I noticed that the side profile of scoliosis rarely gets discussed.

Male 28. A chiropractor mapped out this analysis of my curve. The yellow line is a normal curve and the red is mine. I believe it's called thoracic hypokyphosis. I'm going to book an appointment with a spine specialist to discuss surgery but since it'll probably takes months to see them, I was wondering if anyone had any insights on how spine fusion would address the side profile aka the sagittal plane?

The side profile is bothering me so much more than my front profile. I hate the donald duck posture.

https://preview.redd.it/j4z8a6bglee31.jpg?width=245&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2747ac801e2a66f521771e8b80c8fef3cb7ef743

I'm doing a group project about running and my team and I want to be able to measure the amount of trunk rotation (so twisting) during sprinting. We don't have an overhead camera so we have to make do with a side-on camera and a camera behind our participants. Are there ways to estimate trunk rotation using these two planes? Would estimating the trunk angle be possible using the angular area swept out by the participants with the camera in the frontal plane?

So let's suppose that the mandible for whatever reason (dental malocclusion) shifts from its centered position under the cranium, to a laterally displaced one. For the example I will say that the lower jaw displaced to the left side of the cranium.

Does this displacement creates a torque on the cranio-cervical articulation (Atlanto occipital joint) that would at time tend to produce a tilting of the skull to the same side of the jaw displacement -in this case the left? Of course this would be in the frontal plane about a sagittal axis.

Is this correct to assume that, taking in consideration that the mandible hangs from the skull? Or not?

Thanks in advance.

Having trouble with this excerpt from Starting Strength, (emphasis mine):

>Drive the bar back up to the starting position, keeping your hands supine and your elbows on your ribs. During this upward phase, your elbows will move forward to return to their position in front of the bar, producing shoulder flexion in addition to elbow flexion. It is common to see the elbows leave the rib cage and assume a position in line with, or even outside, the hands on the bar. This error involves the deltoids in the movement and reduces the biceps' involvement. Keep your elbows close to your ribs and make them slide forward on the way up.

Does the first sentence in bold refer to movement in the sagittal plane and the second part in bold refer to movement in frontal/coronal plane? Reference pic of planes

Aren’t they the same, technically? They cut across in the same spot. Then there’s also medial and lateral. Medial is like going towards the saggital plane and where the midline is, right? But then what’s the significance of planes if midline is cutting your body down bilaterally just like the saggital plane?Why do I confuse myself!? Can someone break this down for a slow person, please and thank you!

Beginner Guide to V0.113 (3D Modelling)

Introduction

In 3D computer graphics, 3D modelling is the process of developing a mathematical coordinate-based representation of any surface of an object (inanimate or living) in three dimensions via specialized software by manipulating edges, vertices, and polygons in a simulated 3D space.

In sprocket you can design your structures by modifying the vertices, edges and faces by scaling, translating, or rotating them. This guide will go into more detail to assist in design.

There will be 4 main parts:

• Part 1: Fundamentals
• Part 2: Let’s build something that looks like a tank
• Part 3: 3D modelling specific
• Part 4: Q&A

Part 1: Fundamentals

Vertex, Edge, Face

1. 3D Geometry fundamentals (Terms at a glance)

If you know the terminology it can help with your future searches.

• A vertex (plural: vertices), a single point.

• An edge is a line connected by two points (vertices)

• A face, is an individual flat surface (polygon).

• A 2D object is a Polygon (e.g. Square).

• A 3D object is a Polyhedron (e.g. Cube),

• Scale: A ratio that represents the relationship between the dimensions

• Translate: Is positional movement (without changing shape)

• Rotate: is the angular movement

• Axis: A line, used as a reference to determine position, symmetry, and rotation. (Plural: 'axes')

• A ‘mesh’ is a polyhedron (3d object), which is created from vertices, edges and faces.

• Origin: the location functions are applied from.

2. Sprocket Coordinate system:

When describing 3D space, a coordinate system uses an ‘Euler’ X,Y,Z for both positional (3DoF) and rotational value (3DoF) giving 6 variables often called 6 degrees of freedom (DoF). I am going to use the colour system.

6 Degrees of Freedom (Taken from the internet so colouring is not the same a Sprocket)

Position:

• X [Red]: Side-Side Axis
• Y [Green]: Forward-Back Axis
• Z [Blue]: Up-Down Axis

Rotation:

• Red: Pitch
• Green: Roll
• Blue: Yaw

3. Sprocket Transformation Functions

Sprocket has 3 ways of transforming: Scale, Translation & rotation.

Remember a single vertex is a point in space, so it has no volume. It can move (translate) but rotating or sca

Hey y'all,

Super new to game dev, but have lots of experience in object-oriented languages. I'm programming a proto-class for players/enemies. The project will be low-res/text-based so it's fairly simple: I have unsigned ints representing the healths of each chunk of a person's body (e.g. cranium, right knee, left foream, etc), and I want to design a dynamic framework for how hits connect and damage is determined.

I'm thinking of implementing this by using two discrete 2D coordinate planes: one might represent a sagittal (parallel to the ground) location of the hit, and the other, a coronal (parallel to character's front) location. These planes might just be 2D int/double vectors filled initially with zeroes. Damage would be conveyed by changing zeroes in certain positions by varying degrees. The location of the changed zeroes would represent where the hit connects, and the values they're changed to would represent the degree of damage. The result would then be translated to which limbs sustains the damage, and to what degree.

Is this idea horribly inefficient and cumbersome from a space standpoint, or well-grounded? Don't be afraid to rip into me, I'm pretty clueless here.

Do your worst!

What is a Body Without Organs?

