These ones are... different. When I use these ones the mountain ridges appear to dip inwards? Away from the screen. This was not the case for the ones in the main post
EDIT: I figured out the reason: i'm still going cross-eyed to view them. In the cross-eyed ones, you are taking the left image in the right eye and the right image in the left eye, but in the wall-eyed one you are supposed to take them in reverse. So if you look at the wall-eyed one cross-eyed, the depths are going to all be reversed for you.
EDIT 2: to get the wall-eyed ones to work correctly, I had get a piece of mail and physically seperate my eyes from one another with it. The sensation of going wall-eyed was exactly the same as crossing my eyes, but the results were now correct.
I've been using the K380 and pebble mouse. It's not large, so probably not for you. You can buy the pebble 2 combo now. I bought a basic leather case for the k380 which works fine.
It got a weird issue a couple years in where it never powers down, so for travel I remove one of the AAA batteries and slide that into the case next to it. The pebble mouse has never acted up. A couple of keycaps on the k380 also fell off before I got to he case, so I would say that if you're carrying it in a backpack I'd definitely recommend getting a case.
Overall, though, it keeps chugging without much more issue. I also reconfigured the keycaps to reflect my Dvorak layout without any special tools.
Not so. There are those that believe objectivism is the true way of viewing the world. They view that we are on the way to understanding the universe as it truly is, that human perception will not pose an obstacle to that pursuit, and that there will eventually be one true method of viewing the universe in its entirety that is yet to be discovered. Constructivist beliefs directly oppose that idea, since all science is a man-made construct that can only approximate reality in their view. Constructivism also, then, leaves room for multiple theories coexisting because they provide better utility and insights in different circumstances. In the example of Einstein's Relativity vs Newton's Physics, we are talking about an older theory and the theory which usurped it because it was more accurate, and the general expectation is that another theory will be accepted down the line which will be better than both. That expectation is fairly objectivist, since it assumes there is a true model which we just haven't discovered yet. Constructivism does not make that assumption, since the universe likely does not fit neatly into our constructions in its image.
The other thing, is that constructivism challenges scientific realism to some extent, in that it challenges the existence of many things which we cannot directly observe, such as quarks, proteins, particles, etc... because "how can we actually confirm these things exist, when we physically can't observe them, and the things we're using to show their existence are constructs made up by us?"
This topic is still very much in a state of debate that has very strong implications around the philosophy of how science works and how it should be conducted. That's also just talking about constructivism's implications in the physical sciences. Things get much hairier when you start looking at the social sciences, where biases and perception are extremely influential on what we discover. Constructivism directly challenges the attainability of scientific objectivity, which has serious implications across all fields of science.
This guy should learn to view science more like a constructivist. Pretty much everything in science is just something we made up that mostly aligns with the natural world, and just because one model is less accurate than another does not mean it's no longer useful.
We didn't abandon Newtonion physics when Einstein's model was accepted for instance, since Newtonian physics is still very useful, and much easier to use compared to others.
Edit: changed language from 'proven' to 'accepted'.
Geneticists are like AI devs IMO. Sitting on the cutting edge of human capabilities, hoping to make the world a better place, while careening humanity into an even worse dystopia.
What a hilarious name to give it. Granted 'Man-o-war' is also very funny for a thing that mostly just floats around and stings you if you swim into it.
That's incredibly sad to hear. I watched this channel alot to see the various fox personalities, like Finnegan. I'm gonna be worried about the foxes for a while, now.
These ones are... different. When I use these ones the mountain ridges appear to dip inwards? Away from the screen. This was not the case for the ones in the main post
EDIT: I figured out the reason: i'm still going cross-eyed to view them. In the cross-eyed ones, you are taking the left image in the right eye and the right image in the left eye, but in the wall-eyed one you are supposed to take them in reverse. So if you look at the wall-eyed one cross-eyed, the depths are going to all be reversed for you.
EDIT 2: to get the wall-eyed ones to work correctly, I had get a piece of mail and physically seperate my eyes from one another with it. The sensation of going wall-eyed was exactly the same as crossing my eyes, but the results were now correct.