ElephantsMyAnus

How do we know it wasn't already an antique when the ship sank?

It needs very unreasonable amount of scrolling.

Skin is vital, as you need to deage veins.

And that is why nobody wants to find the truth, that the effects are human caused, and not natural.

Yeah, it would make more sense to send several telescopes, each a bit better than the one before, but I guess it was easier to get funding for "this revolutionary telescope" than for "this would be like Hubble but a bit better."

It's about what kind of competence is favored by the market - it favors people who can get funding, which is not necessarily related to the ability to get the job done.

No I'm not doing that, there seems to be some problem specifically there. Either the values are converted incorrectly, or not at all, effectivelly stretching about 8 fstops into the 11.6 (slightly less for video) f-stops of sRGB.

You can download an alternate color scheme from Technicolor for Canon cameras that makes the colors appear fairly reasonable.

No that can't be what's happening. You would expect contrast to be lost, not increased, if that was the issue.

8bit sRGB can contain 11.6 f-stops of dynamic range, and it is no longer enough for modern screens. There must be a longstanding bug somewhere. It would not be the first time it happened. There was a chroma decoding bug in almost all DVD players. A very similar issue to this, antialiasing in CGI used to be calculated without gamma, until GPUs got fast enough to use it and I suppose that someone started looking into why it performs worse than expected.

No. It isn't there so that you can use it when you choose to. All devices expect it to be used. When you skip it the colors will be wrong.

No, the problem is VERY OBVIOUSLY more severe than that. It's really as if the images were treated as linear, which they are not. (they use gamma correction)

The one I was replying to talked about brain processing. Whatever it is doesn't need to and shouldn't be reproduced in photography as the protograph gets processed just like everything else when you look at it.

Reality --> eye --> "brain filter"

Reality --> photo --> eye -> "brain filter"

Cameras should only record the colors as accurately as possible. Or if you want to nitpick again, so that the photo stimulates the eye receptors identically to whatever was captured.

No it doesn't make sense. You should not be able to capture anything darker than 40, or brighter than 60 if you are limited to 40-60. (actually by the file format, not the sensor, sensors today have higher dynamic ranges than 8 bit sRGB) It should not turn 40 into 0 and 60 into 100.

No, that does not make any sense. That should result in 40, and everything darker resulting in 40, while 60 and everything brighter resulting in 60. But what you can see is that 40 results in 0, and 60 resulting in 100. That should never happen unless there is an error in processing.

Only the picture file format should limit what range you can save with any modern camera.

It is different because it is obvious that shadows are darker than in reality while highlights are much brighter than in reality.

Any brain filtering would have to affect the photos as well, even if it was true.

No common image format uses linear response. It would explain this problem if cameras treat them as linear.

Maybe they should just make the cameras take physically correct colors, instead of relying on people, as the typical person will always choose extreme contrast that will make the camera unusable. (and can be easily increased in editing)

It seems to me there must be some kind of error in color calibration of most cameras. They make shadows much darker than they are, and bright areas much brighter than they are. It's not from a lack of dynamic range.

Different accents use different vowels, but they remain comprehensible. It's specifically those accents that also change consonants that are taken as hard to understand, such as Scouse.

I get that, but it matters very little in a typical sentence. I bet you could understand almost everything with all vowels replaced with schwas.

I'm not a native speaker, but, I think it's rather the opposite. It's very inauthentic.

English is a rather unusual language that the meaning is mostly carried only by consonants, while vowels are almost meaningless.

What actors seem to be doing is that they focus too much on their accent, and the vowels that define it, and mostly ignore the consonants. Which means you can only hear the accents, but not what is being said.

>it would have to follow from certain first-principles, and could reason his way back to the highest level of abstraction, with immense ease.

The thinking of geniuses seem to be mastery of simplification, rather than the contrary.

The best intelligence test might be

1. Solve programming problems with the shortest code possible.

2. Where is Waldo.

Yes it is cherry picking. You picked the starting date to make it seem like there was a dramatic rise, while looking further shows a post war dip, and return to "normal".

I argued first with the incarceration, which suggests the opposite.

You also said it happened in all countries, while it in fact didn't.

You ignore the inconsistencies and keep pointing back to that single piece of data that seems to support your position.

There doesn't seem to be any general improvement in behavior, only a decrease in standards.

But why do you need to cherry pick the data, if it's so clear cut?

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/crime_statistic.htm...

I'm arguing here that your views are fuelled by wishful thinking, if not nonsense.

You can't turn the world into utopia by sticking to a moral panic triggered by the civil rights movement.

The problem is there is no evidence for any crime boom unless you pick the right location and the right beginning year (typically the post war years) or some such contrieved scenario. Even the graph in your second link shows it was completely insignificant.

But there is no decline.

They didn't:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide_Rate_in_N...

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/14/national/crime-...

Maybe the tougher sentences worked?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/...

But you agree that it needs an explanation, right? You gloat about a dramatic decrease in crime, yet the number of inmates increased tenfold over that time period.

Really? It looks like the complete opposite happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...

Yes. It's too bad that politicians got corrupted as usual. Not in all countries though, many have shut it down.

No. In terms it's worse as it's worse.

It ends up forgotten once the last patents expire and there is no value to salvage anymore. It's nothing but sunk cost fallacy that should have been stopped back in the 90s before money and careeers were wasted on it.