KillingTimeItself

@KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

KillingTimeItself ,

because showing up in peoples feeds randomly and posting yiff is funny to me.

I am here to be a menace. Expect the unexpected always.

KillingTimeItself ,

love how we can murder criminals but if i want to murder myself legally, it's impossible.

Thanks guys, very cool.

KillingTimeItself ,

firing squad is i think the most commonly agreed upon method, beyond what we do for (legally consented) lethal injections and MAD.

lethal injection was a mistake, electrocution was a mistake. The british canon execution is ironically, probably the best option.

KillingTimeItself ,

chemical injection or lethal injection as its referred to is ABSOLUTELY worse than this.

Lethal injection comes with the fun side effects of rolling the lottery on the anesthetic, the paralyzant. Or the cardiac arrest agent.

not enough anesthesia? Now you're gonna feel all kinds of pain while not being able to move, at all!
Not enough paralyzant? You can still move, and now it looks inhumane!
you fuck up the both of those? They can feel it AND move, now it's a fun experience for the WHOLE family!
you mess up the last one? They won't die! Oops.

Also failed injections, there have been numerous cases of failed injections leading to horrific chemical burns under the skin. There have been instances where prisoners were found with tons of injection sites. Implying that they failed repeatedly.

The best part? the ratio was cooked up by some dude who wasn't a medical professional, and just went "thing to numb the pain, thing to stop them from moving, and a thing to stop the heart. NOW MY CONCOCTION IS PERFECTED!"

This is why manufacturers don't sell the components anymore.

forcibly ending peoples lives just isnt humane to begin with. But given the option between the two, nitrogen hypoxia is better.

KillingTimeItself ,

they cant let him out because our penal system is dysfunctional and doesnt work.

I'm baffled that ANYBODY thought it was a good idea to begin with.

KillingTimeItself ,

being a yt-dlp user myself, who runs a media server for mostly YT content.

I can say that google deserves it. They store like 2-3x the amount of data that they need to be storing per video. 11 files for a single video 1080p to 4k. All different bitrates, some barely different than any others. (i realize it's for codec support, but like, seriously?)

especially when they run predatory ads, force services into youtube premium that you don't want, just generally do not respect the creator base and certainly not the viewer base. Honestly i think google deserves to lose money right now.

KillingTimeItself ,

well yeah, you should be familiar with the services you host, means you are competent with them, and are capable of fixing things when they explode.

I mean, would you rather have spent 50 hours learning and setting something up, becoming somewhat familiar with it, vs clicking a button and it runs. In the event that it explodes and you need to maintain something?

It's a price that's worth paying for, not to mention it's not like you've wasted that time. It's time that you can use to put into other things that will benefit your life. I am currently running about 4-5 services, aside from game servers, that directly benefit my life. Because i've taken the time to learn and understand that stuff. (all of which are free, and run on my own hardware)

Plus it gives me freedom, i'm confident and content that i could self host every service i would need to use, in the event i dont want to use outside services. It wouldn't be pleasant to learn and or setup, but i absolutely could.

KillingTimeItself ,

intrigued by the fact that this is hated so much. It's a courteous ask, and something you probably should be doing. Especially if you can just copy and paste the majority of it.

I try to do it when possible.

KillingTimeItself ,

it's like nobody ever explained to these people that guns are just a tool.

They are quite literally, just a tool. That is all.

KillingTimeItself ,

but if im cold, and im inside, and they're cold, and they're outside. Then wouldn't that mean that we'd just both be cold, together?

KillingTimeItself ,

gun doesn't do much to help you from a robbery if you buy it after the fact.

KillingTimeItself ,

some people are really strict about them, which is a good thing, me personally im a little more lax about those kinds of things because im a nerd.

You wouldn't catch me ANYWHERE telling ANYBODY i have a gun, unless it would be the obvious outcome. Half the point of personal carry is nobody knowing that you are carrying.

