It has 99.5% confidence this is my 10th visit. I've hit refresh once, but the rest aren't me. My other "visits" are from many countries, saying I've changed browser, IP, and location. They are using the same OS and browser though.
Top 5 and typical all generate pretty much the same code (a bunch of typeof checks). The only difference with typical is that it that the error throwing involves some string concatenation the others don't (typical logs the bad value, and can be used multiple places so passes in the property name).
The benchmark itself is fine, but very simple. No arrays, only one level of nesting, no reuse of types, no template literals, no generic, no union types etc etc. Gives you a good idea of the general overhead, but isn't really playing to the strengths I think typical might have (hoisting functions that can be reused etc).
But speed is super important if you're intending to validate everywhere, so I'll keep my fork up to date. Thanks for the idea.
I just bought and received imagery of my rural property, just for fun.
The resolution is very poor. Technically you might be able to make out 50cm things as a pixel, but it’s blurry and has a lot of artefacts. The colours are also not brilliant. If you’re expecting anything at all like what you get from google earth, you’ll be disappointed.
However, it was a very recent image (a few weeks ago), and with clear and sensible pricing. I can see how for some uses it would be perfect.
I had someone come and map 170ac for about AU$1k using a drone. Extreme resolution (and 3D + DSM too), so there are a lot of options.
> The resolution is very poor. Technically you might be able to make out 50cm things as a pixel, but it’s blurry and has a lot of artefacts
The CEO in this thread says they use Albedo for imagery.
I feel like Albedo is way overselling their capabilities because it’s not real 10cm imagery. It’s essentially computational photography taken at a way worse resolution (>30cm), and does a poor job computing a better image.
If you read about it in their blog post and actually zoom
in on their example simulated 10cm image, it looks quite bad. Way worse than just Google Earth.
What’s also super confusing is SkyFi uses Google Earth to be the viewer you use to find the image you want to buy from them, so you’re essentially being shown a way higher resolution (Google) aerial photo than what your actually buying.
Back to Albedo, what’s also frustrating is they rarely include the word “simulated” when they talk about 10cm imagery (should ALWAYS be stated as “simulated 10cm”). Which leads people to believe their image products are higher resolution than they really are.
Albedo is a partner but they have not launched yet. When we post our resolution, it is native not enhanced. In version 1.0 we have not turned on 30cm. We do intend on adding this feature once we finish the QC process. Typically Google earth is Arial imagery in dense areas or approximately 4Ocm inagery. Hope this clarifies.
Their write up is a little confusing, especially when combined with your statement.
> The imagery starts with panchromatic plus 4 color aerial imagery that was collected at a native GSD of 3.8 cm, which enables accurate removal of aerial sensor properties and resampling to the Albedo 10 cm resolution and camera properties.
Makes it sound like they have a spatial resolution of 3.8cm per pixel. This isn't panchromatic in a single pixel, but that's also true of things like Bayer mosaics in digital cameras.
Two men were walking along a road talking of this and that. "What do you think," says one. "Which is more fun, defecating or having sex?"
The guy says, "Let's ask that prostitute, she's done one as often as the other."
Is it me or is that punchline not even crass? The wording the article uses to allude to it is equally crass, as far as I'm concerned (so what was the point of not including it?).
Agreed, I don't know what 'it involves asking a sex worker' spares us over that. Nor why we want to be spared in an article on 'jokes that have made people laugh for thousands of years' even if it were worse!
.jpg){kind=link}