the surface of the sphere, to get seamless texture without any anomalies at the poles or projection distortion. That applies to any 3d shape, not just spheres -- it's like carving a solid block of marble. And use 4d Perlin noise to animate it!
It's easy to add any number of dimensions to Perlin noise to control any other parameters (like generating rocks or plants, or modulating biomes and properties like moisture across the surface of the planet, etc).
Each dimension has its own scale, rotation, and intensity (a transform into texture space), and for any dimension you typically combine multiple harmonics and amplitudes of Perlin noise to generate textures with different scales of detail.
The art is picking and tuning those scales and intensities -- you'd want grass density to vary faster than moisture, but larger moist regions to have more grass, dry regions are grassless, etc.
I've thought about this before, and I think there is some way you could find to do it. For example, you could generate on the mercator projection of the world, and then un-project. But the mercator distorts horizontal length approaching the poles. I think it would be complex to implement, but you could use larger windows closer to the poles to negate this.
You're still going to run into problems with mercator because under mercator the poles project to infinity, so you'd need an infinitely large texture or you special-case the poles. Many renderers do this so it is viable!
There isn't a zero tradeoff 2D solution, it's all just variations on the "squaring the circle" problem. An octahedral projection would be a lot better as there are no singularities and no infinities, but you still have non linear distortion. Real-time rendering with such a height map would still be a challenge as an octahedral projection relies on texture sampler wrapping modes, however for any real world dataset you can't make a hardware texture big enough (even virtual) to sample from. You'd have to do software texture sampling.
I worked on something very similar for my master's degree.
The problem I could never solve was the speed, and from reading the paper it doesn't seem like they managed to solve that either.
In the end, for my work, and I expect for this work, it is only usable for pre generated terrains and in that case you are up against very mature ecosystems with a lot of tooling to manipulate and control terrain generation.
It'll be interesting to see of the authors follow up this paper with research into even stronger ability to condition and control terrain outputs.
I came here to say this. My masters was on procedural generation. Perlin, fBm, etc. The things these noise functions have that an LLM doesn’t is speed. 1-D perlin is just a dozen or so multiplications with a couple random coefficients. The GPU can do 4-D Perlin all day long every frame taking up a 4096x4096x32 texture volume.
While I do like the erosion effects and all, having a few height texture brushes that have those features that you can multiply on the GPU is trivial. I still welcome these new approaches but like you said, it’s best for pre generation.
My masters was also on procedural generation. Now I wonder how many of us are out there.
At any rate, given that this paper divides the terrain in regions and apparently seeds each region deterministically, it looks like one could implement a look-ahead that spawns the generation on async compute in Vulkan and lets it cook as the camera flies about.
I think it's catnip for programmers, myself included. (See also: boids, path traced renderers, fluid simulations, old fashioned "generative"/plotter art, etc. - stuff with cool visual output)
Boids, Game of Life, Genetic Algorithms, Pixel Shaders...
All so satisfying to play with.
One of my favorites was when I was sure I was right about the Monty Hall problem, so I decided to write a simulator, and my fingers typed the code... and then my brain had to read it, and realize I was wrong. It was hilarious. I knew how to code the solution better than I could reason about it. I didn't even need to run the program.
Which is what a sane terrain system would do. Just beyond the far plane you would load/gen the tile/chunk and as you got closer, increase the resolution/tessalation/etc. (or you start with high and each level away you skip vertices with a wider index march for a lower lod).
In any case, like I said, I welcome any new advances in this area. Overhang being the biggest issue with procedural gen quad terrain. Voxel doesn’t have that issue but then suffers from lack of fine detail.
There are still some features that a miss from Google photos. There isn't any way (that I know of) to auto add pictures to an album based on the face. I used to have dedicated albums for family members, and it was nice to have the auto updated.
Face recognition in general just isn't as good as Google Photos.
It's still an amazing piece of software and I'd never go back, but it isn't perfect yet.
Are we using the same Google Photos? I've found Immich face recognition and context/object search to be miles better than Google Photos. In particular, Google Photos is exceptionally bad at distinguishing non-European looking faces (though it's not great in general), and it completely gave up on updating / scanning new photos in 2024 after I imported party photos with a lot of different people.
