Gordon C
@vfxgordon.bsky.social
R&D Technical Artist, literally everything I do is under NDA :(
Formerly Industrial Light & Magic and Rhythm & Hues.
He/Him.
Formerly Industrial Light & Magic and Rhythm & Hues.
He/Him.
Khorne cares not from where the blood flows.
April 20, 2025 at 4:19 AM
Khorne cares not from where the blood flows.
I think I *might* be getting the hang of this.
April 18, 2025 at 5:13 AM
I think I *might* be getting the hang of this.
Also, Google AI seems sassy about this.
April 5, 2025 at 7:15 AM
Also, Google AI seems sassy about this.
Remember those two random "variables" they stuffed into the tariff equation?
Turns out the one representing "what percentage of tariffs do consumers pay?" was roughly 1/4 of the value they claimed was used in THE PAPER THEY CITED.
So a 20% tariff costs consumers an extra 18.9%, not 5%.
Turns out the one representing "what percentage of tariffs do consumers pay?" was roughly 1/4 of the value they claimed was used in THE PAPER THEY CITED.
So a 20% tariff costs consumers an extra 18.9%, not 5%.
April 5, 2025 at 6:50 AM
Remember those two random "variables" they stuffed into the tariff equation?
Turns out the one representing "what percentage of tariffs do consumers pay?" was roughly 1/4 of the value they claimed was used in THE PAPER THEY CITED.
So a 20% tariff costs consumers an extra 18.9%, not 5%.
Turns out the one representing "what percentage of tariffs do consumers pay?" was roughly 1/4 of the value they claimed was used in THE PAPER THEY CITED.
So a 20% tariff costs consumers an extra 18.9%, not 5%.
Here's another fun one.
The value of phi (the portion of a tariff passed along to the consumer) they chose based on the paper by Cavallo et al. 2021 is almost FOUR TIMES the value that the paper states).
It's 94.5%, not the 25% they chose.
A 20% tariff results in a price increase of 18.9%, not 5%
The value of phi (the portion of a tariff passed along to the consumer) they chose based on the paper by Cavallo et al. 2021 is almost FOUR TIMES the value that the paper states).
It's 94.5%, not the 25% they chose.
A 20% tariff results in a price increase of 18.9%, not 5%
April 5, 2025 at 3:42 AM
Here's another fun one.
The value of phi (the portion of a tariff passed along to the consumer) they chose based on the paper by Cavallo et al. 2021 is almost FOUR TIMES the value that the paper states).
It's 94.5%, not the 25% they chose.
A 20% tariff results in a price increase of 18.9%, not 5%
The value of phi (the portion of a tariff passed along to the consumer) they chose based on the paper by Cavallo et al. 2021 is almost FOUR TIMES the value that the paper states).
It's 94.5%, not the 25% they chose.
A 20% tariff results in a price increase of 18.9%, not 5%
Note that actual tariffs were not a factor in the formula.
It is literally just the trade deficit per "country" expressed as a percentage of the imports from that country.
Then their "discounted" tariffs are arbitrarily half that value or 10%, whichever is higher.
It is literally just the trade deficit per "country" expressed as a percentage of the imports from that country.
Then their "discounted" tariffs are arbitrarily half that value or 10%, whichever is higher.
April 4, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Note that actual tariffs were not a factor in the formula.
It is literally just the trade deficit per "country" expressed as a percentage of the imports from that country.
Then their "discounted" tariffs are arbitrarily half that value or 10%, whichever is higher.
It is literally just the trade deficit per "country" expressed as a percentage of the imports from that country.
Then their "discounted" tariffs are arbitrarily half that value or 10%, whichever is higher.
Oh yeah? Then explain this!
April 4, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Oh yeah? Then explain this!
I definitely fanned the flames of this with a misunderstanding of how the trade data was broken down.... but the entire methodology they used just reeks of an LLM.
That they then used one to process the data without resolving issues of territorial sovereignty wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
That they then used one to process the data without resolving issues of territorial sovereignty wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
April 4, 2025 at 3:10 PM
I definitely fanned the flames of this with a misunderstanding of how the trade data was broken down.... but the entire methodology they used just reeks of an LLM.
That they then used one to process the data without resolving issues of territorial sovereignty wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
That they then used one to process the data without resolving issues of territorial sovereignty wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
I guess.
Still wish I'd made the right connection, though.
I'm still confident that they did almost no actual research though and just pushed the us census data on international trade through an LLM.
That opinion is only reinforced by their laughable "paper" justifying their methodology.
Still wish I'd made the right connection, though.
I'm still confident that they did almost no actual research though and just pushed the us census data on international trade through an LLM.
That opinion is only reinforced by their laughable "paper" justifying their methodology.
April 3, 2025 at 9:58 PM
I guess.
Still wish I'd made the right connection, though.
I'm still confident that they did almost no actual research though and just pushed the us census data on international trade through an LLM.
That opinion is only reinforced by their laughable "paper" justifying their methodology.
Still wish I'd made the right connection, though.
I'm still confident that they did almost no actual research though and just pushed the us census data on international trade through an LLM.
That opinion is only reinforced by their laughable "paper" justifying their methodology.
I keep trying to get into his spoken word albums, but the videos are just too surreal for me.