So I've put together some stuff I've written previously on 'bodies without organs', but I've added some bits to make a hopefully handy guide to the topic. This is not a comprehensive guide by any means, but I've tried to at least tackle some of the major ways in which the BwO are spoken about. I've also tried to keep it at a ELI15 level, without using too much unexplained jargon. Part II is probably the most technical and confusing of the parts, while part I and III are probably the most easily digestible. Some of this may be flat out wrong, and I can only hope those who are more studied than me can help make any corrections or additions which would make it better. The biggest sin here that I can think of is to have talked about 'intensity' without actually explaining it, but that would make for an even more monstrous post. Thanks for anyone who makes it through the full thing (and anyone else too, actually!), although Part I should be enough to get the gist of it.

Part I: A Thousand Plateaus I

The simplest way to understand the BwO is as a pluripotential or equipotential body. That is, a body that has the capacity to settle on a range of different functions and forms in potentia, without yet taking on any one function or form. Hence the rather straightforward pronouncement that "the body without organs is an egg". The egg being that which is brimming with potential to develop into this or that organ or set of organs:

>"We treat the BwO as the full egg before the extension of the organism and the organization of the organs, before the formation of the strata; as the intense egg defined by axes and vectors, gradients and thresholds, by dynamic tendencies involving energy transformation and kinematic movements involving group displacement, by migrations: all independent of accessory forms because the organs appear and function here only as pure intensities" (ATP153).

Artaud is usually cited as the source of this idea - and he is - but, to my mind, the more interesting (and clarifying) reference is to Raymond Ruyer, from whom Deleuze and Guattari borrow the thematics of the egg. Consider the following passage by Ruyer, speaking on embryogenesis, and certain experiments carried out on embryos:

>"In contrast to the irreversibly differentiated organs of the adult... In the egg or the embryo, which is at first totally equipotential ... the determination [development of the embryo -Si] distributes this equ

I am not sure if this would be the best place to ask this question, but I figure that it was either here or the anatomy subreddit, so I have posted it here and there. I am a paleontology student who is putting together a morphological character list for a phylogeny that I am working on. Several of the characters that I have been working on involve taking measurements of processes and structures whose orientations diverge from the orientations of specific anatomical planes, which poses a problem since I want to be specific in identifying the axes along which my measurements are taken to maximize their interpretability and replicability. So, allow me pose my question in the form of an example:

Say I have a quadrate whose longest axis lies at 45 degrees relative to the orientations the dorsal and the sagittal planes in lateral view in my taxa of interest, and I want to define a character comparing the length of the quadrate along its longest axis to the width of the quadrate perpendicular to that axis. In this example, what terminology would I use to specify the axes for these two measurements? I initially thought that specifying the former as taken along the "long" axis of the quadrate and the latter along the "short" axis of the quadrate would be best, but then I realized that the presence of a short “depth” dimension that can be measured mediolaterally and perpendicular to both of the previous two could make this terminology confusing. What would you all recommend? I would appreciate any insight.

To assist in your responses, I have included a schematic drawing below to illustrate my example. The drawing depicts a generalized right quadrate in right lateral view, with the black line representing the “long” axis, the red line representing the “short” axis, and the yellow dot representing the “depth” axis. Feel free to fill in the blanks with your suggestions for appropriate terminology.

https://preview.redd.it/qg8rcyrnk3681.png?width=280&format=png&auto=webp&s=041c6fdd4b56afc90f462bb0394b7709584efabb

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

Pilot on me!!

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

So I'm not a med student, but I figure med students would be the best to ask. I'm taking a medical terminology class.

Anyway, this was the question:

A transverse radiologic image of the pituitary gland is obtained by:

1. magnetic resonance imaging
2. nuclear imaging
3. computed tomography
4. sonography

I chose magnetic resonance imaging since, afaik, it's good with soft tissue. I got it wrong. What's wrong with choosing MRI? What is the "right" answer and why?

Thanks.

I won't be doing that today!

You take away their little brooms

What is a Body Without Organs?

So I've put together some stuff I've written previously on 'bodies without organs', but I've added some bits to make a hopefully handy guide to the topic. This is not a comprehensive guide by any means, but I've tried to at least tackle some of the major ways in which the BwO are spoken about. I've also tried to keep it at a ELI15 level, without using too much unexplained jargon. Part II is probably the most technical and confusing of the parts, while part I and III are probably the most easily digestible. Some of this may be flat out wrong, and I can only hope those who are more studied than me can help make any corrections or additions which would make it better. The biggest sin here that I can think of is to have talked about 'intensity' without actually explaining it, but that would make for an even more monstrous post. Thanks for anyone who makes it through the full thing (and anyone else too, actually!), although Part I should be enough to get the gist of it.

Part I: A Thousand Plateaus I

The simplest way to understand the BwO is as a pluripotential or equipotential body. That is, a body that has the capacity to settle on a range of different functions and forms in potentia, without yet taking on any one function or form. Hence the rather straightforward pronouncement that "the body without organs is an egg". The egg being that which is brimming with potential to develop into this or that organ or set of organs:

>"We treat the BwO as the full egg before the extension of the organism and the organization of the organs, before the formation of the strata; as the intense egg defined by axes and vectors, gradients and thresholds, by dynamic tendencies involving energy transformation and kinematic movements involving group displacement, by migrations: all independent of accessory forms because the organs appear and function here only as pure intensities" (ATP153).

Artaud is usually cited as the source of this idea - and he is - but, to my mind, the more interesting (and clarifying) reference is to Raymond Ruyer, from whom Deleuze and Guattari borrow the thematics of the egg. Consider the following passage by Ruyer, speaking on embryogenesis, and certain experiments carried out on embryos:

>"In contrast to the irreversibly differentiated organs of the adult... In the egg or the embryo, which is at first totally equipotential ... the determination [development of the embryo -Si] distributes this equ