Inceltown posted:

That DICK! posted:

buncha goddamn dogshit quotes then a bunch of 'this gif nearly killed me' ppl? is this thread a troll?

like look at this poo poo wow, so drat funny. now here come the nerds?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

That DICK! posted:

buncha goddamn dogshit quotes then a bunch of 'this gif nearly killed me' ppl? is this thread a troll?

like look at this poo poo wow, so drat funny. now here come the nerds?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Inexplicable Humblebrag posted:

blit

That DICK! posted:

buncha goddamn dogshit quotes then a bunch of 'this gif nearly killed me' ppl? is this thread a troll?

like look at this poo poo wow, so drat funny. now here come the nerds?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Karate Bastard posted:

Being sensitive to flickering sounds like it could suck a whole bunch.

It seems like it should be possible to make a browser plugin that pre-screens graphical elements like gifs, videos etc and hides them behind a warning / rating if they flicker dangerously. I don't have the skills but someone else might? Maybe it already exists?

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

I dunno if there's one that does that specifically, but there's definitely one that just blanket blocks gifs and videos from playing automatically; people have been posting about using that.

Karate Bastard posted:

Being sensitive to flickering sounds like it could suck a whole bunch.

It seems like it should be possible to make a browser plugin that pre-screens graphical elements like gifs, videos etc and hides them behind a warning / rating if they flicker dangerously. I don't have the skills but someone else might? Maybe it already exists?

Subjunctive posted:

The original <blink> tag was implemented to meet the US military standard for, well, blinking so that it wouldn’t be dangerous to anyone.

Having to download the whole video and scan it for large changes in contrast/brightness before displaying sounds like a lot of work, and so annoying that nobody would use it.

Deep Glove Bruno posted:

they do that for everything that airs on commercial tv and streaming, there's a device that measures luminance changes over time that you have to put your material through before it's finalized

Inceltown posted:

124kg of barnacle cocaine washes up on NSW beaches

Milo and POTUS posted:

It was originally 200 kg

Collateral Damage posted:

Funny how 97kg of cocaine ended up on the beach like that.

Sereri posted:

I wonder if they can ever figure out where those 71kg of cocaine came from

BAGS FLY AT NOON posted:

False alarm, there was no cocaine that washed up on the beach

haveblue posted:

I'm surprised more web browsers don't have a universal "do not play animated media files" button by now

Infinitum posted:

Why would you post a fuckwit in lego form when you can post cool poo poo?

Lego doesn't have a cathedral, so I made one

Dogen posted:

Sagrada Familia when

The_Doctor posted:

When it’s finished.

Gravitas Shortfall posted:

Lemniscate Blue posted:

I unironically appreciate it when I have to learn things in order to laugh at a joke.

Lemniscate Blue posted:

I unironically appreciate it when I have to learn things in order to laugh at a joke.

GameCube posted:

Since his appearance in Mario Tennis, Waluigi has received mixed reception. Gamervision editor Jonathan Cooper wrote an article entitled the "top ten reasons why Waluigi is awesome", listing such qualities as his developed personality, his role in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and his role in Mario sports games.[11] In the book "Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares, Volume 1", author S. T. Joshi cites both Waluigi and Wario as examples of alter egos, also as evidence of how popular it is to feature such character archetypes.[12] IGN editor Matt Casamassina described him as a recognizable mascot to many, but also as a beloved one to Nintendo fans.[13] Hiroyuki Takahashi, a developer for Mario Power Tennis listed him, along with his companion Wario, as his favourite character in Power Tennis, describing them both as detestable heels, adding that he likes characters with more personality.[14] gamingillustrated.com's writer Greg Johnson, during his article about the upcoming Mario Kart 8, described Waluigi's return as one of the game's bright-sides. The article called "Waluigi: Unwrapping The Enigma" in Gameranx.com dwells in Waluigi's self-pity and ambiguous origins, describing him as one of the most misunderstood characters in videogames, and more than capable of holding his own game.[15] In addition, Steve Haske, from Unwinnable.com wrote an article called " Waa! In Defense Of Waluigi" that discussed Waluigi's partly negative reception, claiming Waluigi to be an even more interesting character than Wario, praising Waluigi for the comic relief he provides and mentioning his absence in Super Smash Bros. Brawl as an sad disrespect to his fans.[16] Evilgeeks.com, a website dedicated towards villains, claimed Waluigi to be Nintendo's most evil character, because of his hatred, greed and power, and wrote that Waluigi should have his own game simply so that we could see what he is capable of.[17] In addition to those articles, venturebeat.com's writer Chris Hoadley wrote an article called "The Greatness Of Waluigi", describing him as the most cynical Mario franchise character, and the greatest one of the last decade. Chris wrote about how, despite Waluigi being constantly ridiculed for his lack of importance, has one of the strongest and most developed personalities of the cast.[18]

