« first day (2783 days earlier)      last day (647 days later) » 
03:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

3:22 AM
@Cerberus The second one? Why not a wharf?
@Mitch It might not be that straightforward, but that's a good rule of thumb. Thanks.
(quay - wharf - jetty - pier ; future reference)
 
 
1 hour later…
4:29 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] URL in title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, +2 more: freemp3download.xyz/white-lie-lil-uzi-vert-mp3-song-download/ by bretleefok on english.SE
 
 
3 hours later…
7:33 AM
0
Q: Humans desire riches, fame, power and... (wo)men?

xDaizu"Riches, power, fame and women" are words often used for describing the things that most people aspire to get. The lowest of our core humans desires. To quote a question from worldbuilding: (...)But, it would make sense that at least a few wizards would want to use their powers to gain rich...

 
 
2 hours later…
9:13 AM
0
Q: Word for someone who speaks in a low voice all the time

James WolpertI don't have any guess about the term for those who always speak in low range of voice even when he is physically and mentally well. Anyone's help will be appreciated much.

0
Q: Is "Stylizable" used in English?

DanWe need a term to describe an element with an customizable look (for example, if it's a text, one can customize its font and foreground color). Can we use the term "stylizable" for that?

 
 
2 hours later…
11:25 AM
-1
Q: A person who always reads a book from cover to cover

EngurooIs there a word for a person who always reads a book from cover to cover, no matter how hard going it may be? A bookworm is someone who reads a lot, so it doesn't express the meaning of being so persistent if it comes to reading something you might not really like. Thank you for your help!

 
11:59 AM
0
Q: Adjective for "office"

DAEThe word "office" here is not like the others - it doesn't have an "ial" suffix (which would make it official, which is perhaps literally correct, but doesn't sound right). The system is designed for residential, commercial, office and industrial listings. Is there a word to describe space ...

 
 
2 hours later…
2:16 PM
@tchrist: I keep getting tempted to get a decent camera, especially every time I walk past that aisle at Costco. Can you tell me why is there $1,000 difference between these two offerings, and whether the difference is worth it?
The cheaper bundle appears to have better resolution, even.
 
@Robusto looking
Resolution is deceptive.
Notice that the 7500 has another stop of sensitivity.
The overall score on the 3400 is only 1 under the overall score for the 7500.
The 7500 is a newer release.
Nikon has three "consumer" lines of DX bodies: 3x00, 5x00, 7x00.
The higher numbered bodies will have more convenient controls than the lower numbered ones, and often extended lens compatibility or other features.
 
Hmm.
 
Like the 5x00 bodies have WiFi and a swivel LCD.
The 7x00 bodies probably can handle "older" lenses better.
And it's a totally different sensor.
 
You mean CCD vs CMOS?
 
The newer sensor has less noise, but it's hard a big deal for what you're likely to be doing.
 
2:30 PM
Mornin.
 
No, I mean that the 7500 has different dimensions and also a different ISO-equivalent sensitivity.
 
Do they all capture Camera RAW, or directly to JPEG?
 
You can ask any of them to do either or both.
 
Hiya Ed.
 
Morning.
lemme look at somethin here for ya
That's a "professional" 3400 review.
That's the same for the 7500.
There's also a 5500 in the middle.
All are recommended.
The D7x00 series is the successor to the D70/D80/D90 series. They ran out of digits.
> But it's not as if the D7500 went backwards. I'll say this several times in this review: the D7500 is clearly a D5-generation camera.

By that I mean we get things like an EXPEED5 processor and image sensor that can do 4K video and expand the buffer, a new shutter that provides 25% faster frame rates (8 fps max), a tilting touchscreen LCD (below), a better and faster metering sensor, a new internal frame design that's more robust (coupled with some better weather sealing), electronic first curtain shutter, and more.
Notice how everything he mentions seems like something you'd value, but isn't going to show up on an abbreviated spec-vs-spec comparison chart.
 
2:34 PM
Uh-huh.
 
> A tweaking of EXPEED has lifted the top ISO value by a stop to 25,600. I’ll get to it in the performance section later, but I’d also say that the D3400 is generating better looking images—both JPEG and NEF—from the same sensor as the D3300. Perhaps there’s been a minor sensor tweaking, too. But since Nikon is so opaque and cryptic on many of their sensors, especially here at the low end, I can’t really comment about whether there’s been any sensor change or not.

