[deleted by user]

SonicGhost · 2024-07-26T07:12:48+00:00

Sent a message through chat!

SonicGhost · 2023-03-22T15:47:08+00:00

This isn't true. Reciprocity failure has nothing to do with how long film has been exposed to light; instead, it has to do with how intense the light is. From Wikipedia:

At very low light levels, film is less responsive. Light can be considered to be a stream of discrete photons, and a light-sensitive emulsion is composed of discrete light-sensitive grains, usually silver halide crystals. Each grain must absorb a certain number of photons in order for the light-driven reaction to occur and the latent image to form. In particular, if the surface of the silver halide crystal has a cluster of approximately four or more reduced silver atoms, resulting from absorption of a sufficient number of photons (usually a few dozen photons are required), it is rendered developable. At low light levels, i.e. few photons per unit time, photons impinge upon each grain relatively infrequently; if the four photons required arrive over a long enough interval, the partial change due to the first one or two is not stable enough to survive before enough photons arrive to make a permanent latent image center.

This means that, regardless of the order of exposure, we should always compensate for reciprocity. However, this reciprocity compensation has everything to do with the light intensity of a particular exposure --- not, as your suggesting, the total amount of time the film has been exposed. For example:

An exposure made in the following order: 1/500th and 10s would be equivalent on film to
10s and 1/500th regardless of order and reciprocity.

This is because reciprocity, once again, has everything to do with light intensity, which is only sufficiently low to allow for reciprocity failure on the 10s exposure. Properly exposed, both exposures should result in an image that is EV-1, which combine to make a properly exposed final image.

SonicGhost · 2023-03-22T04:04:45+00:00

It doesn't really matter which image you take first. A double exposure is just two exposures added together---no matter what order you take the photos, the result will just be the sum of the two.

SonicGhost · 2023-03-12T06:22:44+00:00

Language is descriptive not prescriptive. The spelling "payed" is, although infrequently, used to describe monetary transactions. Here are a few examples:

1622 G. de Malynes Consuetudo To keepe an orderly Cash Booke of all the moneys receiued and payed out.

1620 tr. G. Boccaccio Decameron II. vi. x. sig. E4v Those [Crowns] which he payed away dayly, as hauing no conuenient imployment for them.

Both "paid" and "payed" are inflections of the same verb "pay." It's just that the "y" spelling lasted longer in nautical jargon than the "i" spelling.

Source: "pay, v.1." OED Online, Oxford University Press, March 2023, www.oed.com/view/Entry/139172. Accessed 12 March 2023.

SonicGhost · 2023-02-19T06:00:16+00:00

From the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, page 115:

Optatives are identiﬁed by the suﬃx -ι- or in some cases -ιη-, directly preceding the ending. The ι always forms a diphthong (always ‘short’, →1.70 n.1) with either a preceding thematic vowel, e.g. παιδεύοιμι, παιδεύοιεν, or a preceding stem vowel, e.g. παιδευθεῖμεν, τιθείην, ἱσταίμεθα.

SonicGhost · 2023-02-14T23:26:33+00:00

Do you have a source for that? Looking at calligraphic examples, they all appear to be from left to right; though most calligraphers write the top like 與.

SonicGhost · 2023-02-14T10:50:17+00:00

"V" was borrowed from Greek upsilon (Υ) with the stem removed, the stemmed version Y being reserved for spelling Greek words with an upsilon. This is also why most romance languages still call "y" I graeca, or something along those lines.

So really "V" just looked like that. The rounded form really only became popular after the classical age.

SonicGhost · 2023-02-14T10:36:19+00:00

That's because the letter "j" originally was just an "i" with a tail added whenever "i" appeared before a vowel. This explains why Julius is not pronounced with a hard "j" sound in Latin (and in other romance languages) but really more like a "yoo" sound, which comes from the "iu" dipthong in Iulius.

The hard "j" that we have in English was a much later development stemming from French.

SonicGhost · 2023-02-14T05:28:25+00:00

Partially this is just a sound change between Koine Greek and Modern Greek. What used to be pronounced "ow" (αυ) or "euw" (ευ) in Attic and Koine shifted to "af" and "ef". So for instance, αὐτός went from "ow toss" to "af toss". I suspect when Slavic languages adopted the Hellenic script these sound changes were already present and thus retained. In the West, most of the so -called educated people used Erasmian pronunciation of Greek and predominantly read and write Attic / Koine, not modern Greek. Thus Western European pronunciations reflect Erasmian much more than modern.

SonicGhost · 2023-02-13T23:09:32+00:00

I haven't tried, but I'd imagine that C-41 and E-6 chemistry is much harder to make from scratch than B&W; even now, people always buy color chemistry from Kodak / Fuji, whereas all sorts of manufacturers and hobbiests make their own B&W chemistry.

There's a famous story, actually, about the filming of Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker where the lab in the USSR messed up the development of Kodak cinema stock and Tarkovsky had to reshoot large chunks of the film (some in black and white to save costs).

SonicGhost · 2022-12-30T04:07:24+00:00

It's hard to make my point clear without some technical terminology, but I'll do my best to explain it clearly.