KillingTimeItself ,

this is true, but having one is definitely going to be more useful than not. At the very least you have some sense of self defense, at a ranged distance.

My point is, worrying about something prematurely is better than worrying about something after it's too late. You wanna know why the internet explodes once a year because of cloudflare? People not worrying about things until after they implement them.

KillingTimeItself ,

yeah, fair enough, back country is different.

KillingTimeItself ,

do you live in a multi story building currently or at any point in your life have/will live in a multi story building?

Those have stairs, those are dangerous.

You can still do all of what you suggested even while having a gun on you and being ready to use it. It's a question of how much you care. And how much the person breaking in cares. It's pretty likely that the person breaking in is just going to leave once they see you, let alone realize you have a weapon. If they have a weapon, you'll be better off with a weapon, regardless of what you do in that scenario.

If you're worried about escalation you can hide, and stay armed in case you need to be. They can cause accidents, that's true of everything. Ask anybody who works with power tools, they'll say the same thing. Ask people that drive motorcycles, they'll say the same thing. Ask people who engage with sports, they'll say similar things depending on the sport.

A lot of what we do is dangerous, a lot of that stuff is also done for recreation. Some of it not so much. There's no getting around it, all you can do is practice good etiquette and keep on top of safety. Like everybody else. I'm sure there are things that you do for leisure or entertainment that could be fairly dangerous in the right scenario. I mean im sitting here looking at a screen, typing on a keyboard, one of which is bad for my eyes, the other of which is bad for my back, and the final one is bad for my hands/wrists. Ideally i shouldn't be doing any of this, and i should be going outside, but that just shifts the danger to other things like power tool accidents.

I mean hell, you probably use your car for things that you don't need to be doing, which is arguably more dangerous than just owning a gun, storing it appropriately, and correctly maintaining it. It's almost ironic, a lot of gun owners take better care of their guns than they do their own cars. Even though those should be looked after better. I can see why you'd be scared/concerned about them. But ultimately, it's nothing more significant than anything else. ANYTHING that can cause bodily harm and injury should be carefully monitored.

KillingTimeItself ,

genuinely dont understand the logic behind having that many cameras. Surely it would just be better to have a singular better sensor, and some additional hardware for it?

KillingTimeItself ,

i mean, size constraints, sure. But camera bumps ONLY get bigger, and more unreasonable. Remember the iphone 6? little itty bitty nub. That's not the case anymore.

apple? (Idk, i dont care tbh) recently unveiled the incredible technology known as "two mirrors" in order to abuse the dimensions of an iphone to get a longer focal length.

Even then, surely you could just put a bigger, higher resolution sensor on it, and then use digital zooming instead. That way it at least pretends to have features. Even then why bother adding more features, it's a phone, all it's going to do is be a nuisance at family gatherings. Because for some reason people HAVE to take pictures of everything.

KillingTimeItself ,

maybe? I still feel like there just has to be a better solution than "hey lets just add more camera"

KillingTimeItself ,

which would be why i would argue to just min max on the one camera. Overall a better camera, maybe not as versatile, but meh.

KillingTimeItself ,

phone companies have been known to make stupid decisions before. Apple uses glass on the back of their phones, even though it breaks incredibly easy. Up until more recent models the back glass was incredibly aggressively bonded to the back chassis of the phone, making it basically impossible to replace.

If i had to guess, it's the cheapest way, to get "more" features and "quality" out of a phone. Like a gimmick. I'm almost certain it's possible to just put in a better camera sensor, they've been doing that on every model for decades. Chances are they just took the easy route, since it adds a unique feature, that has never been seen before, and makes it easily marketable. And besides, for people like me who barely use the camera, paying for upwards of 5 cameras, when i only use 2. More than likely 1, is completely useless to me. I'd be more inclined to pay for a single better camera, than multiple cameras i probably wont use.