“ He [Waluigi] is seen as less than legitimate by Nintendo internally. His first appearances were in the sports games made by Camelot, who thrust the half-baked villain on the world. [...] He has yet to appear in a core Mario game, and also never appears in his brother Wario's titles, perhaps because Nintendo thinks he’s not good enough for them. Here's hoping this silly creation will continue to be relegated to the side projects where he belongs.[19] ”

—GamesRadar

Waluigi also receives negative reception. GameDaily listed him as one of the characters they wanted to kill, but couldn't, describing him, "One of the most unimportant characters in video game history".[20] Kotaku editor Mike Fahey commented that Waluigi was his personal most annoying video game character.[21] GamesRadar described Waluigi as a "lame-o villain" in an otherwise great game, referencing Mario Tennis.[22] Editor Henry Gilbert titled his section "Waluigi: The worst character ever", suggesting that the creation process involved the developers of Mario Tennis having no one to fill the final character slot, and conceiving him as an "evil Luigi". He describes such an act as "plunging to the bottom of the intellectual barrel". He also calls Waluigi "disgustingly tall and thin" as opposed to Wario, who he calls a "fatass". He later states that the staff of GamesRadar feels that Waluigi is seen as "less than legitimate" by Nintendo, who he feels may not find him good enough to appear in a main Mario or Wario title.[19] IGN editor Lucas M. Thomas discussed him as a possible, yet unlikely, candidate for a "second banana" character to be playable in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, commenting that Waluigi, amongst other sidekick characters, are not well-liked.[23] IGN staff, while praising Bowser as one of the most memorable video game villains, criticized both Waluigi and Wario as being "evil twin knockoffs".[24] In 2013, Complex included him among the ten video game characters who look like sex offenders.[25]

Splicer posted:

The oldest known mirrors were made of polished obsidian. Modern mirrors are generally manufactured by distributing a highly reflective material on the back of a piece of glass, with the glass providing protection to the delicate backing and also the smooth back surface of the glass forcing the reflective coating into a smooth, optimally reflective shape. A downside of this is they will often feature "ghost" reflections: a faint reflection from the surface of the glass, and the main reflection from the interaction of the remaining light with the reflective backing. This is a bit of a catch 22; the clearer your glass the more light passes through to the reflective coating, but also the clearer your glass the more reflective the surface, and the more obvious the ghost image. In situations where ghost images are a serious issue "front surface mirrors" are used, where the reflective coating is placed on the facing side of the support material. These not only avoid ghost images, but are more accurate due to the light not refracting* through an additional medium before hitting the main reflection medium. They are, however, far more vulnerable to damage, and also far more difficult to manufacture.

*reflection and refraction are closely linked but beyond the scope of this post

There are two types of reflection. Specular reflection, which is what most people think of when they hear or see the word reflection, where the waves are reflected uniformly, and diffuse reflection, where they're scattered. In general the smoother the surface the more specular the reflection, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons. Window glass has a similar catch 22 to mirror glass; the smoother it is the less distorted the image, but the more reflective. The easiest way to prevent reflections on glass is to place all the light sources on the opposite side to you. This is part of why you can't see into windows well during the day or out of windows at night, and why you shouldn't turn on your internal car light while driving in poor visibility; as well as your eyesight adapting to the much brighter light in your immediate surroundings, the light reflecting off your side of the glass interferes with the minimal light (i.e. the light reflected by the objects you're trying to look at) traveling from the other.

You can create a crude mirror by leveraging rather than fighting the reflective properties of glass. Preventing light from traveling from the back by using a highly absorbent material will remove most of the interference obscuring the "ghost" image described above, if you use an appropriate material. A white material will obscure your image because white doesn't absorb many wavelengths. Much of the light will be scattered back in a diffuse manner, reducing the relative intensity of your ghost image. A dark material will absorb most of the light, meaning no interference, effectively turning your glass into a front surface mirror, with the surface being the glass itself.

Which brings us back to obsidian. Polishing the (already famously smooth) obsidian creates a reflective surface similar to that of glass, and any unreflected light is immediately absorbed by the (famously dark) obsidian. The oldest mirrors were not just front surface mirrors, but arguably just "surface mirrors".

