The progression here is what impressed me most... You start with individual air molecules bouncing around and somehow end up understanding harmonics, interference and etc. Love this kind of articles!

Oh how I'd wanted to have this when I was a kid learning an instrument. I had all these questions but no one had a answer for me. Music teachers were like "because it's the 3rd, or because it's the 5th". If I could go back in time I'd show them this. THIS! SEE IT! THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW!

I've seen a lot more of these types of visualizations pop up in blogs recently but they don't feel as high quality as the ones on this site.

> but they don't feel as high quality as the ones on this site.

Because he's writing the WebGL code by hand. It was crafting these entries, not merely producing them for internet points.

He is the OG all of visualization after tufte and victor

Not quite OG, though. Red Blob Games and Bostock's D3 explainers predate this blog by years, IIRC. Still, nobody else matches the polish, I'll concede that.

Same thing happened when Java applets and Flash got easy in the late 90s. Tooling drops the cost of making one, not the cost of making a good one. Most of them you open once.

I love this blog so much that I used it as a guide for building my own series of explainers for how a general circulation model of the earth's oceans and atmosphere works: https://webgcm.app/explain/air

I put nowhere near as much care into the interactives but the inspiration for the format comes 100% from the Bartos Ciechanowski blog.

So we have Turing test. We now need Bartosz test for AI for general intelligence. give it concept, get it explained like this :)

"as simple as possible, but not simpler"

But what would it grade? Half his skill is choosing what to leave out. Has anyone checked whether a model can pick the right simplification, not just write a fluent one?

here you go: [1]

In 2022, I worked on a project to build a climate model that runs in your browser. I got as far as I could until the math and physics became too difficult. Now 4 years later I figured that if frontier models can solve open questions about Navier-Stokes equations then it can probably help me fix my climate model and it has been great! I also worked with it to create this 10-part series (still in progress) to explain how the climate (and the model) works.

[1]: https://webgcm.app/explain/air

I disagree that this passes the Bartosz test. His pieces work because he understands every detail. You said the math got too difficult for you, so how do you check the model's explanations are right?

Reading this guy blog posts makes me feel like when I was reading as a kid good pop-science article in the magazine or encyclopedia. Somehow it's easy to follow, nicely visualise and I can trust his work was verified because he was writing like this far before AI.

This is what the web is for, kids. An excellent contribution to the understanding of ones fellow human beings.

(2022)

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33249215

I really like Julius O. Smith book [0] on physical audio signal processing. It covers some of the basics discussed in this article, and goes much deeper into modeling and applications

[0]: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/

Who is this king ?

Your question pointed me to look and here - Bartosz (read Bartosh like Shalom) has a Patreon page. You can even see what he's working on. patreon.com/ciechanowski

Wish he would do some physics lectures. I always wanted to understand how antennas work.

And there is Moon [1] by him.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443229

I never would have thought i'd find it so interesting to read about what sound is

My 10 yo son just spent an hour clicking through the widgets and, frankly, learning quite a lot, with just a few additional explanations from me. Another hit from Bartosz!

i read it until Masses and Springs and now i play 'catch the slider' :').

Beating between nearby partials explains a lot of why some intervals sound rough, but as far as I know, cross-cultural work suggests the preference for simple ratios is partly learned, not just physics.