KillingTimeItself ,

idk i think a design choice is a pretty objective feature. Preference and liking it? Pretty subjective, sure. That still doesn't change that.

it might take a better picture, it depends on how you define better. More versatile camera? Sure. Better? Eh, idk. And besides, pretty much every phone ever these days has some sort of built it AI processing done on the photos, because apparently thats a thing now. Even then it doesn't stop you from taking a worse photo, because you literally have different cameras, for different things, you can just straight up use the wrong camera now. As well as other cool feature like visual artifacting due to camera switching, because it turns out when you put two cameras in two different places, they're in two different places, and can't exactly behave in an interchangeable manner.

I guess you could "fix" those issues in software, but thats another story entirely.

idk people have different opinions for gimmicks apparently. I just think having more than one camera is stupid, i'd rather have one decent camera, and a better/cheaper phone otherwise. I barely use it's camera as is.

it's a little fundamentally different to having a lot of cpu cores, or a gpu. Or a faster cpu because for some reason you also threw that in there. A faster cpu is generally advantageous as pretty much every piece of software has some amount of sequential code base in it. The only place it wouldn't make sense is somewhere you quite literally cannot use that processing power. Like a router. Those run on such light hardware you would be wasting entire cycles on the cpu before it can even start another process.

More cpu cores is also generally advantageous, especially in the modern era where people play games, and games like more cores now, or if you edit video, like i do, more cores is objectively more helpful, even if you dont use them 90% of the time. Or even if you just want more multitasking capability. A server for instance really likes cores because it can run a lot of different processes simultaneously. Some servers benefit from high single core freq for instance, i know mine does.

gpus are generally beneficial, i certainly wouldn't buy a gaming phone to use as a phone for what i do, though apparently they have massive batteries so that would likely outweigh that con? Though phone hardware is another beef i have entirely, that's a different story.

gpus are similarly useful, considering that they're a general purpose computing tool, much like cpu, though for different calculations. As opposed to a 3x optical zoom lensed camera. Which is kind of neat ig, i barely take pictures with my phone though. I dont really know why i would want 4 other cameras. Just seems like a waste of money for me.

KillingTimeItself ,

A choice of material to make a phone feel better is subjective. A better camera is capable of resolving details that another camera cannot.

a material choice preference is subjective, the manufacturer using a specific material over another one is an objective state of that product, though it's also fair to argue that it was an objectively bad choice, on a product that is quite literally, known for breaking, all the time. Except now its TWICE as likely to break as it was before. On paper a better camera is objectively better. But on paper the users preference of what they want something to do is also objective. I don't care that X product, can do Y feature if i am literally never going to touch it. Regardless of whether or not it is objectively better or worse, it is quite literally, an objective waste of time and money on my end.

Using a tool wrong is completely irrelevant to whether one tool is capable of giving better results.

This would be why they make actual cameras, that you can take actually bad photos with, but also allow you to take actually good photos with. On a product that has a feature for "convenience" there is a point where that convenience becomes more of a hassle, and then i or other consumers stop caring about it.

You edit video on your phone? But you claimed you don’t care about the camera quality and barely even use it.

when did i ever say i do that with my phone? I'm writing these comments from a computer, as evidenced by the fact that i am on lemmy, the statistical likelihood that i am a computer enthusiast is significantly higher.

My phone from 3 years ago was fast enough. I’m not writing/compiling code on my phone.

Remember the part where i mentioned my server? Yeah that's a computer. You remember the other example i mentioned where faster cpu doesn't make sense, a router? You wanna know whats equivalent to that? My phone. Also the part where i said "generally" that doesnt apply to everything.

And even then i don't edit real footage, i edited mostly screen recorded footage. I have edited at least one video though. The video res is high enough, and the frame rate is decent. It looks fine. (that was on my shitbox android with one camera) If i wanted anything more than that, i would buy an actual camera, which would get me better image quality, and better workflows as well. Even then dankpods, a creator known for recording on an iphone, has recently gotten completely fed up with using an iphone to record (it's almost like they're not very good at what they're trying to be)

that statement also implies you dont use that phone anymore, fun fact, my phone is uh. 7 years old now. It's not particularly fast, which is the fault of android. But it does exist, and mostly works (again the fault of android).