The other EXPEED difference comes in the video. While we have the same sizes and frame rates as before (max 1080P/60), the new
So frames per second, video, and connectivity may also matter to you.
Notice the dramatic difference between 4K in the 7500 and 1080P/60 in the 3400.
But you may not care about video.
 
Yes. I have a 4K-capable TV screen, but I can't see much use for that except to zoom in on details.
And I imagine that details and cropping are what that's all about anyway.
 
1/250 flash sync on the 7500, 1/200 on the 3400
 
Is that a huge difference?
 
These are going to focus very differnetly.
No, it is not.
You have to count up focusing points and such.
No bracketing on the 3400
 
2:39 PM
You mean auto-bracketing?
 
no mirror prerelease, no front command dial!!!
Yes, I mean auto-bracketing.
I couldn't handle having only one dial for both shutter speed and aperture. :)
I want one for one and one for the other.
The 3400 will make you go into menus much more.
The 7500 will be "a lot" heavier.
It's weighing in at 24.4 oz (720 g) vs the 3400's 14.7 oz (405g).
 
I bet 10 oz doesn't seem like a big difference to you, but it is.
 
I'm sure.
That picture above is what I'm talking about. Taken with my phone. Someone on one of my bike rides said there was a blue heron by the spillway, so I went back and looked. Can you spot the bird in that picture?
I'd love to be able to zoom in one details like that.
 
Yes.
There's no top LCD in the 3400.
That's the top of the 7500.
 
2:44 PM
Top LCD for showing settings?
 
There are dials and buttons for things you will want to access often. On the 3400 you have to use menus.
Yes.
That way you can quickly at a glance see things like battery, memory card, even shutter and aperture.
 
Yeah.
 
The 7500 has a lock button so you can't bump the MASP dial on the left in that picture.
> More so than a lot of the Nikon bodies, battery performance on the D7500 is going to vary a lot on how you use it. SnapBridge, internal flash, touch-screen Live View, and a host of other items can draw down what is typically really excellent battery performance. Just general shooting without those features turned on? Really, really good. The envy of mirrorless shooters, even those using cameras with bigger batteries these days (I'm looking at you Sony).
I've "never" used live view.
> Buffer: I wasn't really expecting this, but the D7500 buffer performance is almost exactly double that of the already-quite-good D7200 with the same card and settings. To the point where you can actually shoot raw (12-bit Compressed) at 8 fps and shoot for over twelve seconds if you need to. Ditto any JPEG setting.
That's actually pretty incredible.
I wonder if they're leveraging off a giant buffer they'd need for the 4k video.
 
Sounds likely.
 
That means that irrespective of card write speeds, you have that much buffer.
 
2:47 PM
When I used to do film photography I favored a 28-90 zoom for most things. I'm not sure I like the 18-55 vs 70-300 split.
 
I can hardly blame you.
 
55 is not how I see the world at all.
 
Nikon makes something like infinite DX zooms but nearly no DX primes.
Remember that 55 mm on DX is 2/3 of that on full frame.
Don't get an 18-200
Your old 28-90 full frame lens would be more like the 18-140 DX lens in terms of reach.
A 300mm lens on a DX body is cropped down as though it were 450mm.
Or said another way, a 300mm lens on an FX body gives the same view as a 200mm on a DX body.
It's a 2/3 crop.
 
Hmm.
 
Oh, get the 35/1.8 DX prime lens.
It's the equivalent of your old 50mm/2.8 FX.
 
2:53 PM
You think FX vs DX is not worth fighting for?
 
Depends on what you're shooting for.
 
I don't want details to drop out in low light situations, but that's about it.
Also, don't like increased noise.
 
FX gives you better depth of field control and more lenses to choose from but is much heavier and much more expensive. It tends to have better low light performance and is less sensitive to shaky hands. It's very heavy.
 
Heavy is a problem.
 
It's way too heavy. But it'll stop a bullet. :)
I would find both the 3400 and the 7500 light as features. The 810 body is 2.2 pounds.
960 g / 34.57 oz
I'd trust Thom's reviews above most others you would casually encounter.
 
2:57 PM
@tchrist That's a serious camera.
 
@Robusto yessir
 
Probably too serious for me, especially considering the weight.
 
Agree.
If you wanted full frame, you would get the 6xx or 7xx series.
Depending on whether you wanted a super simple body or one that does more for you.
The 8xx series is awfully dangerous if your physical-therapy budget doesn't account for it. Or bank account.
 
Haha. Bank account is not a problem, but at the same time I don't want to waste money on something that I won't use or appreciate.
 
