Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Kenny 20 April 2017 11:13:19PM 0 points [-]

Definitely a side point, but thanks for the info anyways!

Comment author: CrimeThinker 20 April 2017 10:33:22PM 0 points [-]

Thanks. :)

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 20 April 2017 09:20:18PM 1 point [-]

"Asimov on Chemistry" was a childhood favourite of mine.

Comment author: Jiro 20 April 2017 06:55:02PM 2 points [-]

Response to old post:

Appears to be an urban legend.

Summary: Checking Google Books shows lots of references to pink for girls/blue for boys, and no references to the opposite, going back to the 19th century.

Note: Wikipedia links to this article, but summarizes it in a way which makes it sound much weaker than it really is.

Comment author: fmgn 19 April 2017 09:17:50AM 1 point [-]

Masculinity isn't off-putting.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 18 April 2017 02:48:39PM 2 points [-]

Don't worry, it will have been available in 2017 one of these days.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 18 April 2017 04:43:01AM 0 points [-]

moved here

Comment author: fmgn 16 April 2017 08:44:32PM 2 points [-]

Still waiting.

Comment author: Raemon 16 April 2017 04:52:22PM 0 points [-]

I want to reference this post, and it'd be slightly handy if the formatting was cleaned up a little (i.e. paragraph spaces inserted)

Comment author: fmgn 16 April 2017 10:03:12AM 0 points [-]

So is it a planet or not?

Comment author: fmgn 16 April 2017 08:03:43AM 0 points [-]

"What causes others to welcome you" is almost always the right answer for anyone who lives in the real world and isn't a hermit.

Comment author: fmgn 16 April 2017 07:15:37AM 0 points [-]

Noise / sound exist independently of observation, at least so long as you subscribe to the idea that there exists an objective reality outside of your own mind. They are pressure waves transmitted through some medium.

The tree makes a sound, which no one hears.

Comment author: ThoughtSpeed 15 April 2017 08:59:57PM 0 points [-]

I think "upskill" is another one of these.

Comment author: Lumifer 15 April 2017 05:32:33AM 0 points [-]

Continuously, not so much so far as I know

Cameras with an electronic viewfinder have to update it with a reasonable refresh rate, if the AF is set to continuous it's updated in real time as long you half-press the shutter button, exposure/histogram is also updated in real time. The issue is basically how high a frequency can it do.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this

The key word is "predict". If you are confident of your prediction, you can do an exposure without measuring anything while it's in process.

simply to extend the range of acceptable exposure times

Well, there clearly would be a lot of trade-offs involved. An obvious one is that if you e.g. pan the sensor to keep the eyes sharp, all the motionless elements in the image would get smudged. That might work fine for a particular picture, but it is a specific look.

even the best IS systems don't deliver a 6-stop improvement

They do now. The latest Olympus -- EM-1 Mark2 -- claims to do 5.5 stops just with body IS and if you add lens IS that it can talk to (not sure there are more lens that can do that besides the 12-100mm) it goes up to 6.5 stops.

Comment author: gjm 15 April 2017 02:14:47AM 0 points [-]

get brighter lenses

Oh yes, very much so. But the brighter lenses, again, require non-smartphone cameras. (Not necessarily SLRs, of course.)

You are assuming an SLR

I wasn't, I promise.

have their sensor open all the time and read it continuously

Open all the time, yes. Continuously, not so much so far as I know. The processing is separate from the sensor, and there's a readout process that amounts to capturing an image from light falling on the sensor during a given period.[1] Hmm, if readout and reset are separate (which I think they generally are) then I suppose you can capture shorter "subframes" without disturbing the capture of a longer frame within which they occur. That was an error on my part, but it wasn't the result of assuming an SLR camera. I still worry that getting the information needed would require very short (and therefore noisy) subframes, and that that would interfere with accurate tracking. But I haven't done the obvious experiments to see what the images would be likely to look like.

continuous AF already tries to predict the subject movement.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, since I already said exactly the same thing in the comment you were replying to, and the whole point of my proposal was to make use of the subject-motion-tracking already implemented for AF to enable the IS mechanism to compensate for subject motion.

tracking the eyes

Yes, though of course that fails if the subject's eyes happen not to be in shot, or if the subject is something without eyes, or if they're too small in the image to track well (if this turns out to be feasible, bird photographers will love it -- though possibly birds move too fast). AF can do pretty well at tracking subjects even if they don't have visible eyes; I assume this system would use essentially the same techniques. (Track whatever high-contrast features happen to be visible in the right places, I guess.)

very limited in the magnitude of movement it can compensate for

Yes (that was my point about it being hopeless if the subject moves too much). But we're talking here (or at least I am) about movement within a single image-capture, and the point is simply to extend the range of acceptable exposure times. If a sharp image requires that your child not move more than a pixel or two, and if you have an IS system that can move the sensor by 100 pixels[2], and -- this is the tricky bit -- if this hypothetical system can predict the child's movement well enough -- then you can get a sharp image with an exposure 50x longer than without the system. In practice it would not be nearly that good, of course. (The same argument applies to the use of IS to mitigate hand movement, but even the best IS systems don't deliver a 6-stop improvement. And they have the advantage of being able to use accelerometers to measure how the camera is moving rather than depending on analysing previous image captures.) If we're talking about improvements of a stop or two, then the max displacement of the IS mechanism would probably not be the limiting factor.

