So is Elon Musk and yet he is the richest man on Earth, has meddled in government freely and fanboys still believe every fart that is coming out of him.
He used to be into making cars too but that clearly fell off the wayside
... and has very little respect here. Some fanboys aren't a guide to amount of respect one deserves, regardless of topic.
I must say he redeemed himself tiny little bit in my eyes when he blocked russian use of starlink in their war in Ukraine, I didn't register any apparent reason apart from stopping murdering of civilians by russians, but thats been happening during whole war in non-trivial numbers. But he also famously sabotaged their naval drones mid attack by disabling all of them during early phase of the war, to not sink half of black sea naval fleet at one go, so... a complicated, highly unreliable person.
I think everybody can easily find deep flaws in him, be them personal or professional (ie he is POS father based on many accounts for example, thats not flying with most parents that know this). Then it matters if folks have firm hard-to-bend moral values or are more flexible with them. Based on experience most people are quite a bit flexible, otherwise they would have to hate themselves too a lot.
It's about being able to perceive it as a "living" moving creature and not something different.
You can understand something below the perception threshold is supposed to be a creature because you both have a far more advanced brain and you've been exposed to such things your entire life so there's a learned component; but your dog may simply not be capable of making the leap in comprehending that something it doesn't see as living/moving is supposed to be representative of a creature at all.
I've personally seen something adjacent to this in action, as I had a dog over the period of time where I transitioned from lower framerate displays to higher framerate displays. The dog was never all that interested in the lower framerate displays, but the higher framerate displays would clearly capture his attention to the point he'd start barking at it when there were dogs on screen.
This is also pretty evident in simple popular culture. The myth that "dogs can't see 2D" where 2D was a standin for movies and often television was pervasive decades ago. So much so that (as an example) in the movie Turner and Hooch from 1989, Tom Hanks offhandedly makes a remark about how the dog isn't enjoying a movie because "dogs can't see 2D" and no further elaboration on it is needed or given; whereas today it's far more common to see content where dogs react to something being shown on a screen, and if you're under, say, 30 or so, you may not have ever even heard of "dogs can't see 2D".
I mean it's a dog so you can't exactly ask them; but this was a dog that would bark at every other dog. If he wasn't barking at Hooch because Hooch was only showing up at 24 FPS, then I'm inclined to think he didn't recognize Hooch as another dog.
With CRTs I would think that the problem may be that they do not see a full picture at all. Because the full screen is never lit all at once? Don’t know how persistence of vision works in this case…
With Cathode ray TVs only a single pixel at a time is on, it relies on our eyes having bad enough temporal resolution, if you have Superspeed eyes you will see just a coloured line/pixel moving on screen
That's not quite true. Only one pixel is being activated at a time but the phosphors continue to emit light for many pixels. In practice you get a handful of lines lit to varying degrees at at time. Maybe 1-2 lines quite brightly lit and then a trail of lines that are fading pretty significantly (but still emitting light). They yes, our persistence of vision fills in the rest to provide the appearance of a fully lit screen.
reply