“, i barely take pictures with my phone though.”

little fun fact, i have more accidental screenshots taken than actual real photos taken on my phone in the last 6 months. I literally don't use the camera LOL.

presumably by the fact that you mentioned code writing, you are also not a chronic phone user, like myself. So im intrigued as to why you would even consider me using a phone to do anything significant. Especially considering that i am sitting here, writing comments, about why i hate phones.

KillingTimeItself ,

Two people cannot disagree on whether one camera can show detail that another camera cannot show.

two people can argue whether or not that matters, we might as well call every lossy compression format ever useless because it degrades the quality of the final video significantly.

Hassle? The technical details of the cameras are completely transparent to the user. One one camera when you pinch to zoom it gets blurry. On the other it stays clear.

im sure they have documentation on automatic camera switching, and other documentation on all the other "features" it involves. God forbid you use a third party app to interact with your camera. I'm buying a phone because of the computer, not because of the cameras, i just don't need them, and yet now its YET another feature i have to contend with. One might say i should just ignore them, but alas i am stuck here, spending money on them, i am damn well getting the value out of my purchase, regardless of how useless it is.

This entire discussion is about phones!

yeah, doesn't limit it to phones though. you provided an example as to why generic hardware would be beneficial for context. I expanded upon it, explaining why i didnt think it was a very good reason. My phone is 7 years old, and quite literally, cost nothing.

“The best camera you have is the one you have with you.”

I.E. using the camera that my phone has, when i need it, and just living with the fact that it's not the best quality in the world. 3 more cameras might improve my photo slightly. I don't really care though. Modern flagship phones will take "4k" photos. I really don't understand why you would need much more. You can do a 2x digital zoom and still retain reasonable quality, assuming the original isn't making up pixels. Which is very well might be.

Having photos of everything is cool and all, kids i will excuse from this due to societal reasons. But most things in life, that you can take a picture of, you probably shouldn't. Sure it's cool when a hawk lands in your yard, or you see a new bird that you haven't before. You could pull out your phone, and take a picture or a video, or you could also just sit there, and watch it.

It's always bothered me when people stop the entire group, to take a forced group photo because "look we're having fun" when we could be having fun instead. It's a buzzkill frankly. If i'm with my friends or family i want to interact with them and talk with them, because i like them. I don't want to take pictures with them. Spontaneous photos i have less of a problem with, especially if its in the moment. They tell a much better story anyway, which is what mediocre phone cameras excel at.

I feel like since the invention of phone cameras, particularly good ones, people have just been photographing EVERYTHING, which does less good than if they just didn't. Scroll through an average family photo roll, and see how many of those photos are actually worth telling a story over. Most of them have no story, because they were forced. Some of them have "an" story, because they're tangentially related. And then a few are actually interesting.

I really just don't think you need that many cameras. Wanna put two on there? Sure, do your box standard "phone camera" and then put a zoom camera. You need nothing more. Anything else is just a waste of time. If you REALLY insist on having more than 2, do a fish eye. By that point you're hitting diminishing returns though. Also a point of contention for me, why does the base model iphone 15 have 2 (might be 3 i have no clue) cameras, but then also have usb 2.0? This isn't a cheap phone. It should just have usb 3.0.

expanding on the CPU GPU analogy you used prior, this is like owning a mini computer in the 70's 80's all of them were bespoke, they all did for all intents and purposes, basically the same thing. Some of them specialized slightly more than others (most specialization was done with third party hardware though) You just kinda pick one, and then use it. It's fine. Even though technically having multiple different ones would be ideal, nobody did that, unless they wanted to do more computing. Though in this case it's kind of hard to "use more than one camera at a time" In fact it's pretty heavily limited, i think on apple hardware, there is one app, that kind of lets you do it. That's it.