Then get the 7500.
There's also a D500, which is DX but pro-body.
 
3:00 PM
So here's an evaluation: what would I have to do to outgrow the 7500?
 
The D500 is the most serious DX body.
Get caught in a rainforest downpour.
 
I mean, I ride a $5,000 bicycle but I get value from every dollar of that.
 
The D500 DX and the D750 FX bodies are both pro bodies.
 
@tchrist Is casual water a problem?
 
@Robusto Less so on the 7500 than on the 3400.
But not so much.
 
3:03 PM
Also I would like a camera that I could — could — stick in a backpack with one versatile lens and take on some bike rides off in the hinterlands.
 
If you treat your bodies and lenses as allergic to water, you won't get surprised when they aren't.
 
Well, of course I would not leave one out in the rain.
 
Yeah, that would be a DX body and an 18-140 zoom.
 
Hi
 
I have a 24-120/4 FX zoom I use as a general zoom.
 
3:05 PM
please can I say : ( For those who didn't send the assignment yet does anyone receive an email from Mrs about that)
 
So it sounds like the 7500 plus the 18-140 zoom would satisfy me for some time to come?
 
Plus you want a fast f/1.8 prime, probably the 35mm but maybe 50mm or even 85mm.
That way you can shoot indoors without ever needing to think about flash if you don't want to.
 
Nice.
 
Those are all more than two stops faster than any of the zooms you'd get.
 
of course
 
3:07 PM
A college-hire at the conference last week was walking around the conference with just the 35/1.8 and he was happy.
 
@Educ Use "... has anyone received ..."
 
He took his zoom for his road-trip up into the mountains though.
 
ah thank you
 
@Educ And drop "For".
 
@tchrist 35 was always my go-to over a 55.
 
3:08 PM
Remember the 2/3 or 3/2 ratio issue.
And a stop.
 
Yes.
 
Those who didn't send the assignment yet has anyone received an email from Mrs about that ?
 
a 24/2.8 is kinda nice.
 
@Færd and @Robusto what about now
 
@Educ No. "For those who didn't send the assignment yet, has anyone received an email from Mrs _______ about that?" is fine
 
3:09 PM
> Those who haven't sent the assignment yet, has any of you received an email from Mrs [...] about that?
 
There's a 28/1.8 that is more like your old 35/2.8
 
@tchrist Yeah, but then you're not far from a whole valise full of lenses.
 
At least, kinda.
Oh I know. Just get one.
DX 35mm is more general purpose since it's like an FX 55mm. Kinda.
 
Rule of nature: whatever lens you brought, you wish you'd had a different one.
 
@Robusto yes please one thing why we didn't add 's' to email since there is Mrs near to it
 
3:10 PM
I have an 18-55/2.8 DX zoom I never use.
Weighs a ton.
 
@Educ I left out from. I just added it back.
 
the 35/1.8 and the 50/1.8 are really cheap
really really really cheap
 
@tchrist Yes, that's the problem with zooms generally.
 
@Færd Thank you we say any of you not anyone of you ?
 
And they are far sharper than any zoom you could ever casually consider buying
 
3:11 PM
@Robusto Okay thank you
 
@Educ Yeah,"anyone of" sounds funny. I dunno if it's wrong.
 
The 10-22/2.8 and the 200-400/4 zooms at like $2k and $7k are the only things that would be sharper than your $200 35/1.8 or 55/1.8
 
@Færd Okay Thank you
 
YW
 
@tchrist Interesting.
 
3:13 PM
It's because a nonzoom that matches your diagonal is always incredibly simpler in lens design.
And you'd need to hire a sherpa for the 200-400/4 :)
You'd probably think the same for the wide zoom, but it's like 3 vs 8 pounds something like that.
ALSO....!
 
@tchrist Oh, no doubt.
 
Never buy an expensive lens. Rent it.
You won't need it often. So rent it.
 
A bird photographer I went out with a few times used to have his camera and lens mounted on a rifle stock, and even then he had to steady it on his knees.
 
That's whom I rent from, but I can just walk in. They do country-wide mail order though.
Birding needs like a 600m lens. It's unthinkable.
Well, unless you crop. :)
 
He got some great shots.
 
3:16 PM
Oh I'm sure.
You can use a teleconverter on those giant primes. You can't on the little lenses.
Well, or wouldn't bother.
I'd likely rent a 300/4 and a 1.4x TC, then use a DX body, if I wanted to shoot birds.
I still have a D300 body.
Current version is D500 for that.
The "pro" DX.
I started with the D70. The equiv body today is the 7500.
 
