Live data from Hacker News

Cameras and Lenses

ciechanow.ski

191–200 of 241 posts

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rhetorical style is very harmful to the people you claim to support. You received criticism for your interactions and you immediately redirected that towards hatred for "trans folk" in an effort to smear the person who said it. > What harm is it to use singular "they"? That's not what the OP is saying. Because of course there's no harm in any pronoun. But there is societal harm in acting high and mighty about ho…

> What people who harp on pronouns... Mental breakdowns over pronouns... pronoun police To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in…

Never in my comments have I displayed anger, irrationality, or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. It must be easy just to think I'm some fringe element going nutso like some Trump supporter living in Florida. I'm far from that. Go ahead, treat all arguments with anyone you disagree with that way. You may feel right, but it's not right, and the more you dismiss someone based on that the worse you will get surprised.

All I said was that we don't have to speak like we don't know that someone is a man or woman with a high degree of certainty, based on a name. Bending over backwards to neuter someone's pronoun on a 1% chance is silly.

I guess that makes me a grammatical nitpicker if you can only oversimplify it. And sure, attribute it however you like, but I don't speak in vagaries when something is specific and known. And it counters an accurate use of the English language, for some political purpose.

I'm against the dumbing down of discourse at the hands of people who are riding the latest bandwagon, and on other people's behalf no less.

Finally, about your example of obscuring during someone's hiring candidacy by calling him/her "they". That is ridiculous to the extreme. I guess that's what happens when you buy into the idea that your world is dominated by evil bias, and everyone around you is repeating that mantra.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people who harp on pronouns... Mental breakdowns over pronouns... pronoun police To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in…

Never in my comments have I displayed anger, irrationality, or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. It must be easy just to think I'm some fringe element going nutso like some Trump supporter living in Florida. I'm far from that. Go ahead, treat all arguments with anyone you disagree with that way. You may feel right, but it's not right, and the more you dismiss someone based on that the wors…

> or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language.

As far as I can tell, the content of your first comment in this thread was

> The site is the work of a guy, "him", and "his" work. We don't have to guess and say "them" and "their" work.

This, to me, indicates that you want the previous person to say "him" and "his" where they said "them" and "their". Even in this post you're displaying a negative opinion about the use of singular "they", and expressing that you want others to stop using singular "they" this way. Am I wrong?

Like, if you referred to Dominique McLean with "he", and someone said to you "We know that person prefers they/them pronouns, we don't have to guess based on appearances and say 'he'," would you not characterize them as dictating that you have to use certain language?

> I don't speak in vagaries when something is specific and known.

I hope you do. (And I'm pretty sure you do.) Omitting information that is specific, known, and irrelevant is a basic part of communicating well. Not every failure to bring up something that is specific and known constitutes "dumbing down of discourse".

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. Singular they has been in use as long as plural they. It has always been understood to be usable in either situation.

I'm sure there are examples, but in common use it is understood to be plural and has been used that way in all writing for a long time.

That is not correct

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Usage

> They with a singular antecedent goes back to the Middle English of the 14th century... and has remained in common use for centuries...

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never in my comments have I displayed anger, irrationality, or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. It must be easy just to think I'm some fringe element going nutso like some Trump supporter living in Florida. I'm far from that. Go ahead, treat all arguments with anyone you disagree with that way. You may feel right, but it's not right, and the more you dismiss someone based on that the wors…

> or a desire to dictate that others have to use certain language. As far as I can tell, the content of your first comment in this thread was > The site is the work of a guy, "him", and "his" work. We don't have to guess and say "them" and "their" work. This, to me, indicates that you want the previous person to say "him" and "his" where they said "them" and "their". Even in this post you're displaying a negative opi…

[deleted]

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#195
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-A former girlfriend is of a Russian emigré family; she always got a chuckle out of Norwegians' inability to understand the concept of inflection. Her father as a matter of course got letters from all her leisure activities, school &c addressed to 'Mr. Yuri ----skaia'. - as her last name was ----skaia, obviously his would be, too. At least for us inflectionally challenged Norwegians.

Reminds me of Nabokov complaining about the incompetent translators of Russian novels → English writing Mr. Karenina.

It wasn't "Mr. Karenina" (I've never seen anyone use that form) he took issue with; he believed that the name should be translated as Anna Karenin rather than the usual Karenina, since English does not inflect surnames.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. Singular they has been in use as long as plural they. It has always been understood to be usable in either situation.

I'm sure there are examples, but in common use it is understood to be plural and has been used that way in all writing for a long time.

> I’m sure there are examples, but in common use it is understood to be plural and has been used that way in all writing for a long time.

It is grammatically plural, but it has been accepted for semantically singular use since long before the Victorian effort to impose Latin-inspired rules on English usage which failed to eradicate it despite intense effort. (Victorian prescriptivism did have some good effects — regularized spelling FTW — but trying to eradicate clear and useful usages like singular “they” was one of its less-well-considered, but fortunately also less-successful, efforts.)

