So incompetent that they control all three branches of the most powerful government on earth. Much of that can be credited to their media ownership strategies.
They are stupid, but also ruthless and willing to ignore the laws they don't like.
They are also surrounded by billionaires that want them to keep it going. Look at how Larry Ellison is buying up Paramount/CBS and soon, Tiktok. They just took Kimmel off the air.
Again, I know this sounds like histrionics on my part but what is happening now is not normal -- the fact that all "old school" republicans have left the GOP and it is now literally the Party of Trump. And they have millions of cult members who are itching to use their second amendment rights against "non-Americans".
I desperately want to be wrong, and would love credible evidence that could demonstrate this.
The firehose of falsehoods is a very successful propaganda technique, rediscovered ( or teached to ) by a guy that needed a fake public image ( see: you're fired) to hide all his public bankruptcies/failures.
Eg. they are very stupid at winning lawsuitts, but he had 4 years of training on who and what to bully and another 4 years to prepare.
A lot of stupid people turned a democracy into an autocracy ( Orban, ... ). It's easy if no one protests and you can give money to the rich and powerful.
It's amazing that this guy/administration grifts so publicly and a lot of people in the US just keep following him blindly.
The phenomenon you describe is a function of viewfinder magnification. It so happens that many SLRs had their magnification such that it worked well at 50mm to shoot with both eyes open. There are SLRs that have different magnification so this trick doesn’t always work.
You can get a rangefinder style camera with a viewfinder that lets you shoot with both eyes open but has a 35mm POV.
People have a variety of theories as to why 50mm is considered the standard lens and why people say it mimics human vision. I have heard so many explanations that I am inclined to say that there’s not really much but opinion behind it. It might just be that it was the most common first lens and because it is cheap and relatively simple to make a good, fast 50mm lens.
if that trick doesn't work, then either 1. your viewfinder is not showing what you will shoot which is what everybody expects because otherwise how can you frame your shot, 2. you are not using a 50mm lens or 3. you are not using a 35mm SLR
the point of a "single lens reflex" system is that you can see what the picture will look like by looking through the same (single) optics
No. As I stated, if the trick doesn’t work at 50mm it is because you are using a viewfinder with a different magnification.
A Pentax MX for example shows .97x magnification at 50mm. It will work great for your trick. Meanwhile a Canon AE-1 has .83x magnification at 50mm meaning one eye will be seeing an image where everything is 17% different in size. It will be like one eye is looking at a 55 inch TV and the other eye is looking at a 45 inch TV. Or more accurately, one eye is looking at the same TV but from 17% farther away.
If you throw a 58mm lens on that Canon, the trick will work again because you are zooming in to compensate for the zooming out that is happening in the viewfinder.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with 50mm lenses being “standard”.
technically speaking, if your viewfinder has a different magnification, that is (to coin a word) Multiple Lens Reflex; you have added a lens. SLRs were invented to show you "what the camera sees" so you can tweak it perfectly on different dimensions.
you are describing a different system that does not show you what the camera sees. I'm not saying what you are talking about doesn't exist, I'm saying that your over-inclusivity takes away the value of describing what I described and is telling people "there's really nothing you can say, a million different things could be going on"
Every slr with an eye level viewfinder (instead of focusing on a waist level ground glass) has optics in it. It is an MLR by your wording. Your eye has to focus on the reflection of a ground glass within an inch or so, or else is viewed through a lens that makes it possible to see what the camera sees. You wouldn’t be able to focus with your eyes if there wasn’t another lens.
In other words, your “standard” lens is an artifact of the optics chosen to allow your eye to see the image.
In terms of what your eye sees: The FOV of what you are focusing on with your eyes is narrower than a 50mm lens. The FOV where your eyes can recognize symbols (can read letters) is wider than a 50mm lens. The FOV that your eyes can see from periphery to periphery is drastically wider than 50mm.