That was taken with the 70-300 zoom.
In that one review you linked.
For the 3400.
 
Yes, I have the 70-300/4.5–5.6 FX zoom.
300mm would blur the background more on an FX than on a DX.
 
Really?
 
Why yes.
 
Less depth of field?
 
3:22 PM
Everything is a stop narrower depth of field on full frame than on 2/3 crop.
So f/2.8 on DX looks like f/4 on FX.
 
Ah.
 
But you still get the faster shutter speeds on DX at 2.8 of course.
And so you can freeze movement better.
Or shoot in less light.
Just doesn't have a narrow depth of field.
Can you rent a body + lens locally for a day o rthree? I forget how far you are from "the big city" there.
 
Let me check Google Maps for such places.
 
That's a good idea. Alb would have some, and quite possibly SF.
Taos etc, not so much.
And Los Alamos is right out. :)
Just rent a DX body and some zoom that isn't the 18-55
You'll be able to tell what you like or dislike about that body combo then.
 
@tchrist I'm near ABQ, but it looks like I might have to go to SF.
 
3:27 PM
Interesting.
My friends in Los Alamos have to go to Santa Fee for everything.
Hence the name. :)
 
They have motion-picture camera rentals down here, but I can't find anything on Google Maps that looks like a full-service still camera store/rental place.
@tchrist Ha.
 
I'm sure they have them. Everywhere does. It just might not be obvious.
 
I ride up in SF quite a bit, so it's not a big problem to go there. Sometimes I even ride there on my bike.
 
It was 47 here this morning. Couldn't believe it.
My tomatoes all said, "Seriously?"
 
At least it wasn't freezing.
 
3:31 PM
My furnace kicked on at 58 because I'd left windows open.
 
Nice to wake up when it's a bit chilly, though. The covers seem so toasty.
 
I woke up to discovering that my larger kitty was using me for warmth.
 
Haha, it happens.
I find that that is the principal motivating factor for cat affection: warmth.
That and food.
 
My smaller kitty seems to have snatched a bat out of the air on the back porch at dusk. Can't understand how he could have done that, but he's done the same with dragonflies and hummingbirds often enough. I think he's living at a different speed than I am.
 
Mine are similar. The big one is built for comfort, not speed, but the smaller one is a true predator: lean, mean, and faster than hell.
 
3:34 PM
And sphinx moths but those are slower.
 
I put up cat fencing to keep them in the yard and so far it works. They don't get to stalk birds, but they do catch the occasional lizard.
 
Oh hm.
 
But as soon as they get up they have to go outside to see what the lizard fairy brought them.
 
Here's where that initial comparison chart I showed you came from: dxomark.com/best-nikon-cameras-under-45200-dollars
 
Thanks.
I need to run. Thanks much for the education. ^_^
 
3:39 PM
Sure thing. Let me know how it all works out for you.
 
@Færd You Win? Yes Way? Yah Weh?
 
@Mitch Yeah, I always wonder whether I should include be or other lesser verbs (modals, etc) in abbreviations.
People tend to leave those out.
@Mitch Yoo-(W)hoo!
I bought less than a thousand dollars' worth of gold a few months back, and I'm severely conscious-stricken now.
 
@Færd 'Yoo-hoo' is for catching someone's attention or saying hi if they don't see you.
 
Hmm. I know. But it fits the occasion no worse than You Win does.
 
'Woo-hoo' means 'Yay' or 'All right!' or 'Whoop-de-doo' or a general recognition of happiness or success.
Is that what you meant instead of 'You're Welcome'?
 
3:49 PM
I just meant you're welcome.
 
Oh.
 
The rest was a protracted joke, but thanks for the explanation! :D
 
I don't think that's ever been done before, despite it logically making sense.
 
Really?
 
@Færd Did the price drop recently?
 
3:50 PM
On the contrary: the dollar is soaring, and gold in tow.
Oh wait, it's the Rial that is plummeting.
 
So that's good for you, right?
 
So those who can afford it are jumping at the chance to exchange their money for gold or other things.
 
Are you conscious stricken because of the guilt at success?
 
And the rest of the people will just be fucked up.
My gold is just chump change, but still I'm getting guilt pangs for having bought it.
 
Commodities, like precious metals, are supposedly good hedges against currency changes (like inflation). But I've never understood gold.
 
3:53 PM
@Mitch Rather, at the failure of those who can't buy it.
 