KillingTimeItself ,

You can objectively test whether one file is smaller than another at the same file size or whether one is smaller than the other at the same quality.

ignoring the circular reasoning here, my point is not that it's impossible to gauge the difference, my point is that you have to be careful with what you state and what you measure. Can you objectively quanity the quality difference and efficiency of two different lossy compression algorithms? Yes, theoretically you can. Now go that and create a model for it applicable to every real world use case that compression algorithm is going to see. That's the hard part. Also not to mention the fact that it likely doesn't even matter. The reason we use lossy compression is because to a point, it's impossible for us to notice any significant degradation in quality. That point from person to person, varies.

You can read technical websites

Those lack depth and specific information, i wouldn't be making that point if that wasn't a problem. And besides joe shmoes blog on why the [insert item] here has [insert feature] here might not even be correct. Or present all the information required even.

Just like she has no idea her phone has more than one CPU.

it has more than one core, not more than one cpu, a cpu is loosely defined as an explicit piece of a hardware, that can perform the tasks of a CPU. You can have multi cpu configurations, but you can also have cpus with multiple cores. This is a semantic complaint though.

I didn’t change to the context to PC’s or generic.

i did, because that's what im familiar with, though it does also apply to things outside of PC hardware, naturally, as evidenced by the fact i brought up embedded devices.

Do I have to preface every single sentence with “on a phone”?

no but it's also probably good to not make arguments after making an assumption. If you want to preface an argument with a known assumption you can. You asked me if i edited video on my phone, and then continued to make an argument as to why it was weird that i said that. That's just not something you do.

You edit video. What made the video ? A camera without zoom or interchangeable lens? Of course not.

literally not a camera? I have edited ONE single video (sourced from real footage), and as i said, it was perfectly fine. The biggest issue with it was an audio problem the hardware created, ironically enough. Everything else i edit is screen recorded. With OBS. And like i already said, if i want better quality, i'll just buy an actual camera, for the same price as a top of the line smartphone. And then get modularity, as well as other convenient features that make shooting video for production much easier.

People have been taking garbage photos for as long as there have been consumer cameras.

this is not explicitly true, go look at film camera enthusiasts in the modern day. One of the selling points is taking photos that don't waste film "make you shots count" even then it's only been multiplied by 10 fold.

digital camera that did the same trick 15 years ago

i'd much rather not spend modern premiums to get features that are a decade old. I think that's reasonable. Especially when we start talking hardware real estate, these camera arrays take up a considerable portion of the phone. You could put a headphone jack there, more battery, better hardware, cooling, etc...

Especially when i can buy a modern used camera for a few hundred bucks, and get image quality MILES better than any phone sensor could ever think to produce. As well as flexibility with how i use it. I'm objectively just not buying a phone for better camera quality. It's a non starter, it's like saying every car NEEDS to be sporty. And now suddenly everybody is buying trucks and SUVs because they prefer the lofty ride of trucks over small cars with stiffer suspensions and smaller tires. Even though they might handle better, nobody cares. They want something more "luxurious" rather than performant. It's just not a good use of money.

It is completely seamless with not even an option on the UI to know that it is happening.

this isn't true. Unless you place the cameras in the EXACT same location, there will be differences in parallax. As well as camera sensor quality itself. The iphone 15 when zooming, while recording has very explicit artifacts from switching between cameras. Not to mention the difference in quality due to the fact they have different lenses. It's not as significant with photos. But all of those still apply. And besides, maybe i dont want it to forcibly switch, maybe i want to have control over the hardware i paid for and own?

You can't tell me that the minor difference in quality between camera A and B is significant enough to warrant B over A or vice versa. And then ignore the obvious negative implications that multiple cameras have. Or tell me that lossy compression can be objectively quantified in an explicit manner that removes ALL doubt present about the efficacy of its algorithm. And then tell me the very physical nature of having two cameras in two different spots, means they take two different pictures just doesn't matter at all.

