5 ms·

Couldn't you just apply the same techniques to generate 1024 pixels in less than the filesize it takes to generate a video? If he's having trouble explaining i

by Jabbles 14y ago

Couldn't you just apply the same techniques to generate 1024 pixels in less than the filesize it takes to generate a video? If he's having trouble explaining it to people, it's because he's not wording it correctly. And if he's wording it correctly he should use the same, correct, understandable wording to tell us.

jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
I find it correct and understandable. That's not arrogance. This is basic CS. Reference Kolmogorov complexity. The measure of information relative to a generative basis is the length of the shortest unique representation of a generative description within that basis.
- mpyne 14y ago
  The comment you just replied to was pointing out that you could just as easily find a 32x32 pixel icon with Kolmogorov complexity lower than that of the 3 minute "HD" video. And they did so in a way without having to bring CS theory into what was previously a marvelously straightforward discussion.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
    This discussion is utterly straightforward basic in CS. I am a self educated high school dropout. I am intolerant to rationalizations of willful ignorance. Take that for what you will, but clearly one of us can do something the other can't, and for me that is telling.
zeidrich 14y ago
Yeah. He's not creating a video, he's creating a program that displays a video. If you create a 320x240 program that animation and call it a video, you might as well call every frame an array of 300 16x16 icons. The point is pretty cool though, algorithmic compression is pretty awesome, especially when you don't have to conform to any particular end result. A fresh Minecraft world is a 240k jar file used as a decompression tool, and the data is a single integer (the seed). In the end the result is some 9 million times the surface area of the Earth. However, start modifying that world and the data needed to store it balloons. Make a world that accurately mimics the surface of just Iceland and you're going to be looking at a pretty large file. Accept a world that's a bit of simplex noise and Brownian motion and let yourself be awed. Make a video of rotating around a fractal made from a simple formula - that looks cool. Try and compress a video of your daughter's first steps and you'll get something significantly larger than an icon. Especially an icon that's at least run-length encoded.
- nawitus 14y ago
  There's no real computer science distinction between a program which displays a video and a video. You can always create a video format which (optionally) can read some bytecode and run it in a virtual machine. There are Turing complete font formats you know.
DanBC 14y ago
Here's a playable, graphic, first person shooter. It's in 96kb. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger)

by Jabbles 14y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago

I find it correct and understandable. That's not arrogance. This is basic CS. Reference Kolmogorov complexity. The measure of information relative to a generative basis is the length of the shortest unique representation of a generative description within that basis.

mpyne 14y ago
The comment you just replied to was pointing out that you could just as easily find a 32x32 pixel icon with Kolmogorov complexity lower than that of the 3 minute "HD" video. And they did so in a way without having to bring CS theory into what was previously a marvelously straightforward discussion.
- jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
  This discussion is utterly straightforward basic in CS. I am a self educated high school dropout. I am intolerant to rationalizations of willful ignorance. Take that for what you will, but clearly one of us can do something the other can't, and for me that is telling.

zeidrich 14y ago

Yeah. He's not creating a video, he's creating a program that displays a video. If you create a 320x240 program that animation and call it a video, you might as well call every frame an array of 300 16x16 icons. The point is pretty cool though, algorithmic compression is pretty awesome, especially when you don't have to conform to any particular end result. A fresh Minecraft world is a 240k jar file used as a decompression tool, and the data is a single integer (the seed). In the end the result is some 9 million times the surface area of the Earth. However, start modifying that world and the data needed to store it balloons. Make a world that accurately mimics the surface of just Iceland and you're going to be looking at a pretty large file. Accept a world that's a bit of simplex noise and Brownian motion and let yourself be awed. Make a video of rotating around a fractal made from a simple formula - that looks cool. Try and compress a video of your daughter's first steps and you'll get something significantly larger than an icon. Especially an icon that's at least run-length encoded.

nawitus 14y ago
There's no real computer science distinction between a program which displays a video and a video. You can always create a video format which (optionally) can read some bytecode and run it in a virtual machine. There are Turing complete font formats you know.

DanBC 14y ago

Here's a playable, graphic, first person shooter. It's in 96kb. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger)