I've been coding for 50 years. When I write code, I think it is great work. About five years later, I realize it was crap. This is true of all the code I write.
So, about five years later is the right time for refactoring.
P.S. It takes about five years to forget what you thought you were doing with that code, and see the reality of what you wrote.
The use of fossil fuels equates directly to higher standard of living, military power, wealth, prosperity, and advanced economies. As well, transportation is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. "Exiting" fossil fuels means either nothing, or it means impoverishing your people.
The use of energy certainly equates directly to a higher standard of living. Oil seems like an implementation detail, with benefits as well as costs. Why not consider other implementation options?
Not long ago this was linked to coal and cancer. And even higher rates of cancer and lung disease correlated with higher standards of living. Should we start advocating for the return to coal? Maybe transplanting cancers to cause better prosperity?
> "Exiting" fossil fuels means either nothing, or it means impoverishing your people.
Utter bullshit. Exiting fossil fuels means prosperity for the people in the near future (the next generation). Staying on fossil fuels means stagnation and decay.
Don't believe me? I welcome you to visit West Virginia. Or pretty much any former coal-mining region, for that matter. Almost all of them are a depressing sight.
Aren't the former coal-mining regions badly impoverished today because we dramatically cut back our usage of their primary economic product?
I'm not sure that supports your point. I don't think they are stagnating and decaying because they want to keep mining coal specifically, it's just that the coal miners and their next generation don't have any capital to found cool innovative startups, and not enough people with capital have any incentive to go there and make job-creating ventures to employ them.
It absolutely supports my point. Countries and regions that stopped using or depending on coal early are now doing better than regions that are still clinging to it.
Yes, in the past coal was useful, and having access to coal was linked to prosperity. Oil is associated with prosperity now. But the writing is on the wall for oil.
And speaking of the current meeting, I don't know a single example of a country that decided to buck the trend and got rich by selling coal when the world started switching to oil/gas.
I wish "real" camera companies were more aggressive about offering computational photography post-processing, at least as an option. I've gotten spoiled by an iPhone. Despite my Sony and Fuji having huge wonderful lenses, I am pretty disappointed when using a dedicated camera and interior lighting leads to slight blur, or a cloudy day produces washed-out skies.
My theory is that doing so would cannibalize their user base.
I think that those who buy a pro camera nowadays do it because they care about photography itself. For that public post-processing is a touchy subject: besides the philosophical aspect of "is this a true representation of the moment I captured?", there's a real chance that their work will be under-appreciated or rejected altogether if their camera is known as "the one that retouches your photo automatically".
I'm not sure that Nikon's sales would improve that much if they offered auto-post-processing (is that something amateurs a tively want?), but I can imagine that their current customers would be unhappy.
I'm not convinced. There is already an 'Auto' and 'P/A/S' setting option on most of these cameras. P/A/S is great for those who want control. I wish Auto was better for those who don't care and just want good photos.
In other words, no camera exists that has great computational photography and a lens bigger than your thumbnail. Why?
If you shoot manual and raw, there are ways you can fix those things. But you need to understand what you want to achieve before you take the photo and then do the right things in post processing. If you go for jpg and auto, the camera is making choices for you and those might simply be the wrong choices for what you want to achieve.
There is no right or wrong. Generally the sky is not the most important thing. So cameras will expose for the subject below the sky. In a high dynamic range situation (outside scene with sunlight), that means over exposing the photo. The Fuji will actually under expose, which is a good thing. But then it immediately throws the baby away with the bathwater with the one size fits all tone curve it applies to produce the jpg. Try shooting raw + jpg. It's usually fixable in the raw version if the jpg is over exposed.
With raw, you'd expose such that the sky has no blown out highlights. And then in post you adjust your tone mapping to bring up the darker parts without destroying the sky. There are many different ways of doing tone mapping and a gazillion ways you can configure that. That's because different scenes call for different ways to deal with over/under exposed areas.
If you expose correctly, use the aperture appropriately for the lens, scene, direction of light, pick the right lens, etc. you can control the outcome. But it requires knowing and understanding how all of that interacts. You can get very different results for the same scene just by fiddling with aperture and exposure.
The mark of a good photographer is that they don't spend a lot of time in post and instead switch lenses to deal with different scenes. They know how it's going to come out before they click the shutter. It used to be that they wouldn't even see the end results until after developing the film. So, they'd be measuring light and calculating optimal aperture and exposure settings given the scene, light, and lens. Modern cameras make this a lot more interactive and easy. If it looks alright in the digital view finder, it probably is alright. If you have an SLR, pay attention to the exposure indicator.
If you are not interested in doing or learning that, stick to your smart phone. The lens and sensor are not amazing but the camera AI is probably a lot better than what comes with your bigger camera and it will compensate by doing smarter things in post processing.
Students in America don't have jobs. You can be motherfucking Einstein but you will still have to be a waiter in a cafe to contribute to society and pay for your student room.
I learned to play guitar this way -- listening to CDs and scrubbing back and forth, writing down what I heard. It's great, but it only gets you so far. Learning pentatonic scales was a step-change for me.
First, figure out the bass line. That typically suggests the chord progression. If you know your chords, then, for simple songs, you have the rhythm figured out.
For solos, it's more tricky. If you aren't familiar with common soloing patterns (licks) and/or scales then start with simple solos and work your way up.
The SPRT is probably already making your life better: it's used to decrease the cost of medical trails, optimize classifications in high-stakes examinations (i.e. for medical certifications), detect defective manufacturing processes, etc. It sounds like this paper extends the method to groups of hypotheses, whereas the basic version is limited to a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.
On the other hand, perhaps this is just responsibility laundering on behalf of the tech orgs.
reply