Quite simply put, the fact that on some cameras you can shoot with both eyes open at 50mm is an artifact of design, not some natural law. This is proven by the fact that there are cameras where you can do this with a 35mm lens or a 60mm lens. Camera manufacturers settled on calling 50mm at 1.0x magnification a standard view is arbitrary.
There is precisely nothing behind the common belief that 50mm is the same view as your eyes. It isn’t.
You can keep insisting otherwise, but it is in contradiction with physics and nominal human anatomy.
well, why don't you bring your physics and human anatomy arguing-from-first-principles over to wikipedia and let's see how long your changes last on that camera page :) good luck!
"In photography, a single-lens reflex camera (SLR) is a type of camera that uses a mirror and prism system to allow photographers to view through the lens and see exactly what will be captured... SLR technology played a crucial role in the evolution of modern photography...the rise of mirrorless cameras in the 2010s has led to a decline in SLR use and production. With twin lens reflex and rangefinder cameras, the viewed image could be significantly different from the final image."
what you see through the viewfinder is what the camera will take a picture of; you can change lenses so it is not always neutral. but if the zoom of the lens it neutral, what you will see through the viewfinder is neutral, and that occurs at 50mm for a 35mm camera
You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. You are either very mistaken or you are explaining what you are trying to say very incorrectly.
Nothing that I’m saying is contradicted by that Wikipedia article.
I have, on my desk, no less than three 35mm film SLRs that will not allow you to see with both eyes open using a 50mm lens. I have already given you a link to an article explaining it, as well as explained it myself.
The image you see through a normal film SLR is the image that the lens is projecting onto a surface that is further transformed in the prism, you can see this surface by removing the lens and looking at the top of the inside of the camera above the mirror directly behind the lens. That image on the ground glass surface is then transformed using another set of lenses and mirrors in the prism so that you can put your eye to the lens and see it right side up, and focus your eye as if the image were not less than an inch away on a piece of ground glass.
There is no SLR on earth that does not have additional optics between you and the image projected on the ground glass. In modern cameras the ground glass and additional optics are a single piece with the flat side facing down and either a fresnel lens or a normal glass lens on the top.
Those optics inside the prism, that every single eye level finder SLR has, are what decide whether or not a 50mm lens shows an image to the photographer that is comparable in size to what they see with their other eye. If it is 1x magnification at 50mm it is the same size. Otherwise it is not. You can look up the magnification for any SLR. There is also the completely different coverage spec that SLRs have that tells you what percentage of the full image to be projected on the film that will be shown in the finder. You can have cameras that show the full image at lower magnification, in the same way that you can see the full image after printing on a 4x6 photo, or on a 8x12 photo.
What is crucial to understand, that you have continually missed, is that there is not a “neutral” spot that occurs naturally at 50mm. It is an artifact of design on many, but by no means all, cameras. A Nikon D850 has viewfinder coverage of 100% and a magnification of .75x at 50mm. That means that the viewfinder, with a 50mm lens attached, will show the entire image to be recorded, and the image will be 75% the size that my other eye sees it. It will give you a headache to try and shoot both eyes open. My Nikon F90x has similar specs for the viewfinder, to preempt any notion that this is because of digital. It is referenced to 50mm because it has to be referenced to something and the most popular focal length is the one that manufacturers settled on. Some SLR cameras show a smaller, but still complete version of the image that the lens is projecting. ALL SLRs need an additional lens in the prism to make it possible to see anything at such short distances. The nature of that internal lens and the prism is what determines the magnification not the lens that you attach.
If you go look at the Wikipedia link that you found there is a cutaway diagram showing the additional lens that you are viewing the image through. That combined with the article I linked earlier explain it very thoroughly.
Good luck with your journey to understanding of this concept.