KillingTimeItself ,

You said all lossy compression is useless.

as an analogue to your point about the camera being objectively better. My point is that you can't boil everything down to objective facts, even if it is true, there are a number of other variables.

Is a pixel there that was in the source?

With lossy compression, that quite literally gets thrown out the window the second it's used. If that's the standard then all lossy compression is bad. The question is at what point, does N amount of deviation from the original image, make it noticeably different from the original image, to the point that it negatively affects the image more than the space it saves. That's the hard part to quantify. And yet we use lossy compression everywhere. Literally nobody can agree what standard of compression is acceptable. I for one never touch HW accelerated encoding because it's not efficient, and introduces artifacts. Yet other people are perfectly content using it. I would much rather store the original source file, even if it's insanely big, over HW encoding it down to something more manageable, and potentially forever altering that file.

That two cameras could give images that are so close as to result in subjective judgement as to which is better isn’t what we are discussing. Unless you are going to get weird and claim you prefer a blurry pixelated image.

It depends on what standardized photo testing you use. If i can take a photo roughly 2-10 feet in front of me, and it looks decent. I do not care about anything else. If it's outside of that range my eyesight is bad enough it doesn't matter anyway. A phone with a built in zoom lense might be able to take better far shot photos. But i never take those, so it's useless to me.

How the camera takes the photo is completely transparent to the end user.

i mean, if we include photo processing, that's just not true, unless major phone manufacturers have started open sourcing their software since i last checked.

I already linked the study that showed people buy new phones primarily to take better photos.

i didnt look at it, but im not going to discount it either, frankly i just don't care. I just don't think more than like 30-40% of why people buy a new phone is to take better photos, maybe thats how they justify spending that money to themselves, i could see that. But JUST for better photos? idk. Maybe i'm just a bad capitalist who doesnt spend enough money.

You claimed you almost never take photos but now you are claiming you would buy another gadget to carry around all the time?

as you already said "the best camera is the one you have with you, you continually brought up editing, and real world use cases where having a better camera would make sense. Which is where i would use that actual camera, i just don't really care about the quality of the pictures i take that aren't supposed to be actual media. It's fine enough as is. Being any better isn't going to appreciably change that.

But your original claim that extra lenses are a burden on the end user is false.

i didn't say that, i just stated that at a certain point, an end user is going to stop caring about a "feature" when it's feature set is severely convoluted. Maybe i actually just care about what i spend my money on, and other people don't. But i like knowing what im buying, before i spend my money on it.

Is your claim that there is absolutely no measurable difference between any cameras ever?

no my claim is that anything that is 80% efficacy is going to be more than fine, your claim is that 99% efficacy is worse than 100% efficacy, which is true, but not perceptible.

I claim my Pixel 7pro camera is objectively better than the camera in my 11 year old Galaxy Nexus.

i claim my iphone 5 as having a better camera than the leapfrog leappad. My point there, even though you have butchered it incredibly, is quite literally the difference between a pixel 8 and an iphone 15. You can't go back to before multi cameras, because a modern single camera phone will still have improved since then.

You claimed you don’t see a need for more than one lens on a smartphone.

i know, but for the same reason that i don't care about a 4090 ti being faster than a 1070 due to its price being fascinatingly high. I don't care about phones with more than one camera having better camera quality. I just dont want that feature.

Literally this entire thread started with "still don't understand the appeal of multi camera phones" or something like that, it's paraphrased. I know there are technical reasons one would do that, but i just can't justify it for what it provides. Unless i see an actual proper realistic breakdown, of which exactly NONE exist. So i couldn't line them up even if i wanted to. I'm just left to my own devices to see what else could be done. And so i just dont care. Same reason i dont care about phones having high refresh rates, it just wastes processing power, it feels smoother sure. I don't really care though. I use it like 10 minutes out of my day maybe. Swiping sideways at 90hz doesn't matter if i dont use it anyway. (dont bother explaining the difference to me, because i own multiple 144hz displays, i already know.)

