Posts by coppersailor28

steeljackal7 said:Why on earth would filmmakers even need to care about physics or Einstein in the first place? ...

👍 That's precisely the point. The industry gave it the name '3D film' for a reason.

It's like getting a city code enforcement officer worked up because a street in Washington, D.C. is named Beethoven Street, even though that composer never set foot in the city...

(Meanwhile, there's a Ford Fusion covered in graffiti right on that same street—but no, that's not his concern. His only concern is "is it technically correct to call this Beethoven Street?!")

Have you messed around with any of this?
(Probably, but whatever)

Try searching this instead—though you’ve likely already typed it into Google:
how to add another location on google business (GMB) /GoogleMyBusiness/

(I don't know the first thing about any of this, so don't bother asking me questions about it)

Mark Cruz15 said:I know what a 3D movie is. I've sat through a few in theaters.
In short, That's exactly why it's called that. What exactly have you all decided? ☕

Well...
I'm not even looking at the reasoning behind that name from that perspective:

- Just a regular photo. (photo) If we’re talking about 2D, that third dimension—the one actually "making" the image—only spans a few microns. It's negligible. There is zero point in factoring in paper thickness.

- 3D imagery. (image) It’s 2D. The relevant third dimension—specifically the one that... etc.

- Just an ordinary movie. It’s just 2D. The relevant third dimension—specifically, the one that... etc.

- 3D films. A gimmick. Most of them are just an excuse to charge extra for a blurry, headache-inducing mess. If the tech actually worked, we wouldn't be sitting there feeling like our eyes are being pulled in two different directions. It’s all flash, no substance. It's just 2D. The relevant third dimension—specifically the one that... etc.

3D image. (photo) It's a 2D image. Photographed and processed. Added an upper plate, for example. In a unique way. The finishing details aren't uniform, nor are they relevant here.

3D film is just a 2D film that’s been shot and processed. That's it. (glasses, e.g.) In a unique way. The finishing details aren't uniform. They don't matter here.

3D films. A gimmick. Most of them are just an excuse to charge more for a ticket while making everyone in the theater squint at the screen. Give me actual cinematography over cheap depth effects any day. It’s the same deal with 3D photography. I am inherently 2D.
The third dimension. (depth) Only a human would actually "notice" a film like that. Let's release a few—if any—of the other animals..
That third dimension is nothing more than an illusion.Not even a real dimension. It isn't like a spatial third dimension, nor is it anything like time, what people call the fourth dimension..

It’s a deliberate and successful deception. These 2D films utilize specific filming or projection techniques to create the illusion of 3D space. Calling them 3D movies isn't wrong.

Mark Cruz15 said:Considering the circumstances. If Einstein had integrated his theory of relativity into the mainstream a century ago. Time as a fourth dimension. Simple concept. Most people struggle to grasp it. They view it as a linear progression, a simple ticking clock. It isn't. If you want to understand the physics, you have to look at it through the lens of the theory of relativity. Time isn't just a background setting; it's an integral part of the fabric of our universe. A fourth dimension. Deal with it.And today. Physics. It goes even further., Why? That’s what they call those movies. 3D., Not 4D., Since. We see all three spatial dimensions and the flow of time within them.?
Has the film industry even considered this?

Mark Cruz15 said:Since Einstein introduced time as the 4th dimension in his theory of relativity a century ago, and modern physics is pushing even further, why do we call these movies 3D instead of 4D? We see all three spatial dimensions plus the passage of time...

Compared to a "2D" presentation, 3D films show depth...
But that depth isn't an inherent characteristic of the film itself (the surface of the film strip doesn't have any relief, let alone some complex 3D shape).
Essentially, the "third D" is provided by the audience, not the film itself.

As for the fourth dimension...
In the realm of cinema, Austin holds zero authority. I don't understand the need to be a lid for every (literally every single one) pot!
...meaning, regarding the fourth dimension, the time within the plot is not one of the dimensions being discussed here.

By that logic, you can't credit a 2D film with three-dimensionality just because of the hour and a half spent in a projector—I know, it sounds harsh, but those are the rules.

A 3D film is just a 2D film filmed in a specific way... plus that trivial fourth dimension called
'aging, regardless of where you are or what you do'.
And that doesn't count, because people love to attach it even to the oldest films shot in black and white, which remain strictly 2D.

To reiterate: the 'third D' is the audience.

Has the film industry even considered this?

We considered it—that’s why it is what it is.

silentcanyon83 said:Hello everyone! 🙂 I think I might be facing a problem that I don't quite know how to tackle. Alcohol... it seems to be a very frequent presence in my life. On most days, I'll have at least three or four drinks—meaning at least half a bottle of wine. On the weekends, it’s always a full bottle for me. During the week, I'm usually having one, two, or three glasses quite often. I'm starting to worry because that buzzed feeling creates this sense of happiness where I can just "disconnect" from the world, and it feels wonderful...

