7 ms·

Wow. I can barely make a rectangle in Blender. This person, especially given their age, is extremely talented!

by denysvitali 3y ago

stavros 3y ago
> Wow. I can barely make a rectangle in Blender. There's your problem, try making a cuboid instead.
- denysvitali 3y ago
  Ha! It's been a while since I last touched Blender - and the wrong terms confirm that. Of course a rectangle only exists in 2D space :)
dna_polymerase 3y ago
If you are keen to learn: Polygon runway [0]! They even have a Black Friday deal available. It's easier than I thought in the beginning. 3D-modelling makes for a fun little pastime. [0]: https://polygonrunway.com/ https://polygonrunway.com/
daralthus 3y ago
Don't bother with sculpting, get a kit and start animating: https://kitbash3d.com/collections https://kitbash3d.com/collections Also ChatGPT writes pretty good instructions for you to get started.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  I'd rather read ChatGPT's sources to be honest.
lemper 3y ago
sure, they're talented. but, please, don't discount the effort euan has put into his current state of mastery.
- hk__2 3y ago
  Talent doesn’t exist, it’s only the result of the effort you put into mastering a thing.
  - cjdell 3y ago
    Don't confuse talent with skill. Incredible work like this definitely requires both.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    Talent certainly exists. To pretend it doesn’t is to reject reality.
    - solardev 3y ago
      One can be quite talented at rejecting reality
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      I'm not really convinced. What is the mechanism by which "talent" functions? Can we observe and/or test for "talent" without observing the task the subject is claimed to be talented at? Or do you have to observe the subject performing the task exceptionally well, and then conclude "it must be talent". Sounds like mysticism like Chakras and Chi Energy to me. Genetics is different: You're 6'7" tall, giving you a physical advantage at basketball. When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages?
      - solardev 3y ago
        Why do you find it easy to believe in genetic advantages for basketball, but not other activities? It would be strange if other talent did NOT have a genetic (and maybe hormonal, etc.) component, wouldn't it, when most everything from intelligence to obesity can be inherited? Exceptional aptitude only makes sense measured against the median performance. So yes, of course you'd observe or otherwise measure the subject somehow. But from there, if you come up with some concrete measure of ability (easier in some fields than others), you can work backwards to try to identify and isolate biological and environmental components. Some random examples from a quick google: chess correlations with different intelligences (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...), genetic factors helping chess and science ability (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204), music and genes plus practice (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9). There is a much bigger discussion on this exact topic here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 Or a Wikipedia summary of an opposing viewpoint, that talent is NOT involved at all, only practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del... TLDR aptitude at something is usually a combination of many things, from genes to hormones to upbringing to deliberate practice. Yes, we have vague concepts like "talent" and "intelligence" that are often hard to nail down, and used lazily in day-to-day life to mean whatever the speakers wants it to mean. But you can still reframe it in a more precise way, like "Is ability at X activity partially heritable/genetic?" or "Given a group of people practicing Y similarly for Z duration, do they arrive at roughly similar outcomes?" There's nothing mystical about any of this. It's the same sort of work as trying to trace the genetic components of anything we experience, whether that's aptitude or disease or personality or behavior. At the extreme ends, it's easy to see this across species; why are some so much faster, or able to solve certain kinds of problems, or can navigate by starlight, or can sleep half-awake, whatever. I think the counter view -- that humans alone, of all the animals, are created absolutely equal and environment alone shapes our outcomes -- is far more mystical. That requires the belief that the brain and mind is some sort of super-natural device not subject to normal biological evolution, replication mistakes, natural selection, etc. If talent didn't have a biological component, we should be able to train everything from apes to whales to do exactly what we do, given enough practice.

Wow. I can barely make a rectangle in Blender. This person, especially given their age, is extremely talented!

stavros 3y ago

> Wow. I can barely make a rectangle in Blender. There's your problem, try making a cuboid instead.

denysvitali 3y ago
Ha! It's been a while since I last touched Blender - and the wrong terms confirm that. Of course a rectangle only exists in 2D space :)

dna_polymerase 3y ago

If you are keen to learn: Polygon runway [0]! They even have a Black Friday deal available. It's easier than I thought in the beginning. 3D-modelling makes for a fun little pastime. [0]: https://polygonrunway.com/ https://polygonrunway.com/

daralthus 3y ago

Don't bother with sculpting, get a kit and start animating: https://kitbash3d.com/collections https://kitbash3d.com/collections Also ChatGPT writes pretty good instructions for you to get started.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
I'd rather read ChatGPT's sources to be honest.

lemper 3y ago

sure, they're talented. but, please, don't discount the effort euan has put into his current state of mastery.

hk__2 3y ago
Talent doesn’t exist, it’s only the result of the effort you put into mastering a thing.
- cjdell 3y ago
  Don't confuse talent with skill. Incredible work like this definitely requires both.
- joenot443 3y ago
  Talent certainly exists. To pretend it doesn’t is to reject reality.
  - solardev 3y ago
    One can be quite talented at rejecting reality
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I'm not really convinced. What is the mechanism by which "talent" functions? Can we observe and/or test for "talent" without observing the task the subject is claimed to be talented at? Or do you have to observe the subject performing the task exceptionally well, and then conclude "it must be talent". Sounds like mysticism like Chakras and Chi Energy to me. Genetics is different: You're 6'7" tall, giving you a physical advantage at basketball. When you say someone is "talented" at a sport or intellectual pursuit, are you talking about the same physical (or mental) advantages?
    - solardev 3y ago
      Why do you find it easy to believe in genetic advantages for basketball, but not other activities? It would be strange if other talent did NOT have a genetic (and maybe hormonal, etc.) component, wouldn't it, when most everything from intelligence to obesity can be inherited? Exceptional aptitude only makes sense measured against the median performance. So yes, of course you'd observe or otherwise measure the subject somehow. But from there, if you come up with some concrete measure of ability (easier in some fields than others), you can work backwards to try to identify and isolate biological and environmental components. Some random examples from a quick google: chess correlations with different intelligences (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...), genetic factors helping chess and science ability (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/204), music and genes plus practice (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0671-9). There is a much bigger discussion on this exact topic here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9260-5 Or a Wikipedia summary of an opposing viewpoint, that talent is NOT involved at all, only practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del... TLDR aptitude at something is usually a combination of many things, from genes to hormones to upbringing to deliberate practice. Yes, we have vague concepts like "talent" and "intelligence" that are often hard to nail down, and used lazily in day-to-day life to mean whatever the speakers wants it to mean. But you can still reframe it in a more precise way, like "Is ability at X activity partially heritable/genetic?" or "Given a group of people practicing Y similarly for Z duration, do they arrive at roughly similar outcomes?" There's nothing mystical about any of this. It's the same sort of work as trying to trace the genetic components of anything we experience, whether that's aptitude or disease or personality or behavior. At the extreme ends, it's easy to see this across species; why are some so much faster, or able to solve certain kinds of problems, or can navigate by starlight, or can sleep half-awake, whatever. I think the counter view -- that humans alone, of all the animals, are created absolutely equal and environment alone shapes our outcomes -- is far more mystical. That requires the belief that the brain and mind is some sort of super-natural device not subject to normal biological evolution, replication mistakes, natural selection, etc. If talent didn't have a biological component, we should be able to train everything from apes to whales to do exactly what we do, given enough practice.