Isn't being non-white good enough to not be identified as you? Sure, you might get identified as someone else altogether, but that's moving the goal posts from just not being identified. /s
Just this week I've been taking walks in my neighborhood, and the number of homes that chime or play a voice recording to indicate being recorded was shocking. I just indicate to them that I think they are number 1. In other situations where I'm in public with a camera cleary pointed in my direction I tend to do that with my hand in front of my face. If they are going to blur out the #1 sign, my face gets conveniently blurred as well. They might have a right to record, but I also have a right to silently express my opinion as well.
I worked at a place that provided services to railroad owners. This was back in the 90s, but they had camera rigs on engines that would record multiple angles along the train routes. They would store that footage in massive tape libraries to be used as reference to see the terrain in an area that service was needed to they'd know what kind of equipment would be necessary as well as a visual of the tracks themselves. They could not update the footage as fast as they liked. IIRC, footage was over a year old before getting updated.
Just another suggestion of a sector you could gain traction as it wasn't listed.
Oh 100% - we think rail would be an excellent market. But as you've stated, they already have a thing moving around (the train) to take photos.
We see less delta in our service (but still something). There's certain perspectives only our aerial vantage point could capture, but we're too focused on power utilities right now to run that to ground just yet.
Sometimes, you might be able to get a twofer, in that transmission lines often run very near tracks. However, somebody would be getting inferior imagery if they weren't the focus of the camera. But if the tracks are near enough to your lines with chargers installed, it might still allow some low hanging fruit after your initial client win. Maybe make your base stations cable of handling two drones; one for the power lines, the second for the tracks. I'm more rambling than tempting your focus. Just fun to think about.
Curious, does a straight flyover of lines/towers/poles offer the footage necessary, or do you have to orbit the support structure to see enough detail? That would obviously add much more time/expense.
Not all lines are on nice level land. Transmission lines go through some rugged terrain. I've seen some distribution lines that are in pretty rugged areas as well. They also mentioned the top down view was advantageous compared to a ground pounder's view, so a crawler would loose that view as well.
Delivery drones are leaving line of sight and yet they are operating. The Walmart near me started delivery late last year, and they are buzzing my area many times a day. I'd hope with enough testing these guys can work with the FAA to get certified to remove this limit.
The greatest part of reading HN is finding out that my distrust of apps and their developers is not weird. It does make me question my abilities as a dev for refusing to partake in these reindeer games. Clearly, I am not the right type of person to do well in big tech.
The problem is that it is weird. It's the smart/right thing to do, but countless people mindlessly install whatever they're told to install or whatever looks fun. We hand mobile devices over to children who have no idea why they shouldn't, but honestly many adults are just as ignorant and trusting.
Most people I've spoken with are either thinking "Apple/Google/Government would never allow apps to do something like that!" or they think "Everyone is already doing it so why bother trying to fight it. I'd only be inconveniencing myself for nothing"
> And we shouldnt allow the government to purchase this sort of data regardless of consent
Fine, we'll force companies to allow a small little box to be added to their data center. Don't worry about what it does, but you cannot disconnect network/power to it once it is installed. Once it is operational, you'll no longer need to think about it ever again, and we recommend that you don't. You should also not talk about this box to users/customers/clients. In fact, you'd be better off if you didn't talk to your employees about it either.
There's no reason to think that this doesn't regularly happen by at least one three letter agency. It's something they've done for a very long time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A). They were willing and able to secretly redirect every last bit of data going over AT&Ts backbone into their systems back in 2003 you can bet that they have at least that much capability in place today.
It's why FB decided to encrypt in transit data moving internally between data centers. I'm guessing some TLAs were none too pleased with that. Then again, maybe they suggested a particular encryption to use so they can say they are encrypting yet not slowing down the intake either????
Especially after Snowden, if anyone does not think the US govt TLAs are trying to read every bit that crosses a wire, then they are just deluding themselves. Even before Snowden, Echelon was known for telephonic intercepts. It didn't take much imagination to take it further for internet traffic. Snowden just removed the need for imagination.
someone designing for mobile first and wanted to maximize screen space. we don't have to be obtuse about it. it was an idea that just didn't go over as well as hoped. clearly, some people like it. it's not your cup of tea, great. now, we all know your feelings. next time i build a site, i'll be sure to get your opinions first.
But it's not maximizing it, that's the whole problem. It keeps coming back and blocking the line I'm reading. If they actually wanted to maximize screen space, it is trivial to just leave the top bar at the top of the page and not make it reappear when I scroll slightly back, no js/css needed.
It's not that hard of a concept to understand is it? You scroll down to read content so it disappears to maximize screen. If you start to scroll up, there's a pretty decent chance you might be wanting to go back to the top. If so, here's a shortcut. If not, then yeah it's annoying so you scroll up a bit and then scroll down again to make it go away. It's not the worst idea. It's not something everyone likes. I'm not exactly a fan, yet I'm not so distressed by it as others like yourself. It's less annoying than liquid glass to me.
Others have tried saving undoing scroll to the top with buttons that appear in the margins with "Back To Top" labels. Is it better? worse? It's just another idea. Scrolling all the way back to the top for site navigation on longer pages is annoying. Nothings perfect.