KillingTimeItself ,

If it literally got thrown out the window, a jpeg could not be recognizable as the original.

if it was literally thrown out the window, we would be talking semantics and philosophy. Moot point anyway. Your proposal was that the pixel be identical to the pixel on the previous photo. You can make an image using a bunch of pennies in varying states of oxidation that resemble an image. You cant spit an image into an ASCII converter, and it will resemble that image. Those are quite literally not the same picture. Your proposal defined a provable system, to demonstrate that the images were identical. I said they were objectively not because they are not. Image compression also isn't explicitly blurring. But again moot point.

My point there was demonstrating that your approach to defining quality was bad.

I already said it is a trade off of size vs appearance. You are setting up a strawman of “what if we had two cameras that made almost identical photos”

it's more complicated than size vs appearance, but generally. Size vs quality, is how lossy compression is considered. HW accel av1 and software av1 are going to look and output vastly different media, at different sizes. They work differently, even though they use the same underlying codec. My point is that nothing is an objective binary state.

Again, no. This is about taking a photo. The process of taking a photo is the same in my current 3 camera phone as your single camera phone. Your claim that it adds complication to the user is false.

Yeah, if we obfuscate it down to ignore everything else, it's fully transparent. Much like cigarettes are good for you because they make you feel normal. Dont worry about the lung cancer stuff it's normal and happens to everybody.

What are you talking about? Where did I mention percentages before?

do you not understand the concept of an analogy? Or even the concept of drastically simplifying concepts in a way that can be easily explained and translated between individuals without having complete and total understanding between those two individuals? it'd be weird since that's explicitly what you're doing. That statement is explaining my point of view, and explaining your arguments in turn. It should be fairly obvious why i just don't care.

The Pixel 7pro camera is obviously better than my Pixel 3a

the pixel 7 pro was released sometime in october in 2022. The 3a was released in august of 2020. That's 2 years between the models. Not to mention the obvious model disparity between the 3a and the 7 pro, the 7 pro being $900 and the 3a appearing to be $400, they are objectively not in the same class of phone, nor are they even in the same time period. The majority of difference in camera quality is going to be down to the sensors themselves improving, rather than having more cameras.

??? There is no significant difference between a Pixel 8 and an iPhone 15. They both have 2 camera modules on the back.

yeah, because any two phones today, one produced with one camera, and one produced with three, are going to take pretty similar photos. It has nothing to do with the amount of cameras, it has everything to do with the amount of capability between the two. If you think back, you'll remember my point about percentages, which seemed to have confused you. This is a literal product based interpretation of that statement. Which also seems to have gone over your head.

You said you didn’t see the need for more camera lenses. A Pixel 8 pro can take noticeably better photos than your current iPhone 5 because of the additional lenses.

this is actually just wrong. The iphone 5, released in 2012. the pixel 8 pro seems to have released sometime in 2023. More than a decade apart. It takes better photos because the camera is just better. The sensor is significantly bigger, the bump well, exists now. All qualities that lead to a better camera quality. The pixel 8 pro with one camera, or three cameras, is going to take the same kind of photo regardless of what i do with it. It does have an ultrawide, of which i genuinely have no idea what i would use for. And a telephoto, which has some obvious uses. but nothing that i care about. The instances in which i would use those cameras, are still going to look bad.

It only seems convoluted to you because you haven’t used it. You think it must be complicated in the same way someone would think having multiple cores in their phone cpu would be convoluted and hard to use.

if we're bringing the concept of multi core cpus in again, then i can actually hit you with some knowledge truths on this one. Multi core cpus are significantly more convoluted to handle from an OS perspective. This is why they didn't exist for the longest time. Instead of everything running sequentially on one core, there are multiple, some of them are even "phantom" cores, that only exist when the main core is busy. Which means you need to figure out a way to divide cpu time, across cores, presumably evenly because that would be the most effective manner of doing it. While also not incurring significant overhead costs, such as latency, and even cpu cycles. Because if your queue handling is bad, you might as well just have a single core. Especially if you can block up the queue, and crawl the system to a halt.