Almost all my Google Photos "people" are mix-and-matched similar looking faces, so it's borderline useless. Immich isn't perfect, but it gives me the control to rerun face recognition and reassign faces when I want, even on my ancient GTX 1060.
My google photos doesn't even seem to support facial recognition, maybe I turned it off somehow at some point, but it doesn't seem like google photos supports manually selecting a face (a face that isn't detected), which is something I use a ton with Immich, it is very convenient, even if a bit tedious if going through a backlog.
Annoyingly you can't create a person that way yet with immich, but that's where digikam helps.
Immich manages to detect my kids faces much better than expected. I only have two years, but it is spot on with kid #1 from newborn to 2yo, and it manages to not mix up the new baby photos of #2 with the baby photos of #1.
In my 44k photos there are zero statues face detected, the only flukes are a few photos from a restaurant with a celebrity picture wall.
Diffusion LMs do seem to be able to get more out of the same data. In a world where we are already training transformer based LLMs on all text available, diffusion LMs ability to continue learning on a fixed set of data may be able to outperform transformers
Also, not all of the admin overhead would disappear if we got rid of means testing. I don't have the expertise to come up with a specific number, but I'd wager that getting half the admin costs back would be the absolute best case. I still support simplifying means testing for benefits programs, but not because it's going to magically free up a consequential amount of money.
> Also, not all of the admin overhead would disappear if we got rid of means testing.
Exactly. The same conversation happens with discussion about eliminating private health insurance: Other countries with nationalized health care still have their own overhead. It's less than the overhead of a private healthcare system, but not by as much as everyone assumes. You could completely eliminate the overhead of private health insurance in the United States and it would only change the situation by a couple percent, though most people assume it would be much, much more.
Precisely, people on the left wildly overestimate the admin overhead while people on the right wildly overestimate the fraud.
In the end, we have a gradually increasing idea of what the "basics" are which we should provide the poor / the elderly / everyone, and a decreasing working-to-retired ratio.
That is - the spend side is increasing faster than the income side. Europe is about 10 years ahead of us on this problem, but we are catching up fast.
I think the other problem with UBI, besides the fact that we can't afford it .. is that its probably actually bad for society.
Many problems come from an increasing lack of purpose in society. Getting paid to do nothing will not solve that for probably 99% of the population. Lots of idle time for lots of bored people is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
UBI isn’t “getting paid to do nothing”, it is “removing rapid clawback from means-tested welfare so that there isn’t a significant range in the working poor to middle income range where additional outside income as reduced impact because it is offset by welfare clawbacks.”
Mechanically the other problem would seem to be, if you listen to someone like Gary Stevenson, that it only works if you ratchet up taxes on the top end.
Otherwise broad flat cash distribution from the government generally causes inflation and all the money ends up workings its way up to the wealthier. So if you do not tax it back, it actually ends up being regressive.
The mechanism is something like - the poorer you are, the higher % of your income, by necessity goes to spending on basic needs. You have a zero or negative savings rate. The richer you are, the opposite. You have savings you put into income producing assets (stocks which are fractional ownership in companies, real estate, etc).
So if everyone gets $25k/year, the bottom end will spend it all on goods & services (food, clothing, rent) that are owned/produced by the wealthy. And it compounds as the wealthier then are able to buy more and more income producing assets from the middle class.
> Mechanically the other problem would seem to be, if you listen to someone like Gary Stevenson, that it only works if you ratchet up taxes on the top end.
That’s not what I'd call a problem (its part of most concrete UBI proposals), but, yes, whether you look at it through a classic fiscal lens or a macroeconomic impact lens, you have to raise taxes concurrently if the UBI is significantly greater in aggregate payments than the means tested welfare it replaced (which it must be to maintain the same base benefit level, and many proposals would increase the base benefit level), and any sensible implementation will do it progressively starting somewhwere above the middle of the income distribution.
