Corporate bootlickers: “Capitalism breeds innovation”

The innovation:

Absolutely fucking pathetic

Dear @POTUS,

Yeah, it’s a cult. Why would the fucking president of the United States care to personally read your message and change his policy based on that?

“Just following orders from the president”

Republicans: We’re not Nazis, the Nazis were actually left-wing.

Also Republicans:

Good, burn it all down.

I wasted far too much time on that, holy shit.

“The enemy is both strong and weak.”

Small miscalculation, 1 TB is only 10¹² bytes, not 10¹⁵ bytes, so you would only have 3840 * 10¹² bytes ⇒ 1280 * 10¹² pixels, so the width of a square RGB image with 3 bytes per pixel would only be around 35,777,088 pixels.

The average woman’s height is 1.588 m and the average woman’s shoulder width is 0.367 m.

Assuming that this average woman fits exactly in this photo, the photo’s “area” would be 1.588 m × 0.367 m = 0.583 m².

Assuming the pixel format is RGB and 8 bits per colour channel, each pixel in the photo would consist of 3 bytes. 2 PB is equal to 2 × 10¹⁵ B, which divided by 3 B for each pixel means there could be at least 6.67 × 10¹⁴ in this photo. In reality most of the time images are compressed so in practice you could get even more pixels. How much more depends exactly on the image and the desired image quality.

To calculate the area of each pixel, divide the photo’s area by the number of pixels. This gives 0.583 m² / 6.67 × 10¹⁴ = 8.74 × 10⁻¹⁶ m² for each pixel. To get the side length of each pixel, take its square root to get 2.96 × 10⁻⁸ m = 29.6 nanometres!

Dividing the widths and heights in metres by the length of each pixel gives (width, height) = (1.588, 0.367) m / 2.96 × 10⁻⁸ m = an image resolution of 12,412,583×53,708,941 pixels!

When it comes for feature size, the bottleneck isn’t actually the pixel size. Assuming the image is in visible light, the shortest wavelength visible to the human eye is 380 nm, so increasing the resolution beyond that point is useless.

In such a photo where features as small as 380 nm can be identified. To quantify the resolution you can see these features in, define an “effective pixel” to be a pixel of side length 380 nm. The actual pixels in such an image aren’t relevant at this point.

Individual skin cells can be identified being 30 μm / 380 nm = 79 effective pixels wide. With similar calculations, blood cells can be identified with a width of 18 effective pixels, and you might be able to even identify individual bacteria. An E. coli bacterium has a length of 2 μm, which is 5 effective pixels.

The “I didn’t kill Charlie Kirk” shirt has a lot of people asking questions which are answered by the shirt.

Damn evil CCP brainwashing their people to think that democracy is important /s

If it’s Boeing, I’m not going.

Coward

Wait, that’s an actual formula. When I first saw this I thought it was an employee going insane and keysmashing into a spreadsheet as evidenced by the “send help”.

That was probably a release candidate you were thinking of.

Pretty good. Many new features, one of them being non-destructive filtering which is the ability to apply a filter (say a Gaussian blur) and then re-edit the filter parameters or even remove it without having to undo.

However, at least for me, some changes will take some time to adjust to such as “OK” and “Reset” buttons of dialogue boxes now being displayed at the top rather than the bottom.

Also years work of changes without the wider public testing them means that there are a few bugs/annoyances, one of them being the checkerboard pattern for transparency being replaced with a solid colour (equal to the background colour) when you zoom in too much.