[1] For "rolling-shutter" sensors, the relevant region in spacetime is "sheared" :-).

[2] I haven't looked hard for this information, but one thing found by desultory googling is that the sensor-shift IS on the (now some years old) Pentax K-7 SLR can move the sensor by about 1mm. The horizontal size of its sensor is about 24mm and 5000 pixels, so 1mm is about 200px.

Comment author: Kisil 14 April 2017 05:33:45PM 1 point [-]

Sure. The biggest one is that when someone has poor social skills, we treat that as a thing to tolerate rather than as a thing to fix. E.g. someone shows up to a meetup and doesn't really get how conversation flow works, when it's time to talk and when it's time to listen, how to tell the difference between someone being interested in what ze has to say and someone just being polite. We're welcoming, at least outwardly, and encourage that person to keep showing up, so ze does. And the people who are both disinclined to be ranted to and who have the social skills to avoid the person learn to do so, but we don't seem to make any effort to help the person become less annoying. So ze continues to inflict zirself on newcomers who haven't learned better, and they walk away with the impression that that's what our community is.

Which is sad, because we spend plenty of time encouraging self-improvement in thinking skills. If we siphoned some effort from "notice you're confused" to "notice your audience", we should be able to encourage self-improvement in social skills as well. But since we don't treat it like something fixable, it doesn't get fixed.

Comment author: Lumifer 14 April 2017 04:40:00PM 0 points [-]

if I'm breaking any unspoken rules by commenting on an old popular post

You're fine, this community necros all the time.

Comment author: Lumifer 14 April 2017 04:37:33PM 0 points [-]

This in turn requires you to get more photons to the sensor per unit time, which requires a physically larger camera

Yes, but there is one other way besides getting a bigger sensor -- get brigher lenses. One f-stop difference gives you twice as many photons.

As to your idea, it might be more workable than you think :-)

Autofocus tracks subject movement between photos

You are assuming an SLR and that's not the only choice nowadays. Mirrorless cameras have their sensor open all the time and read it continuously (plus some have specific autofocus sensels embedded into the main sensor).

Besides, continuous AF already tries to predict the subject movement. It's not a big stretch to to apply it to IS as well.

There is the issue of what to track, but tracking the eyes seems like a reasonable default and eye identification already exists in consumer cameras (it's used to maintain the focus on the eyes).

The big issue is that IS is very limited in the magnitude of movement it can compensate for and for large shifts you will need to move the whole camera (using something like an autopanning tripod head that FOOMed).

All in all, some kind of "subject movement compensation assist" seems technically possible. But at consumer level, probably not before Alicorn's kid grows up.

Comment author: gjm 14 April 2017 02:46:57PM 0 points [-]

For what it's worth, I omitted Weill and Gershwin because I thought ohwilleke might not consider them arty enough, Messiaen becase I wasn't confident enough ohwilleke would concede that his music sounds good, and Copeland because Appalachian Spring was the obvious work to use and I already had enough from around that time :-). Of course I agree that otherwise those works are all worthy of inclusion in any list like mine.

Comment author: snikolenko 14 April 2017 11:55:30AM *  0 points [-]

Sometimes, when the pain level of not having done a task grows too high - like just before a deadline - it'll push you to do it. But this fools people into thinking that negative consequences alone will be a motivator, so they try to psyche themselves up by thinking about how bad it would be to fail. In truth, this is only making things worse, as an increased chance of failure will increase the negative motivation that's going on.

It appears that this part confuses two aspects of negative motivation: the magnitude of the consequences vs. the chance of failure. "How bad it would be to fail" does not look like a good predictor of akrasia/procrastination. For example, it would be extremely bad to fail at crossing a street and get hit by a car. So most people do try to be careful when crossing streets. But if somebody was procrastinating about crossing a street it would probably be a sign of some serious mental condition. In my opinion, that is precisely because you're highly unlikely to fail.

I believe that "how likely it would be to fail" is a much stronger predictor; people just don't like failing, even if the consequences are small or completely imaginary (and it's obvious they are imaginary on minimal introspection). To run with one of your examples -- I have seen people actually procrastinate about making a decision in a single-player computer game, even though it's obvious that there are no consequences beyond extra time spent (which you're spending on the game anyway).

The prehistoric example does not differentiate because there we have both components: it's both very bad to get eaten and also quite likely (given that you're being chased by a predator).

[this is my first comment here, so I apologize if I'm breaking any unspoken rules by commenting on an old popular post]

View more: Next