Even on mobile, where I most frequently encounter it, it really stinks. I don't know where you found any personality who actually likes it, outside of your own head.
If you really must show me the content of the header because in your judgement I can _NOT_ be left alone to read the article I opened instead of your critical header info, show me first and once, and let me access it again off the hamburger menu if it's that damn important.
If you know so much about how people actually use the web, you would also know that they almost NEVER actually see or read what is in those damn drop-down or pop-up headers/footers.
Dead serious, you could monitor me, and 10sec after I dealt with one of those headers, offer me a million dollars to tell you what was in it, and if I didn't you'd shoot me, you'd shoot me 999 times out of 1000. I may be a bit better self-trained for ad-blindness than many, but I know I'm nowhere near unique.
Whoever is selling them to the advertisers is defrauding them.
>>next time i build a site, i'll be sure to get your opinions first.
Seriously, with that attitude, it is obvious you think you are so much better than every reader that you do not need to check their opinion. And it is even more obvious the opinion that needs to be held in check is yours.
> I don't know where you found any personality who actually likes it, outside of your own head.
That's probably because I don't like it myself. You thinking I did like it is something in your head.
As a developer, I can understand why it was created. Sometimes, ideas sound good as a concept, but you really don't know if it is or not until it's actually done. I find this much less annoying than sites that hijack the scroll bar to do their own cool scrolling. For somethings, it's neat. Kind of like some Flash sites did some cool things. It's the ones that try to be like the cool thing but have a totally different site where it just doesn't fit. Those are the really annoying sites. I don't like a lot of the way lots of other developers have implemented things. I just make a note of something I found annoying, and avoid doing that thing on my projects. I'm only able to do things I'm in control of, and try hard to recognize when it's not in my control and just move along. I don't let it ruin my day.
Most asteroids have slowed to terminal velocity by the time they impact. It’s not nothing, but it’s mostly going to be relevant to physical processes and not chemical ones.
You might consider that scientists advanced enough in their field to be launching missions to retrieve dust from asteroids are actually aware of basic facts relevant to their field of study.
You might consider that even concepts like plate tectonics (which frankly are incredibly obvious if one just looks at a map) were considered ridiculous ideas by the most advanced experts in their field at one point. A point not that long ago.
I’m not saying the person you are responding too is right - but appealing to authority on something like this has a pretty bad track record.
I've had someone post a problematic ffmpeg command into a prompt to ask why it wasn't working. It didn't work so well. By the time that someone rejiggered their prompt, I had found the issue.
The sad thing about this is the problems encountered during post from the production team saying "fix it post" during the shoot. I've been on set for green screen shoots where the lighting was not done properly. I watched the gaffer walk across the set taking readings from his meter before saying the lighting was good. I flip on the waveform and told him it was not even (which never goes down well when camera dept tells the gaffer it's not right). He put up an argument, went back and took measurements again before repeating it was good. I flipped the screen around and showed him where it was obviously not even. A third set of meter readings and he starts adjust lights. Once the footage was in post, the fx team commented about how easy the keys were because of the even lighting.
The problem is that the vast majority of people on set have no clue what is going on in post. To the point, when the budget is big enough, a post supervisor is present on production days to give input so "fixing it in post" is minimized. When there is no budget, you'll see situations just like in the first 30 seconds of TFA's video. A single lamp lighting the background so you can easily see the light falling off and the shadows from wrinkles where the screen was just pulled out of the bag 10 minutes before shooting. People just don't realize how much light a green screen takes. They also fail to have enough space so they can pull the talent far enough off the wall to avoid the green reflecting back onto the talent's skin.
TL;DR They solved something to make post less expensive because they cut corners during production.
I fully agree but I think for them making it possible to cut corners during production is the whole point. Think about it: The choice is between 5 minutes of work plus a one time purchase of a decent GPU and a big room with a complex lighting setup with a post supervisor present. Now, quality of the end result will not be the same, for sure. You and me would opt for the quality setup whenever we can, but many others won't.
If you're on such a low production budget that you just physically do not have the lamps to light a screen, then you really have to ask if green screen is the right option. Maybe flip it and shoot black limbo so you do not need lights, and the lights you do have can be better used as key lights for separation. You also don't have to worry about the color cast from your light screen. Essentially, you just need a garbage matte for the key, and then clean up what might be getting keyed that you don't actually need. Detecting foreground subject from background is so capable now that a screen isn't necessary, and matte clean up is pretty much unnecessary. Of course you lose street cred of not being able to say you used green screen, but who cares as long as the shot works out.
> TL;DR They solved something to make post less expensive because they cut corners during production.
FWIW having watched the entire thing, they never blamed bad production staff or unavoidable constraints. Those are things that anyone working with others experiences when making anything, whether it's YouTube videos or enterprise software products. My TLDR is: "Chroma keying is an fragile and imperfect art at best, and can become a clusterf#@k for any number of reasons. CorridorKey can automatically create world-class chroma keys even for some of the most traditionally-challenging scenarios."
Yes and it was a massive manual effort. In a way they acknowledged that keying does not really work all the way and having that unnatural color everywhere in the set is not worth it. It’s a massive production with heavy VFX work so not something you can apply to your own production. Sand screen and roto sections of this discussion are interesting.
reply