Even longer than that.

But gas means money, so fuck anyone and everything else that might get in the way.

Why did I mentally read that as “almonds” with an s at the front?

You’re mostly right with the depth of field being the big difference but the image being darker is not a function of aperture (f-stop) directly, but rather overall exposure. At the same ISO setting, two identical shots in the same lighting would be the same brightness with truly equal exposure: the reduction in aperture (increasing to m the f-stop number to a higher value) would be compensated for with an equivalent decrease in shutter speed (in simple terms, constricting the hole lets in less light, so we leave the hole open longer to let in the same amount as before).

In the example, if the scene is darker it’s because the exposure changed, not just because of the aperture.

Additionally, the number is shown as a fraction because it is a fraction. The “f” in the value (f/2.8) is a variable that stands for “focal length”, that being the focal length of the lens being used. So, for example, a 50mm lens set to f/2 would have its aperture set to a 25mm diameter. (50/2)

The reason the numbers are strange numbers and non-linear in scale is because they correspond to aperture diameters that let in either double or half the amount of light from the stop next to them. So adjusting from f/2 to f/2.8 cuts the amount of light in half (I think this is basically doubling or halving the area of the circle of the aperture).

This is why a one stop change at lower values (bigger openings) has a much smaller numeric shift than a one stop change at higher values: adding or subtracting diameter of a larger circle adds or subtracts much more area than the same diameter change to a smaller circle. That’s why one stop goes only from f/2 to f/2.8 on the wide open end, but on the closed down end, one stop goes from f/11 to f/16.

The Rock, Sean Connery

I love this!

I also thought Matrix, but Neo would be Gonzo and Morpheus would be still played by Laurence Fishburne.

My favorite summary and comparison of two movies was something along the lines of:

"In The Muppet Christmas Carol, Michael Caine plays it absolutely straight, as if there were no Muppets at all, and as if he were completely surrounded by nothing but classically trained professional actors…

…in Muppet Treasure Island, on the other hand, Tim Curry plays it as if he himself were a Muppet."

My Encarta 97 CD-ROM had a game where you went through rooms of a castle answering trivia questions to move on.

I think their argument is that the tax revenue is still owed, whether it’s collected or not. So the IRS could absolutely get back on track post Trump and pursue these unpaid taxes.

Mysterious ways, I tells ya!

Y’know… I’d have found all this “coconuts floated from Asia to the Caribbean” stuff pretty far fetched…

But not two years ago I was fishing, and a goddamn coconut floated right down and bumped me in the leg.

In the Monongahela River.

In Pittsburgh.

I’m starting to think maybe the username isn’t just a username, and the account is literally for a wall panel to express its views.

Of the entire list, I guess I’d pick Grassley.

At least he’s from the old school of partisan bickering.

Remember when Obama wearing a tan suit was enough to keep the right frothing at the mouth for weeks?

Anyone who thinks tariffs will do anything at all positive for the American working class is absolutely clueless.

All they do is make prices jump for consumers. It doesn’t put domestic goods at an advantage because the domestic producers of those goods increase their prices artificially to achieve parity with import pricing.

So prices go up for the consumer with the extra money going to either:

1. For imported goods, to pay the tariff, a tax, to the government, which in this case wants to use that tax revenue to offset tax cuts for the wealthy.

or

2. For domestic goods, it’s pure straight profit for the unethical corporations who are price gouging their domestic customer base. They’re not giving the consumer a break on price and they’re not sharing the profits by giving employees raises. Hell, they’re not even taking advantage of the competitive advantage to ramp up production and create jobs. They’re just pocketing that extra cash for doing exactly what they’re always doing…passing it on to, you guessed it…the wealthy.

Uh…great story?

I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you’re defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.

That’s rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one “right” position and mercilessly punishing dissent.

All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially “affirmative action for a new generation”.

It’s so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don’t like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.

The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.

You can say “DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs” without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as “companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo”, at which point they’re more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.

Regarding the issue itself, from everything I’ve seen, DEI should be less “this is an initiative we’re doing and have a team on it and track it’s metrics” and more just, “We’ll hire the best person for the job.”

Because ultimately, anything other than “We’ll hire the best person for the job.” means, by definition, “We’ll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc.”

If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that’s a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what’s the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.

Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, “For any position we post, we’re committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy…but this will ensure that we don’t get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere.”

It’s also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.

Same picks for the same reasons.

… although I’m less proud to admit that I read it as “Known Father” the first time, didn’t catch it until I came to the comments, and he still didn’t make the top 2.

I just kinda figured that “Known Father” meant he was always talking about his kids and experiences with parenthood, and that was enough to eliminate him.

It’s “nObOdY wAnTs To WoRk AnYmOrE!” with extra steps.

Democrats: taking votes for granted that they shouldn’t be taking for granted since forever.