2,538 karma · joined June 24, 2008
Consider, too, with CCD and the lens systems, there are shifts toward certain hues, and further post-processing (e.g. photoshop) is used to distort the color balance.
Of course they probably said the same about Kodachrome's vibrant, but unnatural colors "back when..."
But why? It's done, because we can. And it's noticeably different. And it's sometimes not a matter of being better, just different, since in a saturated world of media (no pun intended) differentiating one's work from the millions of others is often enough of a deciding factor to trigger a choice. Which brings me to the topic of the fashion industry...
HOW MUCH $$$ TO BUILD THIS MONSTER of a "mac", and how does that compare to a similarly-specified Apple product?
Without this, it feels like a collection of thinly-disguised product placements.
I wish that were true. Police in any small town in America could start at lunchtime and have that amount by nightfall. Let me introduce you to "civil asset forfeiture" ( https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asse... )
There are state and federal version of this, and a "sharing" program to share the loot. It's pure corruption in blatant violation of the US Constitution, but it's good for government/police business (e.g. buys a lot of helicopters, tactical/swat equipment, training, etc.) so it persists.
That's "user hostile" in my book.
(It's scary thinking a half-mile traffic jam starts at 4am... and I can't help but wonder what it looks like at more sane hours such as 8:30am or 5:15pm. Is everything just red for miles around?)
Walmart does something interesting for their software development process. Say a developer is working on a warehouse automation system -- that dev. is then trained and works in the warehouse for a month. Same goes for checkout/cashier, or customer service, or whatever. You WORK that job for a month and you'll understand just how trying it can be to struggle with lousy software on top of a sometimes difficult public. You'll know the trouble spots and the workarounds, and can take that education back to a nice safe quiet desk where you can then go on to help solve the problems.
Looks to me like "Jessica" might be a co-conspirator to racketeering. If I were a prosecutor, perhaps I would think that's something for a jury to sort out?
>"Why should someone hurt after any work?"
Because some work is just HARD. It involves dangerous things (chemicals, biologicals, heavy things, powerful equipment, sharp edges, heights, etc.). The world is built by people willing to take on these tough tasks and not all of it can be accomplished by a digital assistant, or through pushing a button.
The bit about the actor bursting into tears from the idea of being paid to read a second day shows a serious lack of self-awareness and perspective.
Ask a stone mason how his shoulders and knees feel after a few days of stacking block. Or the oilfield worker, after a few hours of stacking straws on a derrick. Same goes for the guy in the steel mill working hour 10 of a 12-hour shift, the office janitor tidying up at night, the line cook at the restaurant on the corner, or the long haul truck driver clocking mile 600 with 200 more to go. Some work is just hard.
For the actors, watching a season or two of Mike Rowe's "Dirty Jobs" would be a suitable counterbalance.
And, as members of the actor's union, they are paid scale. (edit: and royalties.)
I'm struck by the irony that voice actors (who work for a day or two on a video game) are paid royalties for years, while developers (who work crazy overtime for years on a video game) are paid a straight salary, then laid off after it ships as a "cost savings" measure.
So "your throat hurts" after a few days' work? I'm finding it difficult to muster sympathy.
This was part of a presentation I gave in the early 2000s, literally begging my management not to destroy productivity by moving our company from cubicles to an "open floor plan/hot desk" environment. I wanted to boil down the issue to its essence and this dichotomy was the product. As others have pointed out, the real answer is that people work on a continuum, but my point is that if we are going to pursue a change in environments, we should attempt to understand the nature of work and strive for an ideal. Why implement a "solution" that only works for one end of the concentrator/collaborator scale?
In my case, implementation of the hot-desk program proceeded anyway, and I left the company soon after. Life is too short to be treated with such lack of consideration. The company has since laid off 10s of thousands of employees and sold off most of their once-glittering R&D campus buildings, bulldozing others. Only a thin shell of what used to be persists.
I regret that I did not ask a rhetorical question such as the following: "if you had to re-take a college mathematics exam in eight hours, and your continued employment depends on a passing score, where would you go to study? A quiet room, or a busy place like the food court at the shopping mall or a bus terminal?" but I realize the executive Q&A sessions were merely a show trial, not a true inquiry. The decisions were made well in advance.
Do you ever wonder how much better could you perform in a non-distracting environment?
(1) Typical of this group: mathematician, engineer, scientist, writer (2) project managers, C-class executives, sales, support
It is as unfair to ask a Concentrator to work in a noisy environment as it is unfair to ask a Communicator to work in silence. However, if one puts both in an environment together (which is often the case) the Ccommunicator always "wins" by suppressing the Concentrator's ability to work through the mere act of performing their duties.
Thanks. It's been 15 years since I implemented it. Guess I failed the interview.
Let's build a bayesian spam engine:
Start with a known-good email (not-spam) and a solicitation (spam). For each word in the not-spam document, count the number of times each word appears. That's your not-spam "corpus". Repeat for the known-spam document. Now you have a list of words+frequency (dictionary of counts). There will be many words which appear in both lists. This is normal.
Now, when you have an unclassified document, for each word in the document check both lists (spam & not-spam). In which list does this word appear more frequently? if the count for that word is higher in the spam list, then this is a "spam" word, therefore this document is +1 spam. If a not-spam word, then this document is +1 not-spam. Repeat for all words. At the end, which count (spam or not-spam) has the higher total? There's your answer. Spam or not-spam. Done.
Simple counting and comparison.
Seriously, that's the algorithm. It's that simple.
If the system miscategorizes a document, move it to the appropriate group yourself and count all the words again. (retrain). The system just "learned" from the mistake. It got "smarter".
You can easily add more categories, other than "spam" and "not spam" -- "questions from customers", "family & friends", etc. It works the same. The group with the highest total "wins" the classification.
extra credit: Now here's the interesting part. The corpus doesn't have to be words. It could be a switch set to "on" or "off." Joint angles on a robot. Ping time of a packet. Temperature from a thermistor.
And the classification doesn't need to be spam/not-spam, it could be "friend vs foe", upright/inverted, safe/not-safe, or anything else. The algorithm doesn't care, it's looking for probability of being in a classification group.
There you go. Have fun!