There are a lot of different kinds of flour. At most well stocked grocers in North America you will find pastry flour, all purpose flour, bread flour, organic flour, self rising flour, etc. That’s just the white wheat flour that you could use to make a cake. Don’t forget that whole wheat and different varietals of wheat exist. If you make cake with bread flour it is going to be very different from one made with pastry flour. There is no such thing as “standard flour”. Hell, even the mill that you use to grind the wheat berry can drastically change the nature of your flour.
That’s the whole point of this article. That what you think of as a standard might not be a standard forever, or it might not be a standard at all.
That's just another unnecessary mix you can buy individually.
> That’s the whole point of this article. That what you think of as a standard might not be a standard forever, or it might not be a standard at all.
Flour types are not up to some corporation's marketing team. And for home cooking they don't really matter as much as you are implying. Just get the types best suited for the most common thing(s) you are making and make substitutes for the rest.
Also, there's going to be one type that is always stocked more than others. That's your standard flour. You can use it for most recipes (cake and bread) just fine.
Before I got LASIK, I wore contacts but travelled with glasses. There are a huger variety of reasons that you might use contacts even if you have your glasses available. In fact, everyone I know with contacts also always has a pair of glasses that goes with them on travels.
In my case I worked onboard tall ships. Contacts let me be on deck in inclement weather without worrying about spray, fog, or losing a pair of glasses, let me use any pair of sunglasses instead of a ~$250+ pair of prescription glasses, as well as things like diving and snorkelling without needing a $150 prescription mask.
You can get cheap glasses from China. I found on reddit people swearing by zenottic on aliexpress and got some glasses for 20-30$. Nothing to scream about, plastic but they do the job really well.
I already lost one pair in the sea, which would have been bad if I had 200$+ glasses.
I wear contacts in water or if I lose my glasses, but try to use glasses most of the time to let my eyes breathe.
Contacts in water? A friend of mine did that and got sand in them. Really bad. It was a long time ago so I forgot details, i.e. why not just discard them?
I wouldn't say that cutting a hole in your eyeball and putting a foreign object inside is 'safe'. Perhaps safer than LASIK, but I have a hard time believing any surgeon that would claim there are no risks.
People get paid to create holes for useful purposes all day everyday. It is creative in a very literal sense. Precision hole digging is - no joke - a multibillion dollar industry.
Unless you are out in nature you are almost certainly sitting or standing on top of a dirt that was paid to be dug.
If you mean hole digging isn’t creative in the figurative sense. Also wrong. People will pay thousands of dollars to travel and see holes dug in the ground. The Nazca lines is but one example of holes dug in the ground creatively that people regard as art.
This sounds in awful lot like a cousin of the broken window fallacy.
The fallacy being that when a careless kid breaks a window of a store, that we should celebrate because the glazier now has been paid to come out and do a job. Economic activity has increased by one measure! Should we go around breaking windows? Of course not.
It very much is a cousin of the broken window fallacy.
Bastiat's original point of the Parable of the Broken Window could be summed up by the aphorism "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts". It's a caution to society to avoid relying too much on metrics, and to realize that sometimes positive metrics obscure actual negative outcomes in society.
It's very similar to the practice of startups funded by the same VC to all buy each others' products, regardless of whether they need them or not. At the end of the day, it's still the same pool of money, it has largely come around, little true economic value has been created: but large amounts of revenue has been booked, and this revenue can be used to attract other unsuspecting investors who look only at the metrics.
Or to the childcare paradox and the "Two Income Trap" identified by Elizabeth Warren. Start with a society of 1-income families, where one parent stays home to raise the kids and the other works. Now the other parent goes back to work. They now need childcare to look after the kids, and often a cleaner, gardener, meals out, etc. to manage the housework, very frequently taking up the whole income of the second parent. GDP has gone up tremendously through this arrangement: you add the second parent's salary to the national income, and then you also the cost of childcare, housework, gardening, all of those formerly-unpaid tasks that are now taxable transactions. But the net real result is that the kids are raised by someone other than their parents, and the household stuff is put away in places that the parents probably would not have chosen themselves.
