Even longer than that.

But gas means money, so fuck anyone and everything else that might get in the way.

You’re mostly right with the depth of field being the big difference but the image being darker is not a function of aperture (f-stop) directly, but rather overall exposure. At the same ISO setting, two identical shots in the same lighting would be the same brightness with truly equal exposure: the reduction in aperture (increasing to m the f-stop number to a higher value) would be compensated for with an equivalent decrease in shutter speed (in simple terms, constricting the hole lets in less light, so we leave the hole open longer to let in the same amount as before).

In the example, if the scene is darker it’s because the exposure changed, not just because of the aperture.

Additionally, the number is shown as a fraction because it is a fraction. The “f” in the value (f/2.8) is a variable that stands for “focal length”, that being the focal length of the lens being used. So, for example, a 50mm lens set to f/2 would have its aperture set to a 25mm diameter. (50/2)

The reason the numbers are strange numbers and non-linear in scale is because they correspond to aperture diameters that let in either double or half the amount of light from the stop next to them. So adjusting from f/2 to f/2.8 cuts the amount of light in half (I think this is basically doubling or halving the area of the circle of the aperture).

This is why a one stop change at lower values (bigger openings) has a much smaller numeric shift than a one stop change at higher values: adding or subtracting diameter of a larger circle adds or subtracts much more area than the same diameter change to a smaller circle. That’s why one stop goes only from f/2 to f/2.8 on the wide open end, but on the closed down end, one stop goes from f/11 to f/16.

The Rock, Sean Connery

I love this!

I also thought Matrix, but Neo would be Gonzo and Morpheus would be still played by Laurence Fishburne.

Oh man, I feel like the energy between the Muppets and Viggo Mortenson would make me pick him instead.

Animal could play Gimli, Sam the Eagle is Gandalf.

My favorite summary and comparison of two movies was something along the lines of:

"In The Muppet Christmas Carol, Michael Caine plays it absolutely straight, as if there were no Muppets at all, and as if he were completely surrounded by nothing but classically trained professional actors…

…in Muppet Treasure Island, on the other hand, Tim Curry plays it as if he himself were a Muppet."

My Encarta 97 CD-ROM had a game where you went through rooms of a castle answering trivia questions to move on.

Anyone who thinks tariffs will do anything at all positive for the American working class is absolutely clueless.

All they do is make prices jump for consumers. It doesn’t put domestic goods at an advantage because the domestic producers of those goods increase their prices artificially to achieve parity with import pricing.

So prices go up for the consumer with the extra money going to either:

1. For imported goods, to pay the tariff, a tax, to the government, which in this case wants to use that tax revenue to offset tax cuts for the wealthy.

or

2. For domestic goods, it’s pure straight profit for the unethical corporations who are price gouging their domestic customer base. They’re not giving the consumer a break on price and they’re not sharing the profits by giving employees raises. Hell, they’re not even taking advantage of the competitive advantage to ramp up production and create jobs. They’re just pocketing that extra cash for doing exactly what they’re always doing…passing it on to, you guessed it…the wealthy.

Which is why we need an update to the tax system to add brackets to cover the entire range of income, then redefine them based on percentages off the median, with the highest bracket set at 95% or more for the highest 5% of earners.

I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you’re defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.

That’s rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one “right” position and mercilessly punishing dissent.

All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially “affirmative action for a new generation”.

It’s so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don’t like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.

The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.

You can say “DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs” without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as “companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo”, at which point they’re more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.

Regarding the issue itself, from everything I’ve seen, DEI should be less “this is an initiative we’re doing and have a team on it and track it’s metrics” and more just, “We’ll hire the best person for the job.”

Because ultimately, anything other than “We’ll hire the best person for the job.” means, by definition, “We’ll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc.”

If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that’s a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what’s the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.

Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, “For any position we post, we’re committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy…but this will ensure that we don’t get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere.”

It’s also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.

Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.

People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.

Legally it’s totally okay, actually.

I know this is all very unpopular opinion here on Lemmy, but it’s fact.

Same picks for the same reasons.

… although I’m less proud to admit that I read it as “Known Father” the first time, didn’t catch it until I came to the comments, and he still didn’t make the top 2.