Its actually simpler on both an initial and, even moreso, ongoing basis to eliminate multiple means tested programs and replace them with a single UBI with clawback through progressive taxes than to adjust the numbers in all of them in a way which has the same effect and then administer that on an ongoing basis througn the separate bureaucracy attached to each program. (Especially since the UBI itself, as well as the clawback, can be built into the tax system simply by “adjusting the numbers” in that system. Which is why “negative income tax” is a name under which a policy identical to UBI+tax financing has been proposed.
Negative income tax is probably a more straightforward to implement this.
Explaining to middle class people that they are going to get $20K UBI but their taxes are going up $18K isn't going to go well.
Remember whenever you setup a "good" government program thats dependent on 1-2 other "bad" government programs in unison (UBI + progressive tax increases) then the risk is future admins remove the medicine but keep the candy. Then the whole thing becomes unaffordable and the good program gets wound down.
Or you end up with crazy stuff like the UK triple lock pensions.
Two mitigations would be gradual adjustments, and a willingness to delay reductions a bit.
People shouldn't be sweating bullets about help being pulled prematurely as a direct result of trying to get past the need for it. Or have the marginal impact of increasing their earned income actually reduce total help+income.
I know somebody in an extremely bad health situation, and dealing with both of those perverse issues. Attempting employment would carry a lot risk. And with kids to be cared for, playing roulette in an already challenging situation is a real barrier. (In this case, it isn't government help, but a situation with similar logic.)
A large number for sure, and completely agree likely too much.
However that's against a projected total spend of $6 trillion in 2027, so 13% accounting for all profit for every level in the medical system (insurers, providers, pharma, medical equipment, etc) .
If you were to wipe that to 0, maybe medical costs go down 13% in US. I don't think US is seen as obscenely expensive and bad value (outcomes per spend) because of a 13% difference.
For example per capita medical spending is 2.3x higher in US than UK, so wiping out all profit will bring us to.. about 2x UK costs.
It's a deeper structural problem of utilization (lifestyles, behavioral), high labor costs (AMA cartel), incentives (pay for treatment not outcomes), etc.
This exactly. For parents it is not a choice, you absolutely must have a parent sitting by a young child. The effect of not automatically putting parent and children next to each other would just be making tickets more expensive for parents.
Playing devil's advocate here, as a parent this sounds great! Have your young children sit next to a couple strangers a few rows away: now you get some peace and quiet while other people have to deal with their seat-kicking, drink-spilling, whining, crying, bathroom trips, diaper changes, requests for entertainment, etc.
You know this is going to happen too: there are going to be some subset of parents that are not going to pay extra and will just choose to let the airline make their kids some complete stranger's problem. Hope the general public enjoys it.
And? They are your kids. Why should someone who has paid to reserve their seat have to move because you were to cheap to pay to choose your seat.
Also see, I’m not going to work extra hours because a parent can’t work late. Just because I have grown children doesn’t mean that I don’t have a life outside of work.
Ah yes I love modern society "they're your kids" until every busybody on earth calls CPS or police at the first sign of doing something they disapprove (happened to me because I shit you not, my kid is a different race and that was 'suspicious' to be a kidnapping -- thanks FOIA for the bodycam revealing that bullshit).
Or when it comes time to tax the shit out of the grown kid made possible by the massive time and money investment made by the parents, the lion's share of the total. "No no no, that was society's investment -- now they owe us those taxes as part the social contract!"
When it comes time to do the gangster shit it's all on the parent, but when it comes time to reap the benefits suddenly "we're a society."
Haha, it's very true. Everyone is an individualist when it comes to paying for kids but when it comes to social security, we should raise that to high heaven so that the current kids will be slaves to the geriatric majority.
"I don't mind paying more money in taxes" they always say, knowing full well that the majority of the incidence is on the next generation.
There is a huge difference between funding education, health care etc which I’m all for paying taxes for and subsidizing your flight.
And if you expect me to defend the police or Karyns about anything, let’s just say I grew up on NWA and “F%%% the police” and my mom constantly told me that don’t think because my White friends could get away with minor criminal mischief that I could.
