View allAll Photos Tagged graphity
This is a graph sampling all the photos I have ever taken (and have stored in JPG format) using my D70. Interesting trends.
(0mm is MF lenses mounted on my D70)
Tool used: www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html
Die komplexe graphisch visualisierte Webseitenstruktur von
www.scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex
Aufnahmedatum: 06.12.2011
Webseiten - Visualisierung über Graphen mit: www.aharef.info/static/htmlgraph/
The standard host view mode is a 24 hour period showing all the graphs on that switch of that graph type. Here we're showing bandwidth in bits/sec.
The filters in the top right allow you to adjust your view to find exactly the graph you're looking for quickly and easily.
Nate Silver has worked his statistical wizardry (known in technical circles as regression smoothing) to produce this graph of public opinion on same-sex marriage since 1988. The upshot: America is now majority gay friendly. So that's great news.
But it's not entirely surprising. As I've said before, anyone who's a member of Generation X or younger knows firsthand that outright homophobia is increasingly regarded as socially and morally retrograde, even among many young people who are otherwise conservative.
Of course, some parts of America are still less tolerant than others - www.good.is/post/mixed-news-on-same-sex-marriage/ - but we're all headed in the right direction.
I have been accused of being a Pollyanna, sometimes. I like to think I remember most of what we are fed as news today is nothing of the sort ... it's ideologues - or people paid to act like them - shouting at each other and the camera/microphone for ratings and ad revenue. The vast majority of people are not of that mindset - thank god - and so sites like five thirty-eight are all the more valuable for knowing how Americans really think and act.
Keep on top of the five thirty-eight project here: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Another snapshot of the relationships shown earlier. This is about five hours later, after the UK has had time to wake up and chat with each other.
www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=634&am...
Burak Arikan is an artist and researcher who focuses on creating networked systems that evolve with the interactions of people and machines. He has also been previously featured in VC. One of his latest pieces has been an experiment with the Twitter API, where he tracked the growth of his Twitter network over a period of 3 weeks. Burak was trying to understand how connections and particular clusters might expand or contract over time. The first image is a portrait of Burak's Twitter graph on the first week of the experiment, when he was following 80 people. Burak only mapped the interconnections between friends, removing himself from the picture, and then labeled the 6 main clusters: "MIT", "silicon valley", "web programming", "generative art", "Istanbul", and "web business tr (Turkey)". As he explains: "The silicon valley cluster is large and dense compared to others. The MIT cluster is almost like a clique (every person connected to every other). Generative art is quite close to Silicon Valley, mostly bridged through the user neb. Obviously the Turkish web business cluster has many connections to the Silicon Valley, techcrunch being a major bridge here. The web programming cluster is very small, surprisingly it is connected to Silicon Valley only through the user al3x, who works at Twitter". To test the importance of key bridging users, Burak decided to remove them and see if the graph still hold together. Many of these changes are represented on his map of week 3 (second image) where more bridges and denser clusters are discernible within his network of 158 people. Apart from a careful analysis of some of the patterns emerging in this experiment, which can be further explored in his blog post, Burak poses an important question worth considering: "Do these people mind abo
I've started playing Defense Grid recently (I'm quite late to the party, but it was on steep discount on Steam recently), and I've been enjoying it a lot. This is a map of the final level of the main story campaign of the game. I drew it out because I want to get this level right, and it's a testament to the Tower Defense genre that that's something games like this make me want to do: not just scrape up a win, but to think through how to really exploit the games mechanics to win elegantly.
Tower Defense is a genre spawned to the best of my knowledge (and exploded into popularity in any case) by the cutesy-but-deep flash classic Desktop Tower Defense; you play by spending resources to place various kinds of defense towers (e.g. assault towers like guns, lasers, or flamethrowers, plus support towers that slow enemies down or improve overall efficiency) in order to try and kill off the enemy before it can sneak back off the map. In Defense Grid, the bad guys specifically want to sneak off the map with your valuable "energy cores". If they make off will all 24 of them, you lose. There are a lot more than 24 enemies.
So, the map: there's two entrance/exits points in the bottom left; any given bad guy is going to come in through one of those two gates, and then leave (if he's still alive) through the same gate, carrying (if I don't do my job right) one or more of my energy cores. The cores are stored in the upper right of the map, where I've drawn a couple of concentric circles.
The dark-outlined squares of the map are where the action will take place; the dotted bridges between them are roads the enemy can march from square to square on, and to which I can do nothing. In the large squares, black holes are gaps in the map where the enemy can't walk (and where I can't build anything); dotted tiles are bits of terrain where the enemy can walk but where I can't build anything.
That leaves the white tiles: those are the spots where I can build towers. Enemies can't walk through a tower, nor can they sneak between two adjacent towers, even if they're only adjacent at a diagonal. By placing towers, I can force the enemy to go in one direction instead of the other.
This is what makes Tower Defense games interesting: the game is as much about redefining the map as it is about shooting the bad guys. If I were to willfully allow the bad guys to march unfettered across the map, they'd take a fairly direct route to the cores and then back out again. That'd be more or less true even if I threw up a lot of defense towers but did so without a plan.
And it may well be possible to win without a good plan. But a good plan is the whole attraction. I don't just want to manage to blow up some bad guys; I want to exploit the geography of this map to make the reshaped map itself do the work of dooming the invaders, and to do it elegantly. I want to lay out my gun towers just so, so the enemy has to take a long, winding march around the map, so that I can accomplish as much defense with as few resources as possible.
A game that can get me excited about planning -- to the point of pulling out some graph paper and drawing up a map by hand as step one -- is a game that's doing something right.