BEAM very much falls into the same camp as the author's description of Scratch does at the beginning of the article. You have a lot more granular control than Scratch, of course, but it also loosely follows the actor model
Stan Honey other claim to fame (other than being literally the best yacht navigator, probably ever) was founding Sportsvision, the company that created the yellow 1st down line you see when you watch football on tv.
I keep my rpi in a pelican case that I modified to include an opening port for the NMEA connection. It gets all its power/data from the single connection which has a mechanical connection as well.
I have over 5000 nautical miles logged (thanks to a very nifty influxdb integration as part of open plotter) using this set up since ~2021, and so far it’s held up better than I could have guessed. I keep a spare pi and sds on board but have never actually needed them. My use case is long distance races, mostly in sub tropics/temperate areas, and I’ve had limited exposure to really hot air temp (say 90F and up in the tropics which is where I could see SDs starting to fail)
This is not a strong justification. If you switched out "arabic words and imagery" for say "blackface" would it still hold? There was a time where seeing non-white actors in film would have been considered distracting and off-putting, but we seem to have moved past that as a society, so why are we holding on to this justification now?
Moreover, distracting and off putting to whom? This article, in part, is responding to how distracting it is for fans of the books and readers to see the source material changed in a pretty crucial way. As others have said, its not exactly obvious to me that the use of these words and language are even possible to separate from the core story.
I get that this is a film executive's decision looking at the commercial viability of their product if they whitewash the story (or not), but at the end of the day we can't really say what the commercial success would (or wouldn't) have been if this language were preserved. To me this demonstrates more the entrenchment of the people who are in the position to make these choices rather than what audiences are willing to consume.
After all, consider the fact that Dune has remained important enough, despite the claim that Arabic (and specifically Muslim) imagery is used throughout that someone decided to greenlight two feature film adaptations so far.
This is true but if you add in some game scripts or download specific scenarios and add in the FIRS resource packs (with much more complicated supply chains) it can be quite challenging.
My personal favorite was doing 5min city builder blitz online. Wasn’t ever very good but would keep me occupied for hours on end!
Most of all models are resolved in some sort of projected space. It depends on the model (e.g GFS uses an inflated cube, the ICON global from dwd is projected on to an icosahedron, IFS just moves most of the calcs to a spectral space instead of point-grid, and many regional/meso scale domains use a conic projection). Also by and large it’s easier to assume the earth is spherical and then nudge any differences in datum to Mach your crs.
Most often, final global models are output on to an orthogonal (plate-caree) lat/lon grid. Data at the poles (singularity) is always a bit fidly
What is the reason for modelling on a projected space? It seems to me at least mathematically to be fine to come up with equations in polar coordinates. It's still a metric space with great circle distance. Is it a performance tradeoff? I Euclidean distance is a lot easier to calculate.
Obviously I'd only be able to say for sure if I was the downvoter but I sometimes observe lighter text on comments which make a reference without calling out the reference. It's similar to using an acronym without defining it, though possibly more confounding if it's a niche enough reference. In this case, I did not get the reference and would have wondered why the parent commenter expected that title to have already been used.
At best, such a comment is referencing something topical which most readers will get (and ostensibly be entertained by); at worst, it's a distracting non sequitur. It generally ties back to a community preference that comments are curiosity-satisfying before entertaining.
Wouldn’t an allusion to 20th century American poetry fall into the category of “curiosity satisfying”? Given they were not the only person who got the reference it feels kind of arbitrary to say this is frivolous entertainment when another person in the community (in this case, me) found it curious and also wondered if there was an allusion there.
If it was an intentional allusion, then it may actually add depth/meaning to the conversation but we may not know since it was already downvoted…
It could be if it was called out as such. Without the explicit callout, one runs the risk of it “going over the readers’ heads” so to speak. Anyway, I’m not intending to justify any behavior; just offering my interpretation based on past observations.