Well actually she said “don’t let your little white friends get you in trouble”. But close enough.
If you want to deregulate airlines you have no complaint from me. I couldn't give a shit if there's anti-kid airline who's advertising message is "Fuck dem kids."
If you're talking about a private company choosing who to subsidize once government regulations are removed, then I don't see how you have room to complain. It's not like taxes. You can charter a flight or rent a cessna to pilot if you don't agree to the private terms of carriage of anyone offering tickets.
Taxes are way worse because a guy with a gun can show up and put anyone who disagrees with the majority's idea of charity or subsidy into a tiny cage; if you disagree you can't even escape it by leaving the country because the USA has worldwide taxation. I would classify private flight subsidization as a much more ethical, moral, and wildly less violent regime than taxing people for the healthcare of others.
I personally have no problem with the current state of affairs or with the state of affairs that the airlines are proposing. I fly Delta, I don’t buy the cheapest ticket so I can cancel a flight up to the time the flight is scheduled and get a credit.
From the little I do fly other airlines, only the cheapest fares don’t at least give you credits for cancelled flights.
Every airline has a credit card that gives you free luggage where the annual fee is cheaper than the baggage fee for a couple flying round trip.
My wife and I also have status with Delta (Platinum Medallion), lounge access, TSA PreCheck, Clear etc so we can do our best to not deal with families and once a year vacationers. We live in Orlando now.
But if I did have small kids. I would definitely pay for reserve seatings.
Don't want to play the devils advocate... but if you _must_ sit next to a person in need... you have to reserve the seats. Doesn't matter if it's a child, a dependent parent or a colleague that you need to run through an upcoming presentation with.
Currently, it's just the case that parents get a discount on the seat reservation fee.
With the current implementation exposed to the end customer, yes, that's required. Reserving specific seats isn't fundamental to the constraint that some people want to sit together.
Plus, the current reservation system is predatory in its own right. When booking you're dumped into a page strongly suggesting you must choose a seat, and all available options cost more than the base ticket.
Well, any half decent operator will put you next to each other and the other half at least lets you select seats during the check-in process. If that 90% certainty is not enough for you... just reserve the seats. Yes, it'll cost money, because otherwise there won't be any seats to reserve as anyone will do it.
Honestly I would be happy if the 5x the price, and I'm a parent. I hate flying with a kid and it would let me convince the wife to drive or take a boat the next time.
I basically only fly with a kid because everyone else is willing to subsidize the massive externality I impose on them.
The nature of Chinese censorship makes it difficult to provide hard numbers, but it really is worse. America's handling of censorship is certainly not the best, and it has gotten worse recently, but it is not on the level of China.
At least the Chinese have the courtesy to be obvious about it. The American and European powers pretend we’re free and open societies while actively undermining public speech that it doesn’t like.
Your links (at least the ones I could translate) seem to describe a system very similar to a Credit Score like you have in Western economies. At least it seems very different from the propagandized version of a score that tracks your every action and determines "how good of a citizen are you".
You're completely right, it is very similar to the western style credit score, and is often either accidentally or deliberately misrepresented. That being said, it covers behaviors not covered by western credit scores that does have elements of tracking "how good of a citizen are you".
I think this article from Beijing University does a great job of highlighting some of the issues.
I agree that the American understanding of the Social Credit System is flawed, but to suggest it doesn't exist is an extreme overreach.
Furthermore, it clearly is a system that is important to the CCP and has an effect.
From the Baidu page:
建立社会信用体系是保持国民经济持续、稳定增长的需要
Establishing a social credit system is necessary to maintain sustained and stable growth of the national economy
Certainly Mainland China does need a credit system, and undoubtedly the Social Credit System will and has helped in that regard, but it does have legitimate flaws with regards to privacy.
Its goals extend beyond ensuring creditworthiness to
社会信用体系具有揭示功能，能够扬善惩恶，提高经济效率；
The social credit system has a revealing function, can promote good and punish evil, and improve economic efficiency;
And its integration with the National Healthcare Security Administration, and other government and private entities extend its reach far beyond what the Western credit systems do.
there's a paper that compares both when it comes to promoting organized political action (which is the only type of censorship that is not morally justifiable under any semblance of democracy) and both countries scored the same low points.
both got high passing grades on allowing meaningless complaining about government.