So if you would like to laugh at a very old joke, turn off your monitor

Splicer posted:

The oldest known mirrors were made of polished obsidian. Modern mirrors are generally manufactured by distributing a highly reflective material on the back of a piece of glass, with the glass providing protection to the delicate backing and also the smooth back surface of the glass forcing the reflective coating into a smooth, optimally reflective shape. A downside of this is they will often feature "ghost" reflections: a faint reflection from the surface of the glass, and the main reflection from the interaction of the remaining light with the reflective backing. This is a bit of a catch 22; the clearer your glass the more light passes through to the reflective coating, but also the clearer your glass the more reflective the surface, and the more obvious the ghost image. In situations where ghost images are a serious issue "front surface mirrors" are used, where the reflective coating is placed on the facing side of the support material. These not only avoid ghost images, but are more accurate due to the light not refracting* through an additional medium before hitting the main reflection medium. They are, however, far more vulnerable to damage, and also far more difficult to manufacture.

*reflection and refraction are closely linked but beyond the scope of this post

There are two types of reflection. Specular reflection, which is what most people think of when they hear or see the word reflection, where the waves are reflected uniformly, and diffuse reflection, where they're scattered. In general the smoother the surface the more specular the reflection, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons. Window glass has a similar catch 22 to mirror glass; the smoother it is the less distorted the image, but the more reflective. The easiest way to prevent reflections on glass is to place all the light sources on the opposite side to you. This is part of why you can't see into windows well during the day or out of windows at night, and why you shouldn't turn on your internal car light while driving in poor visibility; as well as your eyesight adapting to the much brighter light in your immediate surroundings, the light reflecting off your side of the glass interferes with the minimal light (i.e. the light reflected by the objects you're trying to look at) traveling from the other.

You can create a crude mirror by leveraging rather than fighting the reflective properties of glass. Preventing light from traveling from the back by using a highly absorbent material will remove most of the interference obscuring the "ghost" image described above. A white material will obscure your image because white doesn't absorb many wavelengths. Much of the light will be scattered back in a diffuse manner, reducing the relative intensity of your ghost image. A dark material will absorb most of the light, meaning no interference, effectively turning your glass into a front surface mirror, with the surface being the glass itself.

Which brings us back to obsidian. Polishing the (already famously smooth) obsidian creates a reflective surface similar to that of glass, and any unreflected light is immediately absorbed by the (famously dark) obsidian. The oldest mirrors were not just front surface mirrors, but arguably just "surface mirrors".

So if you would like to laugh at a very old joke, turn off your monitor

pube posted:

On the other hand I went from abusing DXM ~1-3 times a week for probably more than 7 hard-to-remember months until I had to take 900mg+ to feel nay effects other than visual distortion and nausea. I stopped when I noticed yellow spots on my skin... last month (this ended last summer so 5 months break) I drank 1.5 bottles and had an amazing trip, intense like the very first time I did it but even better because I am very experienced with the drug, with incredible visual hallucinations and stories being created in my head, and I completely understood the lyrics of The Fall

I'm 12 btw

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Splicer posted:

The oldest known mirrors were made of polished obsidian. Modern mirrors are generally manufactured by distributing a highly reflective material on the back of a piece of glass, with the glass providing protection to the delicate backing and the back surface forcing the coating into a smooth, optimally reflective shape. A downside of this method is they will often feature "ghost" reflections: a faint reflection from the surface of the glass distracting from the main reflection from the back coating. This is a bit of a catch 22; the smoother and clearer your glass the more light will pass through intact to the reflective coating, but this also means a more reflective front surface and a more obvious the ghost image. In situations where ghost images are a serious issue "front surface mirrors" are used, where the reflective coating is placed on the facing side of the support material. These not only avoid ghost images, but are more accurate due to the light not refracting* through an additional medium before hitting the main reflection medium. They are, however, far more vulnerable to damage, and also far more difficult to manufacture.

*reflection and refraction are closely linked but beyond the scope of this post

There are two types of reflection. Specular reflection, which is what most people think of when they hear or see the word reflection, where the waves are reflected uniformly, and diffuse reflection, where they're scattered. In general the smoother the surface the more specular the reflection, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons. Window glass has a similar catch 22 to mirror glass; the smoother it is the less distorted the image, but the more reflective. The easiest way to prevent reflections on glass is to place all the light sources on the opposite side to you. This is part of why you can't see into windows well during the day or out of windows at night, and why you shouldn't turn on your internal car light while driving in poor visibility; as well as your eyesight adapting to the much brighter light in your immediate surroundings, the light reflecting off your side of the glass interferes with the minimal light (i.e. the light reflected by the objects you're trying to look at) traveling from the other.