To give you a little bit of my history... I'm 31, and on paper, everything seems perfectly normal. I finished school, went through college, and have a steady job. But ever since I was a teenager, maybe 15 or 16, when weekend parties and going out first started, I always felt the need to drink until I was completely hammered. Always until I didn't feel so great. Back then, though, it was strictly a weekend thing. That changed about three years ago when I finally moved out of my parents' house into my own apartment. That's when I realized how lovely it is to get drunk all by myself. You don't have to talk to anyone; you just relax and sip away. The trouble is, slowly but surely, this has become more appealing than actually socializing with people. And once I start, it's so difficult to stop, so I often end up drinking alone...

Though, I suppose I am still somewhat "responsible," since I don't overdo it during the work week, mostly because I know I have to be able to function at my job.

People... what should I do? Should I look into Alcoholics Anonymous or something similar? Are there others out there dealing with the same thing? 😵😵

silentcanyon83 said:Still, I’m being "responsible" enough not to overdo it during the week. I have to actually show up for work, after all.

It’s probably obvious to you that for an addict, every single moment is just one long phase of being 'Trapp'.I'm just not at that stage yet.'
In that phase—which, let’s be honest, was deemed "unacceptable" just yesterday.

You say:The issue is this. What? It became trivial for me. It’s even better than..."

silentcanyon83 The user said:... What should I do? Anonymous alcoholics, or what? Anyone else out there like me?

Quit drinking.

They're definitely out there.
And they’re still drinking, since the work is still ongoing. The boiled frog syndrome. It’s a classic metaphor for a reason. People think they can ignore small, incremental shifts in reality because nothing feels catastrophic in the moment. They settle into a slow decline, waiting for a sudden shock that never comes—because by then, the environment has already changed too much to survive. It’s a warning against complacency. Watch the temperature. The boiling frog syndrome. Someone’s turning up the heat while you're just sitting there, oblivious..

As briskbison47 puts it:
"If you took some lonely, drunken old lady wandering the streets, smelling like she hasn't seen a shower in a year, and turned back the clock on her—she’d sound exactly like you.."
Her story would basically be a carbon copy of your opening post.

Am I an alcoholic? Yes.
The question is simple: have you reached physical dependency yet? If you haven't hit that stage, then seeing a therapist or joining an AA meeting is a perfectly viable option.
It’s absolutely necessary—if you can’t, or simply "won't," put an end to your own downward spiral.

You probably know why you're running toward the Morphine. Or at least, you suspect the reasons—provided you aren't too afraid to actually look them in the eye.

coppersailor28 said:..., then even God wouldn't dream of messing with it hoping for a result, yeah...

I was referring to a video, not a still image.
Essentially, you take a single saved file from photoshop, tweak it, say 23 times (for 23 frames per second) and repeat that cycle for every single second of the scene (assuming it’s dynamic, obviously) that we actually intend to edit.

You can handle basic tasks like nesting videos or trimming clips using iMovie.
You could likely add text overlays too, provided they weren't there originally (not subtitles, just text on screen).

As for the latter, I'm not entirely certain; you’d probably have to get creative (some sort of workaround—using iMovie alongside a graphics editor... since iMovie lacks layers, it would be an unnecessary headache and a total waste of time).

But you also mentioned removing text from a video.
That isn't a simple process, and it’s hardly "worth it" considering the effort involved compared to (usually) the final result.

Even with those more advanced (better) video editing suites, it isn't that easy.

It's much like standard graphic design, using something like Microsoft Photoshop for example:
it's easy enough to compose an image using various elements or text, but once that work is saved in a format that flattens all those ('layers') into a single plane (into one layer), no sane person is going to try and tinker with it hoping to produce something visually decent or high quality.

Nicholas Watson said:In this modern era, the username 'Rachel Price6' should probably have...

... a checkmark over the 'z'.

... If someone identifies as male before and now as female, or vice versa, or some third gender who are we to defend that.
Let's be progressive and stop judging others for who they are.

From what I gather, Rachel Price6 likes to wander through the politics and US subforums...
'Who are we'?
Whoever or whatever we are, it isn't fair to post there under false pretenses.

Most of this is just heavy Photoshop (left side of the image).

I only skimmed through the first part of the link from the original post...

If the second half turns out to be another'compilation of music videos themed around WW2' (which I actually found somewhat tolerable), then I won't just 'skim' through it this time...

But if it isn't, then I won't even bother opening the link (the first part includes several non-musical scenes I stumbled upon while skimming).

John Baker68 said:... I think I'm going to file a lawsuit over this. ☕
Under Reddit rules, the platform is obligated to hand over data when a lawsuit is involved.☕

Please let this serve as further proof that the Moderator is lying.
https://i.postimg.cc/QVLGtZWv/Capturezak1.jpg

That bit about "this as further proof"—what are we talking about? Two unearned free coffees mentioned above, or the image below?

