G'MIC

GUYS THE C++30 STANDARD LEAKED

fun fact: 68030 is 2 years older but will be fully supported on linux 7.x! 🤣

🚨🧠🇫🇷 SURRÉALISTE Un homme a été découvert avec près de 90 % de sa masse cérébrale manquante, tout en menant une vie quasiment normale. (SNOPES//TheLancet)

Sala de control de Apolo 11 vs. Sala de control de Artemis II

I’m so tired of writing rebuttals to this kind of “lack of novelty” review: “This paper trivially combines A, B, and C, so the algorithmic novelty is limited.” Technically, most (if not all) robotics papers are convex combinations of existing ideas. I still deeply appreciate A+B+C papers—especially when they deliver: - New capabilities: the “trivial combination” unlocks behaviors we simply couldn’t achieve before - Sensible & organic design: A+B+C is clearly the right composition—not some arbitrary A′+B+C′ - Nontrivial interactions: careful analysis of the dynamics, coupling, or failure modes between A, B, C - Rehabilitating old ideas: A was dismissed for years, but paired with modern B/C, it suddenly works—and teaches us why - System-level & "interface" insight: the contribution is not any single piece, but how the pieces talk to each other - Scaling laws or regimes: identifying when/why A+B+C works (and when it doesn’t) - Engineering clarity: making something actually work robustly in the real world is not “trivial” - New problem formulations: sometimes the real novelty is in the reformulation—only under this view does A+B+C make sense. Maybe worth keeping these in mind when reviewing the next A+B+C paper : )