Here is a list of items that matter for an American. It is much worse if you are from Hong Kong or Taiwan.
1. Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter (basically all major American social media platforms) are not accessible without a VPN. Some major VPN providers have also been banned as well. The counter argument is that many Huawei products are also banned. But I actively use Harmony OS on my Huawei smart watch. I can view Bilibili content, XiaoHongShu, QQ, and other platforms on any device without issue.
2. State media propaganda. My first time seeing state movies was shocking how in your face the propaganda was. It is completely blatant. From talking with locals about it, they recognize it as propaganda (although the Chinese word for propaganda doesn't have the same negative connotation as in English). I haven't watched state sponsored news to get a feel for their bias, but from the amount I have seen they are certainly selectively with their content. Everything focuses and the achievements Xi JinPing has recently achieved. The idea of a media outlet reporting on something silly the president has done is absurd.
3. The surveillance infrastructure in China surpasses even the UK. The number of cameras almost looks like a gag. Once again, the nature of how opaque the government is means it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty what they use the data for, but they certainly collect a lot.
How would you respond to the critique that it makes that tax associated with a property dependent on the improvements to adjacent properties? I could see a situation where a single family home owner would deliberately oppose improvements (i.e. parks/bike lanes), because their derived utility from those improvements is less than the potential increase in taxes.
I would say that this is largely a feature not a bug :)
Let's look at what the author said about this:
> For instance, if a developer owns multiple adjacent parcels and decides to build housing or infrastructure on one of them, the value of the undeveloped parcels will rise due to their proximity to the improvements. As a result, the developer faces higher taxes on the remaining undeveloped land, making development less financially appealing in the first place.
> This creates a counterproductive dynamic: developers may hesitate to improve their land or invest in new projects because they know that any improvements will increase their tax burden on adjacent parcels.
This is exactly correct analysis, but this is good not bad! LVT is preventing hoarding land during development. Of course someone who acts according to the old system's incentives will lose in that model!
First, let's talk about why the existing model is bad though: right now, developers make a huge part of their money not directly from actually building, but from the increase in the land value that happens during construction. This means that developers need to acquire huge sections of land and then only build one house at a time. This is insanely inefficient! It literally prevents anyone else from building in parallel or at lower cost! There is zero competition!
In a world with LVT, a developer would be incentivized to acquire and start work in smaller increments, leaving the door open top more competition and for more companies to enter the space - lowering costs and increasing the speed of construction.
Under an LVT, almost all of the value of the surrounding improvements would be considered part of your land value, since even an empty lot in their vicinity would benefit from the surrounding improvements. Thus, a 100% LVT would capture 100% of the value someone might gain from the presence of those surrounding improvements. In the worst case, you personally benefit far less from those improvements than a typical renter would (e.g., bike lanes if you don't own a bike), so their presence is a net negative to you.
That's why income taxes are less than 100%. But some people advocate for a 100% LVT very seriously.
A) that's an argument against a 100% LVT, not against LVT. Some people (communists) also advocate very seriously for what is effectively a 100% income tax. That doesn't provide a good argument against income tax in general.
B) a 100% LVT would theoretically be equal to the rental value of the property each year. You as the owner would still be seeing your net worth increase. It's not like you're paying the entire value of the land as a tax each year. Such a scheme would essentially just undo all real property ownership.
I feel like most people that say WeChat is a super app haven't actually used it for any period of time. WeChat achieves their "able to do everything" by embedding sub apps within the app. Switching between them is jarring, and is sometimes less smooth than just opening a different app. Saying WeChat is a super app is like saying an app store is a super app.
> Saying WeChat is a super app is like saying an app store is a super app.
I don't think they care about the experience or functionality. I think it's just about being able to exert enough of a legal or structural claim to get their fingers on a cut of the eventual transactions enabled by the various "apps" in the "super app".
reply