Invisibility Cloak?

The science is cool. The author of the piece is clearly an idiot, and knows nothing about science, or doesn't know how to write about science.

Which is why he spends more time trying to make the piece about his knowledge of Harry Potter instead.

Timely thread. My current WIP features a camo-cat an almost invisible predator whose fur can both sense and manipulate light. What I missed was the necessity for swapping data collected from one side to display on the other. I don't like the data transfer implications as most of its brain would end up being dedicated to being invisible. I'll think I'll stick with the coat mimicing reflected (vs direct) light. The cat's coat uses information reflected from the fore ground instead of the background. The result is camouflage not invisibility. The coat functions as a crude digital mirror although the crude sensors and display limitations tent to disguise what is actually happening.

The cloak would be invisible from the inside, too—that is, you would be unable to see anything outside the cloak.

Click to expand...

Well, at least they mentioned this point. It always seems to get glossed over/missed entirely when journalists/laymen want to discuss invisibility or cloaking.

Now if we can just get the media to report on the fundamental limitations to AI, I could have far fewer arguments with the oblivious of the world.

I was so disgusted with the fact that he managed to make 90% of this article about Harry Potter that I absorbed almost nothing about the technique.