If you actually intend to take this to court, do yourself a favor and ask a random passerby what a court even is, or where one might find one...

But don't worry, the judge will surely enlighten you that "under Reddit rules, the platform isn't strictly required to provide accurate data; they can just send fabricated info if it causes them less damage than handing over the truth."

Terry Barnes7 said:... them... is monitoring. Or should be. 😉

Where on earth did you crawl out from to lecture and lecture us here!
The pot is calling you black (your 'signature' and other similar nonsense), so you can't see reality?

Look in the mirror:
oasis | evil

Now that the initial panic has subsided and my head is finally clear enough to think straight, I suppose it’s somewhat normal that previous posts don't "update"... HOWEVER...

...but you probably remember that one alt's changed signature too, which is why there was a "need" to dig through a Google snapshot to see what the page actually looked like... say, back on Sept 15, 2019, at 18:55:16 GMT...
just to "prove" to him that before the change his signature wasn't (come on) following some of the Reddit rules...

The thing is, back then, it wasn't possible to view the original version of a signature (the actual version used when that specific post was written) within older threads; instead, even in older posts it showed the updated one—meaning whatever the latest version of someone's signature was.

Something definitely shifted regarding the "technical side of how signatures are displayed."

From what I can tell, signatures seem to only show up starting from the very first post made after you actually enable the setting.
(It won't appear—and likely won't ever appear—in any of your previous posts)

Fine.

Dear Casey Bennett,

Yesterday, on a thread that’s already been deleted, I clumsily threw my support behind some petition.

Since there's no 'beep' for regret once it's done, I decided to enable the signature option in my profile...
No, the issue is that while the signature shows up in my profile, it doesn't seem to leave a trace in my actual posts.

Does a signature need to be approved for 'visibility in posts,' or am I just dealing with a technical glitch on my end?

P.S.
While logged in—as I am now—the signature is visible to me;
but only on the 'view post' page, specifically before clicking 'Post Reply'.
Even when logged in, it still doesn't show up in my standard posts.

P.S.2 (not 'PlayStation')
I can see my signature in this thread even when logged out... but it's still missing from other subforums.

P.S.3
Everything's fine now.
I wrote a new post, sent it... and now the signature is visible to me within it. It stays visible even after logging out...

If someone stepped in to help, my thanks—if not, then thanks to whatever cosmic force finally sorted itself out.

Regards, 🙂

Try this online resizer...

- click the blue "Select image" button (that opens your File Explorer)

- pick the file and hit 'Open' in the bottom right

- on the site,
"Define the new size of your image using:" 'dimensions'

- in the "width" box, type (no quotes) '640' / leave 'height' blank
(640px width won't wreck an entire forum thread)

- click the green "Resize"

- once you see "Image filename.ext (jpg, png, etc.) resized", just click "Download"

David Richardson67 said:Why doesn't every single new user undergo mandatory cloning tests by default? It would clear up a lot of confusion.

It wouldn't solve a thing.
If a clone posts from the same IP address as the "original," then administration (eventually) catches it anyway.

In most cases, clones end up exposing themselves—through their writing style, subject matter, specific slang, and so on. New accounts don't have those patterns established yet...

(Not a hater of the "normal" clones...)

hiddeneagle98 said:Why was this post flagged for "justifying murder"???

I suppose the court will decide if the killing was "unjustified."..

Was the offense—or whatever you want to call it, though it’s hardly one of the most heinous crimes—severe enough to make that killing justifiable?

Or were the officer who knelt on Floyd's neck for ten straight minutes and those other two officers in such extreme danger that the killing could be considered justified?

Based on your post, you seem like one of those "test subjects" who failed the "humanity test"—you know, that famous experiment where they gave electric shocks to an actor pretending to be in pain... some of those subjects did exactly what they were told.

The above applies even more to John Doe, who wrote this:
"...resisted arrest for 10 minutes, only then arriving at a situation where one of the officers recklessly (even that is questionable considering that kneeling on the neck is standard control technique...) ...

I'm not claiming I would have emerged from that experiment as a person worthy of respect back then, but today I would.

In some other (not quite similar) experiment, I would probably still fail today.
But in that one, or something like it, I would pass now—and that's already a significant step.

Monday, August 17, 2020
Reddit says:
Current time: 3:48 PM (EST) /meaning 3:50 - if those 'M' minutes/

The site isn't updating. Or rather, is it/isn't it/isn't it...
Right now, it's a 'no' (the latest thread on the front page is from "Today at '09:16'"—if it were a 'yes,' things would be working as intended, though this downtime hasn't exactly been brief)

Can anyone enlighten me? Anyone, anything (though let's skip the nonsense like last time)

🙂

Not at all. That anger most likely stems from a disagreement over some moderator's "intervention."