Not sure that I'd call it trivial, but from what one can gather, using the panel of known colors as a calibrant for correction during processing does seem like an obvious approach. I'm assuming that the newsworthiness of this is in the trick or complexity of the post-processing - removing scatter, haze, correcting the full color spectrum with multiple calibration points - it won't be a simple linear correction. I ain't no expert, but have spent oodles of time trying to color correct videos and stills from our scuba trips, and the *automatic* color correction in current software is still pretty poor IMO, relying often on a single color as the calibrant (so, a "pure" white region in the photo, a "pure" black region in the photo etc.). Manual adjustment of the photo color balance for UW vids and photos is on my list of "What Hell must be like".

the more i research this idea that sex is a spectrum the more i find the idea completely ridiculous. humans are dimorphic. there are 2 sexes plus anomalies. and none of these linguistic gymnastics changes the argument that people with DSD deserve rights or be treated with respect.

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*

Close, but reversed.
A proper political litmus strip shows red when viewed through democratically polarized filters and blue through filters polarized in the republican spectrum.
Ideas that display both pass the test.

*promote a good ole SOTW

The anti fascists are fascist?

Oooookay.

You do know that Communists and Fascists exist on opposite ends of the spectrum and are usually at odds with eachother, right? It's fascinating reading what you have to say. Does it come from some sort of propaganda manual, or do you make it up as you go along?

Why, o why, did he not carry this into a Swift-ian (Modest) Proposal? It begs to be taken seriously by all along the intelligence spectrum.

There's a whole specialty field called "display calibration" that goes deep, deep down this rabbit hole. And yes, they (Tom Cruise and the guy whose name you can't hear because Tom interrupts him) are correct. Motion smoothing is violating image fidelity. It should be turned off.

We are stuck with 24 frames per second in movies, forever. Peter Jackson tried 48 frames per second with The Hobbit. It failed because it felt like the "soap opera effect".

But in almost all other video contexts, more FPS is better. Obviously in gaming more is better. YouTube supports up to 60 FPS, as does most decent recording software these days.

The blue shift that almost every TV has when on display is also a result of funky default settings. The human eye perceives a blue light as slightly brighter than a full spectrum light with the same intensity. So it works to sell TVs. And when you switch it off the default color scheme, you're first impression will be that the picture looks muted or even yellowish. This is because you are accustomed to seeing way to much blue.

If you are a true video aficionado, you'll get yourself a color meter for a few hundred bucks and do an amateur display calibration on your set.

If you are a video psycho (of if you sell faithful video experiences to an audience like in a theater) you'll hire a professional to come out with a high end spectrophotometer and calibrate each display input properly using a standardized video source.

I want to, but I don't think this is funny or entertaining.

I more wonder if she is on the spectrum or at least has some kind of obsessive psychological issues.

If she was just saying it I might feel differently, but she's clearly very distraught, and it breaks my heart for her.

Even though NZ's laws were relatively stricter at the time, the real issue was that Australia's laws were lax. We went from one end of the spectrum to the polar opposite (which is a not uncommon illogical human reaction to bad events).

The laws you speak of were enacted a few years before Australia changed theirs. The salient point is that they didn't restrict or legislate for some things over the following years.

The standards you have there (fit and proper person) for gaining a license are almost exactly the same as in Australia. The endorsement for getting an AR15 can be obtained by shooting in IPSC or 3 gun competitions. Basically, if you're a fit and proper person and join one of these clubs then you can get an AR15 and full capacity magazines.

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.

No, making the argument that one is not as bad as the other isn't the same as making excuses. It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum.

I have a touch more time, so let me go back to your first example.
Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me.

Obviously, I don't want either thing to happen, but justice is about assigning degrees of a spectrum to an infinite number of variables of what is decidedly wrong. Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system.

I won't repeat the examples already given that should have laid bare the problems equating what should be corrected gingerly vs using a heavy hand, but I want to reiterate that they ring true for me.

NSFW warning:

I've had bad dates where I've been made to feel awkward. Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to hmmm... finish... inside a girl when I didn't want to. We had been together a short time and she was ENAMORED with me, and I felt 'meh' about her. (don't put your dick in crazy)

Long story short, I'm strict about using birth control so I'm not making kids when I don't want to. Although, in the heat of the moment, I'm not above a tried and true pulling out for lack of a better option. This had been the plan going into the sexual encounter, but when I let out a warning about a climax, instead of helping me push her off, she pushed her hands against my shoulders and clamped her thighs onto me. I objected "wait!!! no!!!" but not being a fucking Buddhist monk with complete control over every muscle in my body, well, you can imagine where it went from there.


Shortly thereafter, she started asking me what I thought about this or that baby name and it became clearer what she was really after. (yes really)

I waited for confirmation that she wasn't pregnant and we broke up immediately after, because of that and a general disinterest that I had towards her as a person.

That was when I was ehh? 19? idk, somewhere around there. More than 10 years ago at least.

But I digress, did what she did feel a little 'rape-y' to me? I said no, It was something we talked about beforehand, setting up parameters, etc. but it ended up just being a bad experience. Because of that bad experience I never really talked to her again. She does some kind of work in 3d printing now last I checked.

I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other.

I think you can put everything on the spectrum of "rape-ish" "creepy" whatever... but still recognize that the spectrum has two poles, and a gradient in between. I don't have a problem with publicly discussing WHETHER some behaviour belongs on the spectrum, nor WHERE on the spectrum it belongs. Both are very much the point.

Hah, I got 39 - totally kicked your low-spectrum ass!

The screening tests are readily available online:
https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/

It wasn't till I was married and raising kids that it even occurred to me to check. I was just the notoriously shy kid growing up who would as soon play beside his friends as with them. I took the pre-screening tests though and my score there landed my in not just the range to test further, but the almost certainly going to be on the spectrum.

I've looked more at Aspergers now since and in very, very many ways it looks much like just a more extreme form of the 'male' dominant mind. A greater interest in things than in people. In many ways it's just exactly as the video presenter alludes to. People are just different, and this is a classification of a particular kind of difference. Our differences make some things easier and others harder and such is life.

I know what you mean, but I think there is a blurred line when it comes to rape. Does sex coerced under false pretenses count?

If you claim to be in love with someone but aren't, is it rape? Or if you claim to be a millionaire but aren't? If you claim to be of their religion? If you wear a mask and they think you're someone else? If they're drunk or high and they think you're their partner? Or so far gone they don't know or care? How about if you got them drunk/high for that specific reason?

In all these and many more scenarios between, they can enjoy the act, but there's a valid argument for rape. Laws and individual morals vary, but they're all on a spectrum.

If I murder you to hurt your brother, my intent isn't to victimise you, but it still has that effect.

Finally, yes, she brought the conversation public, but under very different (and I'd argue innocent or even noble) circumstances. Revealing the reality - and reveling in the revelation - is in my view rong [sic].