Yet another little fun fact btw. This is true for all processors, but especially so on multi core processors, to my knowledge single core processors just tended to function a little bit differently (prior to modern multi core architectures) to ensure this wasn't a problem (hardware interrupts) But on multi core cpus you need a way to ensure that a piece of software accessing the cpu can't hog the entire cpu, blocking out the OS that's managing it, and it's scheduler as well, this would cause a dead lock. Which means you wouldn't be able to do anything. Even if the end user experience is transparent, it's still more convoluted, shitting on the carpet and sweeping it under the rug doesn't remove the fact that you shit on the carpet. Unless we're arguing that convolution doesn't exist, im not sure how else it would work. Convolution incurs costs, and costs incur many things.

i could very well argue that you must think cpus are simple because you don't understand them. An objective truth of design and philosophy, is anything that adds more complexity, makes it more convoluted. There is no way around this.

The iPhone 5 is so old there aren’t going to be direct comparisons.

even then it wouldn't be accurate, the iphone 5 is 12 years old now. The iphone 6 would be a better argument, though still not a good one. Ironically enough, dankpods recently did a video where he compared an iphone 15 and an iphone 5c. The 15 was better, but both were still bad.

Can I argue that a 10 year old Intel PC is no faster than a current high end AMD PC because there are no websites that directly compare 10 year old PCs to current PCs?

there are websites for that, so you couldn't argue that anyway. Though again moot point.

You don’t care but other do. It doesn’t have anything to do with modern phone culture.

because i guess taking photos was never a part of phone culture. That was just something people did randomly for no reason, and by accident. I dont integrate with the modern culture, which is why i detest it so much. A lot of people, you included don't mind it, and have opinions on it. A lot of people, me included, can't stand it because i don't want to spend exorbitant prices on what is more than required.

KillingTimeItself ,

You keep trying to claim that quality difference is subjective.

i'm claiming that it's both objective, and subjective and that in this case, for me, it's primarily subjective, rather than objective, based on my usage.

You said this

you asked me where the percentages came from, i explained it.

There is no difference in the UI. It isn’t obfuscation but presenting a complex task as simple to the user.

or what you could quite literally argue is, the definition of obfuscation, though in this case i probably meant abstraction. They're basically the same tbh.

Stop with the chatGPT crap. I was writing a VxD driver for Windows 3.1 32 years ago.

it's not chatgpt, also good to know you wrote insert device drivers for windows.

When typing your reply, what did you have to do to control your multiple CPU’s so that you could type and post your reply. Did you have to set the affinity of the browser process to a particular core? Did you manually schedule the threads? No? I thought so.

no, but my system did, having a cursory understanding of this stuff and how it works allows you to better utilize your hardware.

Show me a website

cpubenchmark
and basically every other synthetic benchmark tool out there.
cpus are a bundle of transistors, it's not hard to bench them (though it's not that simple either) phone cameras are a little more involved. You can't really just go "bigger number more better"

So that’s your claim? An iPhone 5’s camera is as good as any camera unless someone has done a review with a direct comparison?

i literally have like two paragraphs explaining my thoughts. Not sure why you even put that in there.

Adding the camera to the phone made it possible to not have to buy and carry a separate device to do what everyone had been doing for over 100 years.

amusingly, not my claim at all, the first phone that released, which really did numbers, had a camera on it. Every phone since then has had a camera. Although i should probably mention contextually here, that i am SPECIFICALLY referring to touch screen phones, the modern ones, which really invented the whole philosophy of modern phone culture, the thing that i was specifically referring to in my previous comment. Since we already established that lack of context is bad and what not.

You use a desktop computer and do video editing! It’s the phone camera users who are traditional.

cool, still not a normie though. Unfortunately.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •