You’re mostly right with the depth of field being the big difference but the image being darker is not a function of aperture (f-stop) directly, but rather overall exposure. At the same ISO setting, two identical shots in the same lighting would be the same brightness with truly equal exposure: the reduction in aperture (increasing to m the f-stop number to a higher value) would be compensated for with an equivalent decrease in shutter speed (in simple terms, constricting the hole lets in less light, so we leave the hole open longer to let in the same amount as before).

In the example, if the scene is darker it’s because the exposure changed, not just because of the aperture.

Additionally, the number is shown as a fraction because it is a fraction. The “f” in the value (f/2.8) is a variable that stands for “focal length”, that being the focal length of the lens being used. So, for example, a 50mm lens set to f/2 would have its aperture set to a 25mm diameter. (50/2)

The reason the numbers are strange numbers and non-linear in scale is because they correspond to aperture diameters that let in either double or half the amount of light from the stop next to them. So adjusting from f/2 to f/2.8 cuts the amount of light in half (I think this is basically doubling or halving the area of the circle of the aperture).

This is why a one stop change at lower values (bigger openings) has a much smaller numeric shift than a one stop change at higher values: adding or subtracting diameter of a larger circle adds or subtracts much more area than the same diameter change to a smaller circle. That’s why one stop goes only from f/2 to f/2.8 on the wide open end, but on the closed down end, one stop goes from f/11 to f/16.

I can’t think of any metals or anything that there would be enough of in river water to hurt you

We’re talking about rivers like the one in Cleveland that they caught on fire?

Twice?!

IDK what’s in that but I’ll leave my cup for you haha

The Rock, Sean Connery

I love this!

I also thought Matrix, but Neo would be Gonzo and Morpheus would be still played by Laurence Fishburne.

Oh man, I feel like the energy between the Muppets and Viggo Mortenson would make me pick him instead.

Animal could play Gimli, Sam the Eagle is Gandalf.

My favorite summary and comparison of two movies was something along the lines of:

"In The Muppet Christmas Carol, Michael Caine plays it absolutely straight, as if there were no Muppets at all, and as if he were completely surrounded by nothing but classically trained professional actors…

…in Muppet Treasure Island, on the other hand, Tim Curry plays it as if he himself were a Muppet."

My Encarta 97 CD-ROM had a game where you went through rooms of a castle answering trivia questions to move on.

Just doesn’t feel right to carve up an Ottoman Empire for Thanksgiving.

There’s a lot of flawed logic on all sides.

And that’s not even accounting for the inherently deeply complex and illogical stuff that goes along with dating too.

When I was actively pursuing online dating years ago, some of my best dates were the one and done dates where we both seemed to know early on that we probably weren’t interested in each other as long term partners but were mature enough to acknowledge that without taking it personally and enjoy a much more relaxed rest of the date. On one of those occasions, my date even suggested that while I wasn’t a good match for her, if I were interested, she’d give her roommate my number, thinking we’d be better.

In the end it never happened, but it just shows that just because one or both halves of a date may not want a second date, that’s not a failing of either one, necessarily.

I def agree about the level of happened that is going on here, but in defense of this fictional date: while it’s not always good to judge a book by its cover…if I’m being honest with myself, I’d have a certain image in mind and a certain reaction if I met someone at a party and just in conversation, not even a date, asked what they were into and the response was “anime and one specific video game”.

I mean, I wouldn’t stop talking to them, but I’d certainly have preconceived notions that I’d be very surprised if they were very inaccurate.

And it’s not so much that it’s wrong, as that it gives me insight into the type of person I’m talking to. And honestly, if I were looking to date, and this person matched my preferred gender, appearance, etc…well…an answer like that would certainly be a “yellow flag” and a clue that I may not be so compatible with this person, based on others I’ve met with similar interests.

Mind you, it certainly doesn’t justify any rudeness, but it’s a coffee date. She owes OP nothing. And while she could have been nicer, limiting conversation and politely excusing herself at her earliest convenience isn’t the worst thing she could’ve done.

Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.

People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.

Not disagreeing with the idea, but it seems like this would also have the side effect of incentivizing employers to aggressively and artificially reduce wages and pass that burden on to the taxpayer, if you’re eliminating minimum wage.

I think it’s an interesting idea, but one that seems prone to abuse by unethical parties. Not that our current system is immune to that either.

That’s a failure of management.

Or rather, that’s a symptom of a certain kind of management that incentivizes people to look busy, punishes those who don’t, and doesn’t give people accurate and realistic guidance on their responsibilities.

Legally it’s totally okay, actually.

I know this is all very unpopular opinion here on Lemmy, but it’s fact.

I kinda get it though…it’s not like these armed forces are producing the movie themselves.

The studio wants to make a movie about/involving these entities. They want it to be as realistic as possible and the entity itself has the authority to give them access that it could also deny.

If you’re in charge of, say, the Marines PR department, you’re constantly trying to make the Corps look good and boost recruitment. If you can do this for next to nothing against your budget by granting access to a studio making a film that will give you essentially free PR, that’s a great move. The bigger the movies potential, the more the entity in question is motivated to support it.

On the other hand, if the film is going to make your organization look bad, no PR person with a functioning brain is going to help that project in any way.

Idunno, I feel like these organizations do enough actually bad things, that I don’t feel the urge to crucify them for cultivating image and working to generate positive PR.

For a few years, it seemed like everyone I knew who has having a little girl was naming them after old presidents.

So many Kennedys and Reagans and Madisons…

My girlfriend at the time did really like “Madison”, but I told her if we were ever to have a little girl and we’re gonna name her after a former president, we’re gonna have a little Eisenhower running around.

She laughed (as was the intention) but agreed the trend was a little ridiculous.

Share your art, not your fart!

A properly run nuclear plant will also expose people living within a 50 mile radius of the plant to less radiation than if it were a coal fired plant.

The whole thing is pretty regulated.

I feel like that’s probably a good thing.

Yep. Doesn’t even have to be a group of armed people doing “maybe illegal” things. It can be a single person doing absolutely illegal and horrific things…like Uvalde.