I just kinda figured that “Known Father” meant he was always talking about his kids and experiences with parenthood, and that was enough to eliminate him.

I kinda get it though…it’s not like these armed forces are producing the movie themselves.

The studio wants to make a movie about/involving these entities. They want it to be as realistic as possible and the entity itself has the authority to give them access that it could also deny.

If you’re in charge of, say, the Marines PR department, you’re constantly trying to make the Corps look good and boost recruitment. If you can do this for next to nothing against your budget by granting access to a studio making a film that will give you essentially free PR, that’s a great move. The bigger the movies potential, the more the entity in question is motivated to support it.

On the other hand, if the film is going to make your organization look bad, no PR person with a functioning brain is going to help that project in any way.

Idunno, I feel like these organizations do enough actually bad things, that I don’t feel the urge to crucify them for cultivating image and working to generate positive PR.

That’s totally fine.

It’s also easy to say that when you’re the living embodiment of the luxury and excess of the establishment/status quo.

Like… dude…of course you don’t want to see revolution… every single fucking element of the system tilts not only in your favor but also in favor of perpetuating and furthering your absolute stranglehold on wealth, power, security, etc.

The more interesting answer would be to the question: if, as a society, we became so united in our acceptance of this that it literally became commonplace for CEOs to get whacked and then for juries to nullify the charges and for the killer to walk free…and it was happening dozens of times every year, or month…

…would you support a revolution to change the status quo that was literally killing people like you with zero repercussions?

If not, you’re an absolute idiot, or you’re actually on our side in this.

If yes, then you know damn well what’s going on and, shocker, you’re playing dumb for a cheap attempt at sympathy.

Windows ‘just works’? What about all the programs crashes that you need to go through endless YouTube tutorials to fix? What about having to fill up a form and register your credit card for every closed source program you need to install?

I’ve literally never had either of these experiences with W10.

At least not in the past 5+ years.

Yes it was longer than that.

My main thing is that, then and now (based on discussions I read between users), most any user experience that I relate to seems to be equal parts:

“try to figure out the Linux equivalent of what you were doing in Windows and hope it’s compatible with the rest of your needs”

“Try to figure out how to get Linux to behave like Windows to accomplish something you did with that os”

“Become a hobbyist…programmer? IT specialist? And get familiar with tweaking and adjusting the details of how your computer works just to get it to do things you want”

Like…for people who enjoy it, I’m happy for them. Really! But I don’t want to have to familiarize myself with commands, learn how to boot things up, or learn a whole list of things just to get the simple mindless functionality I have with Windows from decades of time in the system.

I think back then I tried Debian, Ubuntu, and…is ‘OpenSUSE’ a thing? I even had a group of three friends who were all super into Linux encouraging me and helping me every step of the way, and I was young and technically inclined and happy to have a challenge…and in the end, I went right back to Windows after a semester or two of that, because I just found that my experience was, broadly speaking, “Enjoy a problem solving exercise in software management every time you want to do something, just to get to a basic level of function, with added quirks that you’ll just have to deal with…and little real benefit for the order of magnitude of extra effort”.

And while I’m sure some of that would have had to get better in the years between, most of the conversations I still see about Linux are enthusiasts enjoying coming up with solutions to the issues of using their chosen system. Which again, that’s fine, but I don’t want to have to become an enthusiast of an OS.

Given a choice between, “have to learn how to get the OS to do everything” vs “put up with data collection and some intrusive ads once in a while”… I’m happy to go with the latter to have things just work without having to learn a new skill set just to get the same level of functionality.

I’m happy to use W10 well after its official support ends, though I strongly suspect there will be significant extensions to that timeline. Even then, I’m happy to use it until it’s no longer the path of least resistance, at which point, I’ll reevaluate my options. When we get there, if it seems reasonable, maybe I’ll dip my toes into the Linux pool again.

Man, it’s a toss up for me as to which I hate more: Microsoft threatening and badgering me toward W11 (and by extension, a new computer) or Linux fanboys evangelizing for their preferred system.

Both are complete non-starters for me. I’m not buying a new machine while my current one does everything I need just fine… And after a few years of using Linux on my laptop back in college, I have no desire to set foot in that environment again either.