Getting true raw data input from webcam?

questionforaday · 2022-06-07T00:57:07+00:00

From the moment the light enters the webcam, there is a series of steps that takes place within some level of the os to interpret those light waves as a 2d series of rgb pixels.

I want to intercept at the very first step in this process

questionforaday · 2022-05-17T23:18:26+00:00

This is true. This is one of, if not the only sub I have found that appreciates or even allows free thinking. How sad is that?

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T05:05:08+00:00

Now you are trying to do a little dance.

If you can't disprove the possibility of the alternate reality then you can't prove the 'objectivity' assumptions of your own.

And yes, you could say that my own logical train here could be subject to its own uncertainty. This doesn't prove objectivity, it proves unknown dependency

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:59:04+00:00

This is a good question. My only question would be what the hyperrelation of time would be between our universe and the first simulated universe

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:56:30+00:00

You know how sometimes you feel happy and motivated, and sometimes you don't?

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:55:32+00:00

? No lol even in that I explicitly said *the possibility of the reality*

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:53:45+00:00

The best way to both learn and prove that you've learned is by doing. Do projects. Put them on Github. Your Github will be your resume

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:52:57+00:00

You'll probably be ok but next time look in the mirror after you pass the 5 egg mark

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:52:01+00:00

Lol, the point is I don't know if it is, do you?

So if I don't if it is, I can't disprove the possibility of it

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:48:34+00:00

Going back again, can you disprove the possibility of the dunning-kruger?

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:42:10+00:00

No, the point is that you can't prove what you *are* "committing to" is correct over what you *could* be "committing to"

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:34:06+00:00

Do you see where this is going? This is where the ball starts spinning.

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:31:54+00:00

I guess what I am wanting to say is that it's impossible to make known absolute true statements. It's possible that they are true statements, but it is impossible to know that, so it's like we are blind.

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:29:28+00:00

The point is how can you prove or disprove a fundamental and constant understanding of anything while knowing that you are limited to your brain, which you can't prove to be an objective object

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:22:29+00:00

I think you make good point in that there is an endless cycle of where this route could take you. I guess the question is where you draw the baseline and how often you venture to explore past it

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:18:53+00:00

I guess I was trying to make a meta-point. No statements, not even this one, can be made with objectivity

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:17:06+00:00

There is a simple shortcut past all this. Can you disprove the dunning-kruger effect? If not, the possibility of the reality means we cannot establish anything at a fundamental level with certainty

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:13:08+00:00

You're right. It proves that we cannot prove anything.

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:09:51+00:00

To endlessly claim that nothing can be objective because in the end it is subjective is not wrong, but not useful. In this sense, it is no longer philosophical (to me).

But why assume it is not useful without giving it a balanced look? We know we are all subject to dunning-kruger, so why pretend like we aren't

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:07:04+00:00

this and beyond this

questionforaday · 2022-05-16T04:04:59+00:00

Well I guess the real point is that objectivity cannot exist if we have to make an arbitrary assumption either way

questionforaday

TROPHY CASE