Neal Stephenson has a funny anecdote about explaining PowerPoint to a friend of his who had managed to be unaware of it until now, culminating in Stephenson's explanation "for people who can't communicate, it's what a dialysis machine is for people who don't have kidneys" [1].
This is the culmination of his response [2] to a question [3] in the Q&A period of a talk on his book tour for Seveneves [4]
> Then he says the sea hasn't risen and those people are actually right
You must be thinking of the bit where he says To be fair to those folks, it's true that – as they claim – the water level of various landmarks around the world, such as the Statue of Liberty, Plymouth Rock, and (in my own stomping ground of Sydney Harbour) Fort Denison, has not "visibly" risen since they were erected. but didn't notice the visibly.
> Then he says the sea is gonna rise a lot more than it hasn't.
I don't think he's trying to make people understand the proof, rather to show them that topology really has an application for problems that aren't themselves topological in nature, and it is comprehensible enough for that purpose.
3 or 4 mm in diameter, according to a scene in chapter 6, big enough to have similar resolution to that of a human eye, according to Paul, but able to look in any direction without physically rotating.
In chapter 13 the enemy describes them as using Fourier optics, though that seemed to be their speculation - not sure whether it was right.
I found this article, written by an assistant to the guy who made the NeXT logo, enormously interesting: The Daily Heller: The Assistant, Jayme Odgers, Works for Paul Rand
My impression was that with this part he was trying to come up with his own version of the fantasy trope of different races with different characteristics (orcs, elves, men, etc), and imagining a situation that could produce such.
I read the article. I think that though it is relatively short, it isn't shallow, and certainly isn't clickbait. They also point to the paper the article draws from if you want more.
>> ... it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.
>Then don't say otherwise in the title!
The title constrains the rules to those dictating bridge building, whereas the quoted caveat above is more general.
This is the culmination of his response [2] to a question [3] in the Q&A period of a talk on his book tour for Seveneves [4]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIHF6vDv8AE#t=40m20s
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIHF6vDv8AE#t=38m46s
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIHF6vDv8AE#t=38m06s
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIHF6vDv8AE
reply