photography might be an area where digital hasn’t caught up, since film’s resolution is down to the molecular level

Film resolution is limited by the size of the silver halide crystals that make up the light sensitive layer of the film. Crystals can come in different sizes, but their sensitivity to light depends on their size - generally you need pretty large crystals for usable photographic film, somewhere between 0.1 and 10 microns (depending on the film ISO rating) - about 3-5 orders of magnitude larger than what you would consider molecular scale.

When the film is developed the crystals are visible as film grain limiting the resolution in some ways similar to pixel size of a digital camera (although there are differences, since the crystal size is not completely uniform but rather has a specific distribution, creating a more random effect than the regular pixel grid of digital cameras)

The pixel sizes on modern high resolution digital camera sensors are actually similar, down to 0.5 micron. It’s hard to make an exact comparison, but I have seen estimates that you need a full frame digital sensor of somewhere between 10 to 50 megapixels to equal the resolution of 35mm ISO 100 film.

And modern sensors are much more light sensitive than film, which allows you to shoot more optimally and give you more flexibility (less exposure time, potentially higher f-stop with better lens resolution, lower ISO, less light, etc.) and therefore achieve potentially better results in more conditions. Add to that the hassle and costs of working with film, and most professional photo work is now done in digital as well. Film is generally only used for stylistic purposes, by purists who are not satisfied with digital simulation.

I do understand the sentiment. I am a bit old and have seen words and phrases shift meanings in my lifetime and feel occasional irritation due to it (although I try to care less and less about it :)

I do find it harder to get worked up about a word that acquired additional meanings in the 14th century though - that ship has truly sailed :) Like who am I to school Mark Twain on the meaning of words.

I also find the ability of English to use the same word with different meanings and the power of context quite interesting (the fact that individual words exist in English with 100s of distinct meanings is really quite mind blowing.)

Ideas and concepts can sometimes be fuzzy as well with large overlaps, and insisting on too much specificity, precision and delineation in the language can be counterproductive to effective communication just as much as allowing too much flexibility can - but yeah, I guess there will always be some tension there and differences of opinion.

Language is often messy, but always fascinating. (And btw, I never said good or bad or right or wrong - I don’t feel it’s really my place to place such judgements)

Is it really a modern thing ? Somehow we got from Beowulf to Shakespeare, and from Latin to French in the past. I feel like the concept of “freezing” language in some fixed form is the more modern and academic ideal - and quite a quixotic one at that - people on the street will do with the language what they will as they always have.

Majority of the time when someone says they’re jealous of something they absolutely mean envious.

Isn’t this how language works ? If majority of the time people use the word in certain way, than that becomes one of its accepted meanings. In fact dictionaries list one of the meanings of “jealous” to be “envious” (with citations of this usage going back to 14th century, including works by Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain that are over 100 years old)

I am not sure you were as wrong as you think - see definitions 2 and 3 here

Usage of words shifts and sometimes expands over time.

More references here or here

I would personally definitely interpret “apparently” and “plainly” differently - “apparently” to me is “the evidence so far does seem to point this way, but I am not necessarily convinced, or have strong feelings either way” vs “plainly” is “the evidence is clear, I am convinced, and so should you be” - although obviously context would matter as well and could alter this interpretation.

Edit: even your example usage “I’ve been trying to get myself out of that habit, but even judging from my comment history, it’s apparently pretty hard” - to me the usage of “apparently” here indicates similar tension and/or contradiction, in this case between belief/intent (I am trying to stop the habit) and evidence (but my comment history shows otherwise) - it wouldn’t work quite as well with “plainly”

It would work with “evidently” but carry more of a connotation of confirmation and shift the emphasis (I am trying to, but it’s hard as confirmed by evidence) rather than contradiction (I would like to think I am doing it, but evidence shows otherwise) - of course you might have meant it either way (or even neither) - I am just saying how it reads to me.

But your citation gives both statements:

“In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times.”

and

“The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events that has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly occur an infinite number of times, given an infinite amount of time or a universe that is infinite in size.”

So when you say the number of times is “unknowable” the actual answer is “almost surely an infinite number of times” no ? Since the probability of that can be calculated as 100%. The mindfuck part is that it is still possible that no monkey at all will type a particular text, even though the probability of that is 0.