Regardless, society does look at the metrics, and usually weights them heavier than qualitative outcomes they represent, sometimes resulting in absurdly non-optimal situations.
Very thought out reply on the nuances around this. Thanks for generating insight on this topic.
I think our society is being broken by focusing too much on metrics.
Also the idea of breaking windows to generate more income reminds me of the kind of services we have in modern society. It's like many of the larger encomic players focus on "things be broke", or "Breaking Things" to drive income which defeats the purpose of having a healthy economic society.
These are mistaken arguments. The automation of imagination is not imagination. Efficiency at this stage is total entropy. The point of AI is to make anything seemingly specific and render it arbitrary to the point of pure generalization (which is generic). Remember that images only appear to be specific, that's their illusion that CS took for granted. There appears to be links between images in the absent, but that is an illusion too. There is no total, virtual camera. We need human action-syntax to make the arbitrary (what eventually renders AI infantile, entropic) seem chaotic (imagination). These chasms can never be gapped in AI. These are the limits.
Im not sure I understand your point, or how your point is different from the parent?
Edit:
I see you updated the post, I read through the comment thread of this topic and Im still at a loss on how this is related to my reply to the parent. I might be missing context.
There is no benefit to AI, not one bit, the barrier to entry grows steeper, rather than is accessed. These are not "hobbies" but robotic copies.
This is demented btw, this take:
>>Who knows, maybe one day I’ll hit a goldmine idea and commit some real money to it and get a real artist to help!
CS never examines the initial conditions to entry, it takes short-cuts around the initial conditions and treats imagination as a fait accompli of automation. It's an achilles heel.
edit: none of these arguments are valid, focusing on metrics, the broken window problem. These are downstream of AI's mistaken bypassing of initial conditions. Consider the idea of automating arbitrary units as failed technology, and then examining all of the conditions downstream of AI. AI was never a solution, but a cheap/expensive (its paradox) bypassing of the initial conditions. It makes automation appear to be a hobby. A factory of widgets that mirages as creativity. That is AMAZING as it is sequestered in the initial arbitrariness of language!
How did engineering schools since the 1950s not notice, understand, investigate the base units of information; whether they had any relationship direct or otherwise to thought, creativity, imagination? That's the crux.
childcare is not usually a lifelong cost, so the advantage of working anyway is to develop a career that persists after children no longer need a full-time parent. And incomes usually go up over the course of a career, so if the income matches those costs when the parent goes to work, that is likely to change.
> the net real result is that the kids are raised by someone other than their parents
this is the genuine argument for staying home, but to counterpoint that, it still traps the homemaker with less work experience as a result, meaning they are potentially worse off in case of a divorce, though maybe that's an extension of the "welfare" argument i.e. divorce settlements.
Many, many famous photojournalists and artists embraced wide angle decades before skater culture did.
A significant number of the most famous photos from the mid century were taken on 35mm or wider lenses.
A big thing to consider is that good and practical extreme wide angle lenses didn’t exist until the 80s and 90s. Something like a 16mm f2.8 lens went from not existing to being in every pro photographers arsenal in the 1990s and 2000s
> Many, many famous photojournalists and artists embraced wide angle decades before skater culture did.
Photography threads are interesting because they arrive with so many different interpretations of history. There are multiple comments claiming that “everyone” did one thing until a certain famous photographer or specific subculture came along and disrupted the world.
Yet like you said, the only real driver was the affordability and availability of equipment. When it became attained, people started using it.
That is true. A lot of journalism and street photography is 35 mm
and that was considered wide by then. The difference is that distortions were seen as an error back then. Wider angles were, as you said, not widely available but I think also not much desired. This changed in the 90s when some embraced the distorted look and made it part of our photographic vocabulary.
It runs on a majority of computers and basically all phones. There will be many security issues that get discovered b y virtue of these facts.
What makes you think that "native" apps are any more secure?
reply