3 ms·

Hah, when I skimmed this all I thought was "neat visualization." Then I came to the comments... It must be a real high as an author when you see your site is g

• gugagore 9y ago
  It certainly is a good visualization, but just not for "resonance". It could be good for explaining e.g. * frequency decomposition * phase locked loops * dot products between functions (Hilbert space)
• typon 9y ago
  I don't think you can be a successful and creative person if you are always at the whims of random internet commenters.
  • whatshisface 9y ago
    Oftentimes, commenters are aimless cynics - this is especially common in things related to art (where nobody is really more right than anybody else) and business (where anybody who really knows what's going on would be better served by taking action themselves.) When it comes to centuries-old science you're either right or you're wrong, and there's no place for very convincing, very beautiful presentations that are wrong.
• dang 9y ago
  HN commenters have been highly favorable to Bret's work over the years, though it might not feel that way because a small portion of negative comments typically makes a deeper impression than large blocks of praise. This submission is a special case because there's a controversy around a factual question and the article itself doesn't disambiguate it. No internet forum could resist being triggered in that case. Fortunately it doesn't happen often, and certainly not when discussing Bret Victor articles.