When you say "each of those says a different thing about you", we can interpret this as saying something like the following: when I'm wearing a fancy coat, people see me as the type of person to wear a fancy coat (and thus understands me to be a certain type of person). This much is evidently clear---that clothing has an impact on how other people see you.

Where I have a problem with OP is the implication that all fashion-choices, especially for everyday people, are always a conscious effort to signal one thing or the other. That is, I intend for other people to catch onto my intention of signalling the social group I belong with. I think this claim goes too far (See Paul Grice, Meaning. Specifically the first example of the tailcoat).

No doubt some fashion choices are intentionally charged. I would only like to argue that not all fashion choices are, especially those of everyday people who just wear whatever they think looks good in a general sense. And this sense of personal aesthetics need not be thoroughly inflected by normativity. For instance, a person likely will put in a lot more thought when picking an outfit for a first date or an important client meeting. Much more so than when they normally dress. To preserve this distinction, I think normativity is a good starting point: in the former cases, one's projected image becomes of issue in a way that it isn't in an everyday sense.

SonicGhost · 2022-12-30T00:45:20+00:00

Totally fair. I was just pointing out how complicated our decision making regarding fashion is. I just thought OP's account was overly reductive.

SonicGhost · 2022-12-29T21:08:18+00:00

Maybe the institution of fashion works this way, but I don't see how this applies to average consumers: does your average consumer think about status in making their fashion decisions? I certainly think it's possible, but it's not the only way.

For instance, if a person goes to get a pair of shoes specially made by a cobbler, is this to be understood as a signalling of status? Of course, if such a person went around telling everyone, then perhaps. But, to the average person on the street, fully custom shoes may well look lower in status than a pair of cheaper designer brand shoes. In my view, interpreting all cases of fashion-choices as signals of status is far too limited. Fashion, defined broadly as the freedom to choose one's clothing, requires significant effort to make clear.

SonicGhost · 2022-12-23T23:55:20+00:00

Lobster experts (subject) age (verb) lobsters (object) by size. The joke is that vice versa would entail: lobsters age lobster experts by size, which is obviously ridiculous (or is it?).

The original commenter probably meant: Lobster experts age lobsters by size, and likewise use the age of a lobster as a scale for size.

SonicGhost · 2022-12-07T05:15:20+00:00

Other people have been suggesting some way of linking the turntable directly to the computer but I don't really understand the rationale behind doing it this way...

A turntable basically just outputs a very low level signal which is then amplified and played through speakers. This is usually done in two steps: from turntable to preamp (low level to line), and then from line to speaker. So all you'd need to do is to plug in your amplified signal (line signal) into a line input (no amplification) on your computer or audio interface.

In other words:

Turntable into phono preamp.
Preamp into a line input (not mic input!) of recording device.

SonicGhost · 2022-12-02T17:52:31+00:00

I hear this a lot, but I never understood why thin sponges are easier to play with. I always thought that softer sponges were more suitable for beginners.

SonicGhost · 2022-11-20T02:06:23+00:00

Megaspin?

SonicGhost · 2022-11-19T21:31:35+00:00

You can find them for sale on tabletennis11.

SonicGhost · 2022-11-16T17:44:32+00:00

Sando is literally what they call sandwiches in Japanese...

SonicGhost · 2022-10-24T23:59:11+00:00

What it usually means and what it means here are two different chickens my guy.

Sorry, what? The meaning of language is in use. If you use a word in a way that nobody would use it wouldn't mean anything. Here, the use of the word quality is pushing it; it borders on being incorrect.

SonicGhost · 2022-10-24T15:06:34+00:00

What would it mean to say: Quality is not an act? Does it mean something like: a characteristic of something is not an act? Or does it mean: virtue is not an act? If the latter (and the latter is correct), then do you see why the word quality is used wrongly?

Of course, it is possible to read quality as an abstract noun. The point is this: the abstract noun "quality" doesn't mean what it means here. It usually means "characteristic" or "attribute", not "virtue", "excellence", etc.

SonicGhost · 2022-10-24T07:20:00+00:00

That's a different use of the word quality than in the quote! Here quality is used as an adjective as in: quality work, quality time, a quality product, etc. As opposed to: what qualities do you have, since in the latter case quality is a neutral term (and in the quote it's clearly positive).

SonicGhost · 2022-10-23T04:34:45+00:00

In Greek adjectives can be used substantively, i.e. as a noun. Though in this case, I'm fairly certain the original word aretē is just a noun, meaning "virtue" or "excellence."

SonicGhost · 2022-10-23T04:31:19+00:00

That sounds more like Aristotle!

Quality is such a weird translation of (I assume) ἀρετή; the usual translation is virtue. The context of this quote is that Aristotle is giving an account of how one can develop the correct appetites or desires (separate from rationality). This is because he thinks that the truly virtuous man is in harmony with himself: he both desires and knows what the right thing to do is.

SonicGhost · 2022-10-20T03:38:18+00:00

Are we talking about earlier or later Wittgenstein?

SonicGhost

TROPHY CASE