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.
Did you read the introduction? It says: Weil wrote this fourteen-page letter to Simone Weil, his sister ... (Keep in mind that the letter was not written for a mathematician, even though Simone could not understand most of it.)
And without that context, his sister may have been perplexed as to why he would dive into complicated math that he should have known she wouldn't understand. Consider that sometimes when you read ego or aggression into writing, it's not coming from the author's mind but is a projection of your own.
One theory as to why cats toy with their prey is they are tiring out and confusing it so they (the cats) reduce their chances of getting injured when they close for the kill.
That's an interesting theory, though it doesn't match my experience. My cat tends to bring the mouse inside through the flap, holding it in his mouth, and then will repeatedly grab it in his mouth, move somewhere else and let it out again. He has the option of killing it just by biting down at any moment.
My own hypothesis is that cats catch prey and play with them for a while as a way of getting more training per kill. They probably find some enjoyment in it, which is likely evolved as an incentive to practice. Cats are certainly well known for their playfulness, which tends to be stronger at a young age.
I suppose both theories might be true at different times, depending on the context or the prey. I guess mice aren't particularly capable of doing any real harm to a cat.
This passage particularly struck me: He noticed when a technician on a call began by examining copies that had been thrown in the trash and deduced from them that the problem with the machine was different from what the customer had reported. “The trashcan is a filter between good copies and bad,” one technician explained “Just go to the trashcan to find the bad copies and then… interpret what connects them all.”
On a related note, I'd like to highly recommend Lucy Suchman's work, mentioned in this article as Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, but the updated version now called Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. The new version has several extra chapters and some other revisions. I've read it several times, and had my mind blown each time.
For a long while, I've been helping people diagnose problems with 3D printers and one of the things that stands out to me is how often people throw away bad prints while they're troubleshooting.
One of the first things I ask someone now is to give me their test prints for the last few changes they've made and what they changed, if they remember. Nine times out of ten, just looking at other factors, I've been able to pinpoint what's wrong.
Interestingly, this has also led me to a few "is it turned on" questions, the first of which is "when is the last time you tightened all the bolts that should be tight and loosened the bolts that should be loose?" The simple act of making sure tight things are square and tight has resolved many an unrelated problem because it makes you check so many different parts of the machine.
This also correlates with one of the takeaways from the old Computerworld column called Shark Tank. The most common aspect of the solution was to simply go and observe the failure, because so often it was an unaccounted for externality -- such as a cleaning crew unplugging something at 2AM when a system would "mysteriously" go down.
In chapter 13 the enemy describes them as using Fourier optics, though that seemed to be their speculation - not sure whether it was right.