@Færd Are people there talking as though those who bought early were somehow ... cheating?
 
Yeah.
As they should, I guess.
It's not exactly "early".
 
@Færd I don't know. That seems like being guilty for winning at the race track because some people outside the racetrack can't afford to bet.
 
@Mitch That's a different situation from when the value of your commodity shots up at the expense of the value of poor people's money.
Especially when that is done large-scale, on the part of the affluent.
I'm not claiming I have a full grasp of the economic situation, but I had an inkling that I shouldn't buy gold in these times.
(I'm stupid, right? A thousand dollars? Who am I joking?)
 
@Færd What is the usual savings method there? For middle class in US it's real estate (buying a house)
Buying a lot of gold is not common here (like I hear it is very common in India).
 
4:02 PM
@Mitch That used to be the case here too. Real estate is too pricey.
But recently there hasn't been many transactions in that market either.
 
There was a graphic I saw recently comparing class and investment types in the US... looking
 
Real state is sky-rocketing too. In such an unstable situation, there are no real prices.
 
@Færd I think real estate is a good hedge against currency because it is a thing that doesn't go away. It's still a house or building worth living in whatever the weird arbitrary price is (everything goes up or down in price relatively)
@Færd haha except for exceptions like that
 
@Mitch Well, it's complicated.
 
I think everything favors the rich. You can't buy a house or building with some money already
 
4:06 PM
People have been "hoarding" their houses and lands to keep the prices rising.
There's a huge bubble.
And in a more balanced society, the price of land in one city shouldn't be a hundred times higher than that in another urban area that happens to be a bit farther from the center.
I'm not comparing rural and urban.
 
not the comparison of class, just a comparison of investment methods and return/volatility/liquidity
 
Ah.
 
the big problem with real estate is that it is hard to sell quickly if you need the money (and often at the time you want to sell, because of general econ factors, everybody else wants to sell too)
 
It could go so high that nobody would be willing to buy.
I guess that's about how the 2008 crisis started in the US?
 
also, different countries may be wildly different
@Færd OMG I have no idea. No, I have n idea, I don't think it was that. It wasn't about people trying to sell homes.
 
4:13 PM
But it was born out of a huge real estate bubble.
 
It was more about the money that people owed, which was an investable thing. i.e. other people could buy the debt and then sell it; and this market of sell these things became like a bubble.
I think
it was a mess
created by those investors. not by people trying to sell their houses.
 
And the original borrowers took out loans to buy real estate, I reckon?
@Mitch Yeah, like a pyramid scheme.
 
yeah, the 2008 crisis started because of toxic debt, which in turn created a construction bubble
 
@Færd the actual home buyers, those normal people who buy the house to live in it... most people in the US (except the super rich) don't buy a house with cash
I think that's been the case for 150 years
You almost always get a loan, one for 30 years, to slowly pay back the bank.
 
Right. So they take out loans and make payments.
 
4:18 PM
Right
the whole 2008 crisis was the banks then taking these loans (these bundles of owed money) and making that into an investment vehicle for other people (non-homeowners). These investors have little conception that there is even a small building involved beyond the expectation that the price of the physical house will rise.
 
And then investment banks emerge to capitalize on people's loans, and their shares could end up toxic, as @MattE.Эллен said.
 
And These investors created investments upon investments of loans themselves.
 
A pyramid scheme, I guess it's called.
 
It's reasonable to do this kind of thing in an accounting sense, but it's easy to lose site of the underlying reality the housing market itself (and that's what happened)
 
"If you put all this bad debt together, paint it a bit, well, now it looks like good debt."
 
4:22 PM
@Færd yeah I think there was some pyramiddding involved.
also just regular fraud
 
And the shockwave of that bubble bursting submerged all the world.
It's funny how things relate to each other.
 
4:36 PM
Anyways. This could easily evolve into a full-on crisis here. Markets are closing up one after another.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg, the beginning of a long-ass fall for the value of our currency.
And I guess you know who we've got to thank for it.
 
@Færd s/you know who/Voldemort/ftfy
 
@MetaEd Don't pronounce the 't'. He has French aspirations
@Færd The British?
 
4:51 PM
@Mitch He's deluded. The French do not aspirate.
 
@Mitch And those bad loans were overvalued.
@Færd Well, it was not just in America.
But the bubble and the toxicity were perhaps the greatest there, and it burst first.
 
03:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

« first day (2783 days earlier)      last day (647 days later) »