Glad I made it to the end. Totally worth it
Can you see it?
Submitted 3 weeks ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/92a4deec-7e36-41c5-b908-3ede6c92fd96.gif
Comments
ashenone@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
This is an evil comment
iusemybrain@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
loves to see the world burn
Aarkon@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Fractal shorelines. Always a pleasure to behold.
applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
hmm yes this beach is made of beach
0ops@piefed.zip 3 weeks ago
Son of a beach
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Does a nude woman jiggling down a beach not count as NSFW anymore!?
MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Makeshift@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
This successfully hurt my brain.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No I can’t see it. Anyone willing to enlighten me?
Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Same here.-
Raiderkev@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It took me a while, but the payoff when it finally gets there is great.
Imke@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
You fucker
Admetus@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Infuriating but pretty cool
Zier@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
It's Fractal Beach, DUH!
pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
This made me research the coastline paradox
MathiasTCK@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This made me research the coastline paradox
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
infinite real estate! how practical :D
tired_fedora@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
This would make for a pretty cool SCP: A place or a person whom you can’t get super close to, because space around them behaves in a fractal manner.
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Thanks I hate it
SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
damn. only found out its a gif due to other comments, for me its just a static image
Arachnidbrilliant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Alright…… I fell for that.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Those are turtles!
putitoutwithyourbootsted@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I do not like this one bit
Phantaloons@piefed.zip 3 weeks ago
ENHAAAAAAAAAAA
Misty@lemy.lol 3 weeks ago
I’m still squinting to see…
Glitterkoe@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Unexpected Dumpert.nl
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Crime shows; Pull up the satilight view. Zoom in. There, what’s that spec? Enhance. There’s our guy, move out!
Big_Boss_77@fedinsfw.app 3 weeks ago
Reminds me of the conundrum of being unable to measure shoreline
Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Alan Davies (of qi fame) once made a documentary where he tried to measure the length of a piece of string, the shoreline issue also comes up.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00whwmc
Naz@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Imagine an island (e.g: Bermuda, Hook Island, Sardinia, etc)
Draw a square or rectangle approximating all of the land not currently touching water (e.g: All pixels must not contain water)
Draw a larger red square encompassing the smaller red square or rectangle.
Subtract any brown, green, or “land” pixels, and add them to the total count of Box_1.
Remove green, blue and other “water” pixels from Box_2.
Your final result will be a red outline precisely mapping the coastline of the island in question. You can now measure distance by taking
pixelsand multiplying by the scale of the zoom-distance (parralax).Image
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
This measurement is a factor of pixel size. As resolution increases and pixel width approaches 0, the shoreline length approaches infinity.
Though I guess you’d eventually run into the problem of clearly defining the shoreline once you’re distinguishing between water molecules and grains of sand. is the water between the sand molecules part of the ocean? How concave is the boundary on the stretches between sand grains?
FishFace@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Over a very broad range of scales (like, from the scale of 10km down to the scale of 1mm) the number of boundary pixels of a natural shape like an island increases according to a power law as you increase the resolution.
This means that your approach doesn’t give you an objective value because it depends so strongly on the resolution.
This way of computing the length of a boundary leads to the concept of box-counting dimension. When you increase the resolution of the pixel grid, you’ll get a larger number of pixels on the boundary. Keep refining the grid many times. Graph the log of the total number of pixels against the log of the number of boundary pixels. The box counting dimension is the slope of that graph.
Why would we call this “dimension”? Because if you do this to a line, the slope is 1, and if you do it to a square, the slope is 2.
More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension?wprov=sfla1
stupidcasey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Just get a small enough ruler either you’ll measure the shoreline or you’ll disprove calculus either way it’s not nothin’
marcos@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Well, if you get a small enough ruler you will already disprove quantum physics. No need to use it for anything.
Klear@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
At best you’ll disprove shoreline.
iusemybrain@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
you could approximate it using Taylor expansions, although this generally isn’t a rapidly convergent series. You might take a fancy for some other numerical method that would get really precise digits really quickly…