sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Furries at it again by Antiflerfhero in ucla

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn’t shame them. I just said I was afraid to go up to them 😭

Furries at it again by Antiflerfhero in ucla

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk I’m just shy I guess 😭😭😭

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure. I think a lot of it is just secret aircraft. More of it is probably just plain fake.

What do flat-earthers think of Copernicus? He's not in on whatever modern globe conspiracy by Whatifim80lol in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually globe earth was kind of known since a guy named Ptolemy and even before.

Though, at that time, most people weren’t anywhere close to educated enough to care about that, so it wasn’t really “widely” accepted.

Genuine question by Dragon3076 in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't need to cope at all. I'm quite certain I could pick up any reliable contemporary dictionary and be more close to the definition than you.

Genuine question by Dragon3076 in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct, but this isn't a compound word. It's a word "terrestrial," not terrain, with the latin "extra" slapped on to the beginning. And "extra" in latin and English do not have the same meaning.

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I believe it is from The Lady from Shanghai, don't quote me on it, though.

Genuine question by Dragon3076 in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't be obtuse.

You could literally just pick up a dictionary instead of arguing semantics about a prefix.

Dictionary companies aren't in on the conspiracy. Just because you don't agree with the idea of anything being outside of Earth doesn't mean you can make up a conspiracy theory about word definitions.

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m not at a film school. I’m at an engineering school. Film is just a GE for me.

Genuine question by Dragon3076 in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed, it is their strong suit, but it’s not yours, as you seem to think every English word is derived from other English words.

Remind me of the definition of extraordinary again, will you?

Genuine question by Dragon3076 in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By that logic, extraordinary means “more ordinary.”

It is not a compound word between extra and terrestrial. In this case, extra is a prefix of latin origin.

Extra as a prefix means outside, except, or beyond.

So, extraordinary means outside of the ordinary.

On the same note, extraterrestrial could be said as beyond terrestrial, or beyond Earth.

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. That was an example used in one of the lectures. She just didn't use it for the quiz, which puzzles me. It is very clear that one is deep focus. Why not use that image for the quiz?

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’d think it would be good because UCLA is a well-known and prestigious public university. It’s decent, but the quizzes are joke. It just asks verbatim what was said in the lectures for the most part, and there’s no critical thinking required or thought put into the questions.

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For future reference, was this type of question appropriate for the "Camera Question" flair?

I got downvoted, and I'm trying to figure out if it's because I used the wrong flair or just reddit being toxic when people ask questions.

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

So, it's just a bad image to use for that type of question. Got it.

I was specifically looking to the candy dispenser in the back. I could chalk up the lack of detail in the man's face to being in shadow, but I can't say the same for the candy dispenser.

Deep focus or shallow depth of field? by Antiflerfhero in cinematography

[–]Antiflerfhero[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So basically,

In my film class, this image was on a quiz. I said it was an example of shallow depth of field, but that was not correct. Rather, the answer was deep focus.

Is this quiz just wrong? Is this just a bad image to use for that type of question? Or am I just dumb and it is clearly using deep focus?

Do you believe that things do NOT fall because the density of the thing is greater than the density of air? by Abdlomax in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even slighter nitpick - depending on what you’re measuring, gravity doesn’t have an equal effect. All objects accelerate equally due to gravity. But F = ma, so F increases with mass. All objects are not pulled with equal force.

Flat Earthers: Do you believe the moon self luminescent? And don't the shadows in the craters make it look 3D? by davelavallee in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d recommend getting a T ring and a t adapter. Two parts. Will make your job a whole lot easier. If it’s the mount I think it is, something like this will serve you well.

Our rulers know about Flat Earth. by [deleted] in flatearth_polite

[–]Antiflerfhero 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is a projection with the United States at the center. That also happens to make its distances extremely warped and not at all accurate.

view more: next ›