Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

ok but why does Ghostface randomly have magic tho?? It kinda looks like Tanya's purple dust, Mileena's ball roll, then Scorpion's fire kick 🧐

581,020 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

This is what I’m talking about. This isn’t to highlight Bentancur. It’s how 90% of teams and players behave for I’d say 70% of the game. But what are we trying to achieve here? The best thing that can happen from any phase of play, is to score a goal. So that’s the overall objective. To do that, the ball at some stage has to go behind every single opposition player and space has to be exploited whether it’s big or small. But Bentancur here is waiting. Waiting for players to move. Waiting for opposition to move. But why would Newcastle move? They don’t need to break from their shape. But imagine what would happen if Bentancur travelled with the ball into those open spaces. Newcastle and spurs players aren’t just going to watch, it’s going to instigate a chain reaction of movement from both sides. And that will in turn break up shapes which creates gaps. Then it’s if you are confident and able to exploit. But just waiting doesn’t achieve it. Imagine the disruption you will cause if both the ball player, and off ball players look to provoke the opposition as opposed to rigidly stand in shape. It’s just logical. If you stay still. Why does the opposition need to move? So what pictures are changing? What gaps are you opening? What gaps are you exploiting? So how do you expect to score when to score a goal, gaps have to be exploited? It’s why when people say “it’s harder in modern football, there’s less space”. No there isn’t. There’s always space. You’re just seeing players less willing to provoke it and attack it.

Harry Brooks

14,215 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

As a graphics engine coder I think when you look at a flickering bug like this one in the video below it’s not immediately obvious what is going on. The key here is observation - to study this flickering/bugged render carefully - what do we see? Firstly for me it was very obvious that nearly all of the scene shadows were flashing on and off - but (but!) there was a secondary issue where some buildings and parts of the sky were also flashing purple. Hmmmm. Interesting. I initially thought then this might be two separate bugs - but because the sky purple element could only based on full screen post fx and not 3D rendering I looked at this first with a few GPU captures to step through all our post processing to find the rendering stage which made these pixels turn purple: When I did this I found the colour 3D texture LUT grading that makes our different biomes have unique colour palettes was going very wrong - colours near 0 or 1 were wrapping and making the purple elements that we see in the said sky and base parts. The only way this could happen was if the texture was corrupt (which it was not) or if the 3D texture sampling was wrapping and not clamped as intended. That was the Eureka moment - because if the post fx had the wrong texture sampler then the disappearing shadows which also require an exact texture sampler for comparing depth might be also wrong because of the same kind of texture sampling issue! So with this idea that the engine was using the wrong texture samplers, but only in very high draw call scenes like the big base here I the looked at some engine limits and found the bug very quickly - a circular dx12 descriptor buffer for samplers running out over multiple frames, reusing the wrong data for new scenes inflight. Hence the flickering, as the GPU randomly got wrong samplers for some post textures or shadow depth. Easy to fix with triple limits for future expansion and also adding an assert/debug spam in case this limit is ever reached again - QA testers would see this message and report if they ever saw a flicker with this style of bug. My bug and my bad from 2017 porting NMS to DX12 without foreseeing how massively complex bases and our game would grow.

Martin Griffiths

72,701 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Wanted to chime in on this video and shed some light on what High Performance looks like in game ----- FNS calls Zellsis the most overrated player in Americas. Now to be clear I'm not coming at this butthurt as a friend of Jordan, but rather I don't think people appreciate the magnitude of impact he has on a team and on a series Whether you play ranked or compete at the highest level of this game, your team dynamic is one of the most important aspects of success. You may win without it, and let skill and strategy shine, but it won't be sustainable The things that Jordan does extremely well that need to be highlighted are: - energy - communication - mid-rounding voice - emotional awareness - effort - mental resilience - ability to stay focused when the match matters High Performance is a combination of talent and skills for sure, but more importantly it's: - attitude - behaviours - consistency - mindset - focused attention - awareness of mental intensity - intention to improve - intention to execute As you continue to build your skills in game, be sure to elevate your High Performance skills overall. It starts with awareness, then influence, then consistency! Heck you may even win more and be called overrated, but those you play with will feel your impact! ----- Again, this clip could very well just be bait to stir the pot for hype and content purposes. Respectable, if so! We need more storylines 😈😂 I'd also like to disclose that I have coached Zellsis before and I obviously have bias. I haven't worked with FNS, however I think he's funny, brilliant and would love to connect with him

