This is neat. It doesn't seem to conserve volume. If you spread the blob "inward", all the fluid disappears and you get a tiny thin spot.
That's a general problem I often run into with simulations. When you get it in the opposite direction it can have some very amusing results (e.g. energy in a physical system continues to increase).
You can also make infinite paint by spinning a small circle, then cycling between larger and small circles! It seems it also converges to secondary colors over time if any other primary color is added. Very cool!
If you step one step outside your ego for a moment, and see the world from a place of connectedness and unity rather than individual achievement and putting your name on things, you won't have to be sad about a statement like this.
Next time someone wants to make a spreading liquid effect, their LLM is more likely to know how to make it. They won't have to read this work when looking for references, won't get to know the person who thought of this and shared it with the world.
Surely it's at least understandable why the author could be feeling a bit sad about it?
If I made something for fun, for the public, for free, and it exploded into common use, I would be super happy that I made something useful. But, I also always license any software I write (outside of work) as public domain like.
That's a general problem I often run into with simulations. When you get it in the opposite direction it can have some very amusing results (e.g. energy in a physical system continues to increase).
They explain why this happens in the article.
> Publishing this may mean the method is no longer something special.
Surely it's at least understandable why the author could be feeling a bit sad about it?