The probability that only 2 monkeys will type the text is also still 0, same as 3 monkeys, 4 monkeys, etc. - in fact the probability of any specific finite number of monkeys only typing out the text is still 0 - only the probability of an infinite number of monkeys typing it out is 100% (the probabilities of all possible outcomes, even when infinite, have to sum up to 1 after all)

We just know that it will almost surely happen, but that doesn’t mean it will happen an infinite amount of occurrences.

Basically, if we know “it will almost surely happen” then we also know just as surely (p=1) that it will also happen an infinite number of times (but it might also never happen, although with p=0)

Ok, this is interesting, so thanks for pointing me to it. I think it’s still safe to say “almost surely an infinite number of monkeys” as opposed to “almost surely at least one”, since the probability of both cases is still 100% (can their probability even be quantitatively compared ? is one 100% more likely than another 100% in this case ?)

The idea that something with probability of 0 can happen in an infinite set is still a bit of a mindfuck - although I understand why this is necessary (e.g. picking a random marble from an infinite set of marbles where 1 is blue and all others red for example - the probability of picking the blue marble is 0, but it is obviously still possible)

That’s the thing though, infinity isn’t “large” - that is the wrong way to think about it, large implies a size or bounds - infinity is boundless. An infinity can contain an infinite number of other infinities within itself.

Mathematically, if the monkeys are generating truly random sequences of letters, then an infinite number (and not just “at least one”) of them will by definition immediately start typing out Hamlet, and the probability of that is 100% (not “almost surely” edit: I was wrong on this part, 100% here does actually mean “almost surely”, see below). At the same time, every possible finite combination of letters will begin to be typed out as well, including every possible work of literature ever written, past, present or future, and each of those will begin to be typed out each by an infinite number of other monkeys, with 100% probability.

But it also works with infinite number of monkeys, one will almost surely start typing Hamlet right away.

Wouldn’t it even be not just one, but an infinite number of them that would start typing out Hamlet right away ?

The Threnody is definitely his most famous, but he has used that technique in some of his solo compositions for cello as well - example

He’s playing Penderecki

There are lots of black bears around Lake Arrowhead where they staged this.

The only fuel you can make from water is hydrogen. The RS-25 engines used on the SLS core stage and the Space Shuttle used liquid hydrogen, as did the J-2 engines on the second and third stage of the Saturn V (but not the first stage, which used RP-1 (kerosene) burning F-1 engine)

Starship’s Raptor engines use liquid methane however. There are a bunch of tradeoffs between the different fuels, but generally liquid hydrogen is more difficult and expensive to deal with. With low cost reusability being one of the primary objectives of Starship, liquid methane was chosen as the best option. The fact that it can also be manufactured on Mars was also considered, since CO2 is abundant in Martian atmosphere.

LOX is liquid oxygen, which is not a fuel, but an oxidizer. Starship is fueled by liquid methane. Methane can not be made from just water, you need a source of carbon. On Mars for example methane could be produced from CO2 in the atmosphere and water from ice.

YouTube video ads can’t be blocked with just DNS blocking unfortunately, they are served from the same hosts as YouTube videos.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

What is your source for this ? Recent polls show reunification support is still <2%, with about 6% open to reunification eventually but not now.

In 2018, before the crackdown in HK, the reunification support was 3%, with 13% open to it eventually - the events in HK have definitely significantly eroded support for reunification in Taiwan.

I have family in Taiwan and literally don’t know a single Taiwanese person that wants reunification with the PRC.

What’s wrong with using a text editor to remove lines ? In vim for example :g/pattern/d or :g!/pattern/d with regular expressions is a powerful tool for removing lines in bulk if needed.

The kids always adapt though.

There is a strong survivorship bias in this though. Some kids do adapt, maybe even most, but many still are harmed, and have been by unhealthy exposure to radio, television, videogames, etc. in the past. Social media is even wreaking havoc in the older generations right now.

It’s easy to point at the survivors and the success stories and say see, there is nothing to worry about - but that’s also a bit like pointing at the lifelong smokers who do not get lung cancer as an argument against promoting non-smoking.