Ha.

Explain please. I read the entire article/page. Their definition was exactly what I quoted, so it does actually support exactly what I said.

“ Computer-generated imagery, or CGI for short, is a term that describes digitally-created images in film and television. CGI is a subcategory of visual effects (VFX), imagery filmmakers create or manipulate that does not exist in the physical environment being captured on film or video. CGI is instrumental in the making of movies and television shows and serves as the primary method for creating 3D-computer graphics for video games.”

Imagery Filmmakers create OR MANIPULATE that does not exist in the physical environment…exactly what this video is.

Did you actually read it? Because it does say what I’m saying.

You mean because their three examples of CGI films were all pure cgi animation the specific definition they gave doesn’t apply? Lol. It wasn’t an all inclusive list, it was 3 cgi blockbusters.

I hope that’s not your argument. If it is, you should feel ashamed.

HA!

this img wasn't generated by a computer. altered [slightly], yes, but filters ≠ CGI. blurring an img, using a blue filter, or cropping an image does not make it "CGI". you can argue the semantics of if it being "generated" by a computer, but arguing it is means all digital photos, images, hell even text of any kind are "CGI". "CGI" is already a stupid, near meaningless term and pushing the definition to "any image that appears or had appeared on a computer in any way" makes it even less useful. [generally VFX/visual effects is the umbrella term people are looking for. CG is the term if they're referring to rendered assets. this is neither. this poor use of language is a huge pet peeve for me.]

imma ignore the "art" argument because that is regularly a black hole of silly and i don't feel the need to engage that but those painted potatoes more effort than this.

I have to agree, the visual representation seemed…off.

I was more interested in what the child indicated with the mixing board, that sounds (and sights I assume) are not filtered to highlight your focus, in fact sometimes the object of focus is somewhat filtered while ambient noises aren’t.

I often think of myself as partially deaf because I can’t seem to focus on voices no matter how much I try, but I often hear tiny noises others can’t until I point them out. I don’t think it’s an ear problem.

i don't think that the visual hallucinations are a good comparison to what it can be like to be in an area where one can't concentrate like that.

In the middle of typing this I got distracted and opened up the Katydid eats a wart video that's trending here at the moment. in the middle of typing THAT two of my neighbors started mowing the lawn at the same time and my wife has all the windows open so I know what my allergies are going to do and i don't want to walk around with a headache all day so I better close them should I do it now or whehn i get don....

what was I saying?

Very nice, although in my head "Every Sperm Is Sacred" works better with many of those visuals (plus you can always add more rockets).

I NOTICE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THE QUESTION OF HOW YOU GOT IT ALL SO BACKWARDS.

ANOTHER TOTALLY FAILURE BOB. RED HERRINGS AREN'T ANSWERS.

What? That's insanity. Are you saying the baby is fully formed at the instant of conception!? The train is fully formed before it rounds the bend, the pre-baby isn't. If you remove the visual obstruction the train is complete and functions fine, but not the "baby".

If I use your non logic, if I invest in a stock, I'm instantly a millionaire because that stock might make me one in the future. How about a loan...I'm going to be good for it!

The train doesn't exist before it's built. The baby doesn't exist until it's born. If you hear a clank on the tracks, it doesn't mean the train is built.

Anyone saying there's a heart at 6 weeks is a liar. As you said, no heartbeat without a heart, so anyone claiming there's a heartbeat at 6 weeks is a liar. Obstetricians and gynecologists and their national organizations agree, no matter what your friends the ultrasound technicians think.

When they write they observed a heartbeat at 6 weeks (can't be heard until 12-22 weeks when chambers and valves are formed) , absolutely they are liars. I'll gladly tell any you wish, there's no heart, there's barely a tube. It's not a functional heart until it pumps, which it never does at 6 weeks, or even 10.

Drs who hear it on the Doppler are listening at >12 weeks along, so they're stretching the truth, but not totally lying. By then, most heart structures exist, but aren't ready to pump yet.

Like I said, you got it backwards, you see the twitch in a "tube" at +-6 weeks, you HEAR it after 12-22 weeks on Doppler. You should know that if you really had the experience you claim....but you don't, so.....

Want to try again, this time address the question, if you are so experienced, why don't you know you SEE a twitch 6-18 weeks before you HEAR a PULSE? Why do you think you HEAR it first?

I'm going to expect another day or two of silence, followed by claims you answered this already, followed by another non sequitur argument ignoring the question of WHY ARE YOU SO WRONG!?

This was an excellent treatise on visualization of large numbers.

That said, I disagree with the statement "the sequence of cards in a properly shuffled deck has never existed in the history of time". It would be true if the act of shuffling was truly random, but it's not.
This article says you'd need at least 7 riffle shuffles to get "random", but in practice "properly" shuffling is 3 or 4 riffle shuffles...
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-shuffle-cards-maths.html

Hence thus therefore, my unprovable bet is that there has been at least 1 occurrence of identical-sequence decks in the history of 52 playing card decks.

(this is not counting magicians & card mechanics like Ricky Jay)

@bobknight33
You can do the inverse math to calculate the risk of the vaccine as well

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
(vaccine adverse event reporting system)

You can find more current numbers on the CDC site, but they're difficult to access and link directly to. This is simpler, but feel free to post more updated figures https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

------------------

"Event Category" "Event Category Code" Events Reported
"Death" "DTH" 5378 total reported as of right now.

out of how many vaccinations?
(i took the larger number because they still did get a poke in the arm at least once)

186,474,836

soooo

5378 ÷ 186,474,836 = 0.000028840352486

0.000028840352486
move the decimal

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
0.0028840352486% of death from the vaccine
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------

Now, Bob, please, consider this.
Is a 2% chance of death MORE? or LESS? than a 0.0028840352486% chance of death?


Lets apply the numbers to the USA population

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

332,545,571 x 0.02 =
6,650,911.42
soooo 6.65 million WOW how close to the real number of deaths in the USA this is eh? WEIRRRRRRRRRRD right? durrrrrrrrrr


332,545,571 x 0.000028840352486 = 9590.7
soooo yeah, this is pretty close to the reporting incident report also
WEIRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD eh?


------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
You know them liberals, they are so powerful they can manipulate basic multiplication and division.

Congratulations! Your video, You don't need visual effects if you have steel balls., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 120 Badge!

Your video, You don't need visual effects if you have steel balls., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Actually some of those shots did use visual effects. Specifically, they were run backwards. The first clip is a famous example of it - they didn't time the drive forward to just get ahead of the train, they timed the drive backwards to cross the tracks just after the train had passed. No real danger involved.

I can't speak for all the clips, but you can see a fair few of them were done backwards or significantly sped up.

Still, a nice compilation, and I sure as hell wouldn't be doing most of those.

I've no doubt they would've been using some portion of "we don't need no education / we don't need no thought control" to go along with whatever pro-Instagram visuals were being displayed. Implying Insta will help you free yourself or something. That song is a depressing examination of how the mid-20th century school system, and society in general, tended to destroy free thought and keep the poor docile and accepting of their lot. I don't see any positive way for a corporate behemoth bent on keeping you focused on tripe and bullshit to use that song.

While definitely aeronautically impressive, what makes this a real visual treat is the frame rate alignment with the propeller making it look like it's not spinning at all (when it absolutely is). Awesome on many levels.

walls keep closing in giggitty giggitty. would pay good money to see bobs grief-stricken face. visual representation to the left tho-

I think it would be better in person. might be a whole different kind of excitement to be basically sitting still (or sliding backward) then suddenly jump forward when you have no visual cues of anything changing. maybe even disconcerting.