March 19, 2025 at 2:05 AM
I keep trying to get into his spoken word albums, but the videos are just too surreal for me.
If anyone asks, this is due to RSI from flipping off Cybertrucks.
March 7, 2025 at 6:32 AM
If anyone asks, this is due to RSI from flipping off Cybertrucks.
Look at these fake ass Perlin clouds...
.. if I tried to get these through dailies I'd be told no.
.. if I tried to get these through dailies I'd be told no.
March 1, 2025 at 1:58 AM
Look at these fake ass Perlin clouds...
.. if I tried to get these through dailies I'd be told no.
.. if I tried to get these through dailies I'd be told no.
I really want to know the "reasoning" with these imbeciles
February 20, 2025 at 4:43 AM
I really want to know the "reasoning" with these imbeciles
How about an unsettling meat disk?
February 18, 2025 at 5:22 PM
How about an unsettling meat disk?
IIRC the guy who played Hitler in that also played the widely despised character "Mr Bronson" in Grange Hill, a UK kids TV show set in a school (think of it like the UK's "Degrassi Junior High").
... and he didn't take a credit for the role.
... and he didn't take a credit for the role.
February 9, 2025 at 12:24 AM
IIRC the guy who played Hitler in that also played the widely despised character "Mr Bronson" in Grange Hill, a UK kids TV show set in a school (think of it like the UK's "Degrassi Junior High").
... and he didn't take a credit for the role.
... and he didn't take a credit for the role.
February 6, 2025 at 3:19 AM
Ok, this absolutely NOT the usual Dark Angels base color, but I'm down with it - the highlight color coming up next is even more heretical.
(also, watch that halo, ouch).
(also, watch that halo, ouch).
February 3, 2025 at 5:19 AM
Ok, this absolutely NOT the usual Dark Angels base color, but I'm down with it - the highlight color coming up next is even more heretical.
(also, watch that halo, ouch).
(also, watch that halo, ouch).
@priscillapage.bsky.social I believe this is in your bailiwick.
February 3, 2025 at 4:43 AM
@priscillapage.bsky.social I believe this is in your bailiwick.
Nothing to see here, perfectly innocuous vehicle....
January 30, 2025 at 11:58 PM
Nothing to see here, perfectly innocuous vehicle....
I think this dot (bottom right) that's falling like a rock at the same time is probably the seat. I wish the video quality was better.
I'm assuming the parachutist we see at the start is just some guy getting jump practice in. I used to see those all the time up at Moffett Field.
I'm assuming the parachutist we see at the start is just some guy getting jump practice in. I used to see those all the time up at Moffett Field.
January 29, 2025 at 3:29 PM
I think this dot (bottom right) that's falling like a rock at the same time is probably the seat. I wish the video quality was better.
I'm assuming the parachutist we see at the start is just some guy getting jump practice in. I used to see those all the time up at Moffett Field.
I'm assuming the parachutist we see at the start is just some guy getting jump practice in. I used to see those all the time up at Moffett Field.
Pretty sure the small smudge at 11s is actually the pilot.
The closest parachute at the 11s mark is the same one from the start of the video, which is way too close to be from the jet.
At 1-2s in the video you can see gas/something coming from the top of the F35, so I that's the ejection point.
The closest parachute at the 11s mark is the same one from the start of the video, which is way too close to be from the jet.
At 1-2s in the video you can see gas/something coming from the top of the F35, so I that's the ejection point.
January 29, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Pretty sure the small smudge at 11s is actually the pilot.
The closest parachute at the 11s mark is the same one from the start of the video, which is way too close to be from the jet.
At 1-2s in the video you can see gas/something coming from the top of the F35, so I that's the ejection point.
The closest parachute at the 11s mark is the same one from the start of the video, which is way too close to be from the jet.
At 1-2s in the video you can see gas/something coming from the top of the F35, so I that's the ejection point.
What I find really weird is that I see 2 dudes/things on parachutes (second smudge pictured here at the top of frame around the 4s mark) and I can't figure out how either of them were the pilot.
January 29, 2025 at 6:09 AM
What I find really weird is that I see 2 dudes/things on parachutes (second smudge pictured here at the top of frame around the 4s mark) and I can't figure out how either of them were the pilot.
This is Lake Castaic after the Hughes Fire (ie. last week).
This was the main reservoir used by the "super scooper" aircraft to refill when they weren't using the Pacific.
It is currently at 77% capacity, which is pretty much exactly where it usually is historically at this point.
ie. NOT EMPTY.
This was the main reservoir used by the "super scooper" aircraft to refill when they weren't using the Pacific.
It is currently at 77% capacity, which is pretty much exactly where it usually is historically at this point.
ie. NOT EMPTY.
January 29, 2025 at 3:09 AM
This is Lake Castaic after the Hughes Fire (ie. last week).
This was the main reservoir used by the "super scooper" aircraft to refill when they weren't using the Pacific.
It is currently at 77% capacity, which is pretty much exactly where it usually is historically at this point.
ie. NOT EMPTY.
This was the main reservoir used by the "super scooper" aircraft to refill when they weren't using the Pacific.
It is currently at 77% capacity, which is pretty much exactly where it usually is historically at this point.
ie. NOT EMPTY.