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#197
If I'm conversing with a Japanese photographer in Japanese, what word do I use for "that Japanese word that American photographers use for a special kind of blur?"

It can't be "bokeh" because that's just an everyday word that means blur; for instance "mae no shashin ga boketeru kara, keshimashou ka" (the previous picture is blurry, so shall I erase it?)

Also, since that term came into use in around 1997, if I could have a conversation with an English-speaking photographer via time telephone to 1990, what would be the wording used?

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#198
post #8
post #7

Although I knew most of technical aspect described having immersed myself in Photography several years ago, I cannot express properly how GOOD this article is. The sliders and diagrams are brilliant for helping a layperson understand how it all works. Kudos!

You'd like their other work : https://ciechanow.ski/lights-and-shadows/ https://ciechanow.ski/gears/ https://ciechanow.ski/tesseract/ Etc. Check out the whole blog! It's amazing. These are some of the most intuitive explanations coupled with the slickest animation / demo work I've ever seen. All of that put together into crystal clear educational material is such a rare gem and requires incredible talent. Impressive…

The final words on the Tesseract page are lovely!

> I find it very inspiring that while we can’t physically experience a four dimensional space, with just a bit of ingenuity we can easily simulate how a tesseract and its shadow would look in our day-to-day world.

> You may find math’s indifference to the limitations of our human perception quite cruel, but I think it’s liberating. Reflecting on higher dimensions is transcendent – it removes the shackles of the physical world and allows us to explore the realms we’ll never encounter.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That "infinitely many overlaps" I was talking about happens with lenses too and is essentially a convolution where you convolve the image with itself (actually many different perspectives of itself if I am correct). Which is just the Fourier transform. That statement is a bit muddled, let me unpack it. The infinitely many overlaps thing can be expressed mathematically as the convolution of the image with a function…

The diffraction bands are approximately the Fourier transform of the slit function. Is this correct from a physics standpoint? Feynman had a lot to say about light in his book (QED https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/06... ) and never framed it this way. At one point he remarked that the explanations in the book were related to diffraction, and the explanation there was very different from the F…

In short, yes. An ideal image source incident on a positive optical lens produces its spatial Fourier transform at the lense's focal point. This is easiest to see with a lasersl backlighting a transparency, since the light is collimated and monochromatic. The transparency produces diffraction at its edges, which causes the effect. Actually, you'd also see the spatial Fourier transform at infinity if you took away the lens. The result of this is that you can do cool spatial frequency filtering effects at the focal point, then convert it back into an image with another lens. Laser systems that require high precision will use such a setup to remove high-frequency components and pass just the collimated light.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rhetorical style is very harmful to the people you claim to support. You received criticism for your interactions and you immediately redirected that towards hatred for "trans folk" in an effort to smear the person who said it. > What harm is it to use singular "they"? That's not what the OP is saying. Because of course there's no harm in any pronoun. But there is societal harm in acting high and mighty about ho…

> What people who harp on pronouns... Mental breakdowns over pronouns... pronoun police To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in…

> If you're open to a real example, the "pronoun police" at my workplace suggest that when writing about hiring candidates, we use singular "they" instead of "he" or "she", in order not to call too much attention to the gender of that person when those evaluations are read by decision makers. The intent is to reduce any possible gender bias in hiring.

I am, and I like that. Like the example of hiring musicians after a blind listening. Kind of the whole schtick of that music show where the hosts spin around only after listening to the artist. fwiw, that's actually not considered progressive anymore because it amplifies the homogeneity of choice. Because of this or that factor, many cellists are one sex, or the QA department skews heavily towards one demographic. Without active HR grooming you don't get those SV pleasing diversity numbers where you have a numerical microcosm of the country. But yes, the idea of a meritocracy and blind hiring is always refreshing.

> To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in-the-wild usage of singular "them" to "him".

Have you cared for groups of children? Like all bullies, SJWs try to make the victim appear the aggressor. As a current example, Letitia Wright got taken in by pseudo-science, but people attacked her (viciously!) for retweeting it even though she had been victimized by the "hoax". "You're pushing a message that KILLS PEOPLE! F you, cword", and so forth. Presumably if they found anyone taken in by Letitia's post they'd attack them too. Simply put, none of this is what you'd do to actually fix a problem, or if you actually cared about people.

In our case, look at how the person who used "them" responded to the criticism. They went straight to trying to ideological slander.

>> It seems like you dislike trans folk. I'm not sure what they did to hurt you, but I suspect your fears and hate are the result of conditioning.

Accusations of transphobia. That's not the kind of allyship that anyone needs. In fact, that's almost exactly how a troll who wanted to make people hate each other would act.

Yes, this is obviously a non-problem, but by their own rules, the OP assumed someone's pronouns. And when called on this they didn't respond reasonably but lashed out with essentially accusations of hate. If they intend to be helpful they should check themselves before they wreck their allies.

Post reply on HN