You can create a crude mirror by leveraging rather than fighting the reflective properties of glass. Preventing light from traveling from the back by using a highly absorbent material will remove most of the interference obscuring the "ghost" image described above. A white material will obscure your image because white doesn't absorb many wavelengths. Much of the light will be scattered back in a diffuse manner, reducing the relative intensity of your ghost image. A dark material will absorb most of the light, meaning no interference, effectively turning your glass into a front surface mirror, with the surface being the glass itself.

Which brings us back to obsidian. Polishing the (already famously smooth) obsidian creates a reflective surface similar to that of glass, and any unreflected light is immediately absorbed by the (famously dark) obsidian. The oldest mirrors were not just front surface mirrors, but arguably just "surface mirrors".

So if you would like to laugh at a very old joke, turn off your monitor

Splicer posted:

The oldest known mirrors were made of polished obsidian. Modern mirrors are generally manufactured by distributing a highly reflective material on the back of a piece of glass, with the glass providing protection to the delicate backing and the back surface forcing the coating into a smooth, optimally reflective shape. A downside of this method is they will often feature "ghost" reflections: a faint reflection from the surface of the glass distracting from the main reflection from the back coating. This is a bit of a catch 22; the smoother and clearer your glass the more light will pass through intact to the reflective coating, but this also means a more reflective front surface and a more obvious the ghost image. In situations where ghost images are a serious issue "front surface mirrors" are used, where the reflective coating is placed on the facing side of the support material. These not only avoid ghost images, but are more accurate due to the light not refracting* through an additional medium before hitting the main reflection medium. They are, however, far more vulnerable to damage, and also far more difficult to manufacture.

*reflection and refraction are closely linked but beyond the scope of this post

There are two types of reflection. Specular reflection, which is what most people think of when they hear or see the word reflection, where the waves are reflected uniformly, and diffuse reflection, where they're scattered. In general the smoother the surface the more specular the reflection, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons. Window glass has a similar catch 22 to mirror glass; the smoother it is the less distorted the image, but the more reflective. The easiest way to prevent reflections on glass is to place all the light sources on the opposite side to you. This is part of why you can't see into windows well during the day or out of windows at night, and why you shouldn't turn on your internal car light while driving in poor visibility; as well as your eyesight adapting to the much brighter light in your immediate surroundings, the light reflecting off your side of the glass interferes with the minimal light (i.e. the light reflected by the objects you're trying to look at) traveling from the other.

You can create a crude mirror by leveraging rather than fighting the reflective properties of glass. Preventing light from traveling from the back by using a highly absorbent material will remove most of the interference obscuring the "ghost" image described above. A white material will obscure your image because white doesn't absorb many wavelengths. Much of the light will be scattered back in a diffuse manner, reducing the relative intensity of your ghost image. A dark material will absorb most of the light, meaning no interference, effectively turning your glass into a front surface mirror, with the surface being the glass itself.

Which brings us back to obsidian. Polishing the (already famously smooth) obsidian creates a reflective surface similar to that of glass, and any unreflected light is immediately absorbed by the (famously dark) obsidian. The oldest mirrors were not just front surface mirrors, but arguably just "surface mirrors".

So if you would like to laugh at a very old joke, turn off your monitor

platedlizard posted:

I think the real problem is that so many of these SJWs want an eye for an eye and don't seem to think that's a good way to blind everyone.

Strudel Man posted:

In the land of the blind, no one has sight-privilege.

cptn_dr posted:

The one eyed man is an oppressive shitbird.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Kill sighty

EorayMel posted:

Laserjet 4P posted:

Every time I see Strudel Man’s name I am reminded of the legendary quote ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, YOU FUCKWIT

quote:

"Thetis of the silver feet came to the house of Hephaistos, imperishable, starry, and shining among the immortals, built in bronze for himself by the god of the dragging footsteps. She found him sweating as he turned here and there to his bellows busily, since he was working on twenty tripods which were to stand against the wall of his strong-founded dwelling. And he had set golden wheels underneath the base of each one so that of their own motion they could wheel into the immortal gathering, and return to his house: a wonder to look at. These were so far finished, but the elaborate ear handles were not yet on. He was forging these, and beating the chains out."

Laserjet 4P posted:

Every time I see Strudel Man’s name I am reminded of the legendary quote ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, YOU FUCKWIT

EorayMel posted:

Ornamental Dingbat posted:

I just tried searching this thread for that quote but couldn't find it. I did notice that the results show the thread title at the time though. I didn't know it did that.