Jerrad ‘Coach Kona’ 🇨🇦🇩🇪

183,767 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

When a spacecraft leaves Earth, it doesn’t just fire its engines and head straight to its destination. In many missions, especially those going beyond low Earth orbit, there’s a more subtle and elegant strategy at play, one that uses gravity itself as part of the navigation system. This is often called a gravity assist, or a slingshot maneuver. But in the case of missions like #Artemis II, what’s being used is a closely related idea known as a free-return trajectory. At first glance, it might sound simple: the spacecraft goes to the Moon, loops around it, and comes back. But the physics behind it is anything but simple. Instead of relying on continuous propulsion, the spacecraft follows a carefully calculated path through the gravitational field of the Earth–Moon system. It is launched with just the right speed and direction so that, as it approaches the Moon, the Moon’s gravity bends its trajectory. The spacecraft is effectively flung around the Moon, redirected onto a path that naturally brings it back toward Earth. No major engine burn is needed for the return. Small trajectory corrections may still be required, but gravity does the heavy lifting. That’s the key. This kind of trajectory is not just efficient, it’s also safe. If something goes wrong with the spacecraft’s engines or onboard systems, gravity itself ensures the return. It’s an inherent backup plan, built into the trajectory from the very beginning. The same fundamental idea appears in gravity assists used across the Solar System. When a spacecraft flies past a planet, it can gain or lose speed by exchanging momentum with that planet. From the spacecraft’s point of view, it’s as if it has been accelerated without using fuel. In reality, it has borrowed a tiny amount of orbital energy from the planet itself. That’s how missions like Voyager reached the outer planets, and how probes continue to explore regions far beyond what their onboard fuel alone would allow. But there’s an important distinction. An interplanetary gravity assist is typically used to change speed and direction, often increasing the spacecraft’s energy. A free-return trajectory, like the one used in Artemis II, is designed for something more specific: a path that naturally loops back to Earth without requiring additional propulsion. It’s less about gaining energy, and more about shaping a trajectory that guarantees a return. To understand why this works, it helps to stop thinking in straight lines. In space, motion follows curves defined by gravity. The spacecraft is constantly falling, first toward Earth, then toward the Moon, and then back toward Earth again. What looks like a loop is really a continuous free fall through a changing gravitational landscape. This way of navigating space reveals something deeper. We tend to think of engines as the drivers of motion, but once a spacecraft is on its way, gravity does most of the work. The art of spaceflight is not just about thrust. It’s about knowing when not to use it. #GoodLuck #Artemis NASA Artemis

Erika 

234,769 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I had the same thought so I've been playing with it in nanochat. E.g. here's 8 agents (4 claude, 4 codex), with 1 GPU each running nanochat experiments (trying to delete logit softcap without regression). The TLDR is that it doesn't work and it's a mess... but it's still very pretty to look at :) I tried a few setups: 8 independent solo researchers, 1 chief scientist giving work to 8 junior researchers, etc. Each research program is a git branch, each scientist forks it into a feature branch, git worktrees for isolation, simple files for comms, skip Docker/VMs for simplicity atm (I find that instructions are enough to prevent interference). Research org runs in tmux window grids of interactive sessions (like Teams) so that it's pretty to look at, see their individual work, and "take over" if needed, i.e. no -p. But ok the reason it doesn't work so far is that the agents' ideas are just pretty bad out of the box, even at highest intelligence. They don't think carefully though experiment design, they run a bit non-sensical variations, they don't create strong baselines and ablate things properly, they don't carefully control for runtime or flops. (just as an example, an agent yesterday "discovered" that increasing the hidden size of the network improves the validation loss, which is a totally spurious result given that a bigger network will have a lower validation loss in the infinite data regime, but then it also trains for a lot longer, it's not clear why I had to come in to point that out). They are very good at implementing any given well-scoped and described idea but they don't creatively generate them. But the goal is that you are now programming an organization (e.g. a "research org") and its individual agents, so the "source code" is the collection of prompts, skills, tools, etc. and processes that make it up. E.g. a daily standup in the morning is now part of the "org code". And optimizing nanochat pretraining is just one of the many tasks (almost like an eval). Then - given an arbitrary task, how quickly does your research org generate progress on it?

Andrej Karpathy

1,641,461 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I LOVE this! THIS is what Caitlin Clark was doing in college. She elbowed players. She shoved players. She knocked players down. She taunted players. She provoked players. She humiliated players. Her opponents never responded in college…..until Angel Reese did. THEN Caitlin became a victim. Poor innocent little white girl being taunted by big mean black girl. ———————————————— After that, she went into the WNBA, and started trying the same arrogant tactics, and they knocked the CRAP out of her. You can be a Bully, or you can be a VICTIM, but you can’t be BOTH. In this case, she hit a big shot, and jumped in her opponents face yelling, “YOU LIKE THAT??!” THIS is why opponents were fouling Caitlin so hard during her rookie year. THIS is why it appeared at times that opponents were trying to injure Caitlin. ———————————————— It was not jealousy. It was not her endorsements. It was not because she was white. It was not because she was straight. Nope. It was not ANY of that. She provoked her opponents. They gave her what she was asking for…….and she started crying, and her body fell apart. They are going to start hammering her again, but this time, I don’t want any victim tweets. If you dish it out, in ANY sport, you have to be ready for what comes WITH that! This is no different than a baseball player hitting a homerun, and standing at the plate posing as the ball sails over the wall. Then getting hit in the head with a 102 mph fastball in his next at bat.

Hovah76

93,508 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Jeff Bezos never has to work another day in his life. He works like he needs the job. Ninety five percent of his time goes to AI. Meetings from 9 to 7. Technical papers after. His reason is one sentence. Bezos: “The world is so interesting right now. We’re in multiple golden ages at once.” Not one. Several. Running at the same time. For ten thousand years, humanity got one breakthrough per era. Fire. The wheel. The printing press. Electricity. A single leap. Then centuries of silence. That rhythm just broke. Artificial intelligence. Space. Gene editing. Robotics. Energy. All of it arriving inside the same ten years. Nothing in recorded history looks like this. So why does it feel like an ending instead of a beginning. Because the mind evolved to flinch at danger, not to measure it. Collapse feels loud. Progress feels like it belongs to someone else. Step back far enough and the truth turns almost violent. Every person who came before you lived and died in the world they were born into. Nothing moved. Nothing shifted. The map they were handed was the map they returned. You were dropped into the one decade where the whole thing changes at once. Everyone before you knew only the old world. Everyone after you will know only the new one. You are the only ones who will ever see both. Bezos: “There’s never been a more extraordinary moment to be alive.” That was not optimism. It was arithmetic. You were not born too late. You were born on the seam between two worlds. Almost no one alive will realize they are standing on it.

Dustin

38,635 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen