elucubra

What is non-standard here? Homophobia has been a constant through much of history. It's beyond disgusting and horrifying, but it's been there for ages.

If you read my post you may notice that I'm not against memorializing, or pro-police or town hall, and that I favor these actions, but where they are not a safety concern. Oh, and this isn't about my mother, but about the millions of drivers who may not have 100% vision, which is most of us.

Have you ever asked yourself why the vast majority of road markings worldwide are white on black, or yellow on black? Fancy? Fashion? whim?

Also, I 'd like to invite you to google "high contrast safety"

The possibility that a random person would go to the lengths of adding micro-beads, or go to the trouble of procuring reflective pavement paint of the colors used seems a bit far-fetched to me. Could be, but unlikely in my view.

Don't bother, this place is becoming Reddit 2.0

Which is? Please people, read.

One of the first results from googling "high contrast safety".

There are a bajillion more, and many actual research publications. You really could benefit from reading.

It looks like reading AND comprehending isn't really your thing, bless your heart.

The article says "Paint", a whole different ball game from chalk. Visibility aside, I'm a motorcyclist, and I can assure you that slick paint on the road is deadly. Pointing out that there hasn't been an accident yet, and declaring it safe is a textbook example of logical fallacy.

Want data? Ask google for "high contrast safety". Here is a result, in case your google-fu is not up to date

I made a thoroughly well though out point, and I'm replying with what I consider reasonable effort and arguments, which are countered with insults. Please re-read the thread.

I have probably not explained myself well enough, or maybe you have not read, or understood correctly.

this potentially dangerous political statement that you 100% agree with

Here you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.

Stating that something is safe because another event hasn't happened yet, is a logical fallacy. It's like stating that smoking isn't harmful because your grampa smoked until his 80's and didn't die of cancer.

I did not say I work in a field close to ergonomics, I said that my work INVOLVES ergonomics. Also, pretending that someone who "deals with UX" has any serious knowledge of ergonomics, is like a chiropractic saying they are an actual medical doctor, or that a software "engineer" is anything near a real engineer.

I think you may have wanted to write "enumerate".

And no, I'm not going to give you a private lecture on high contrast visibility. Do your research. You may start with why ALL operating systems go to the trouble of having a high contrast mode. (Hint: it's not for looks)

Ok, first: You do you. Second: I'm not in possession of absolute truth.

But if I may, I'd like to share some of my experientially acquired knowledge.

On sound; I stand by my words. Why accept worse quality sound because the medium is inferior? Do whatever you want to post process, but having control. Want permanent "warmth"? Buy, or even better, build a tube amp. Pretty easy BTW. Want some sound characteristics? Get a proper equalizer and learn to use it. Want crackle? Well, really, that is something to discuss with your therapist.. BTW, what all people call warmth is just a slight bump in the 60-80 Khz range. I like many old amps, and speakers. I've actually designed and sold a few bespoke speaker systems. Some vintage Klipsch sets, with a refoaming are still astounding, but sources have gotten way better.

Regarding photography; I bought my first SLR, a Vivitar XV1 ( A Pentax K1000 copy) in the 80's. All manual, but with a built in light meter. From there I went on to a Pentax , then another, then Pentax's first autofocus, and the worlds first SLR with a pop-up flash, often derided as a gimmick, but amazingly useful, the mighty SF1, I also had a Nikon F601 with a couple of lenses and a Old school 6x6 Bellows Zeiss. I've developed quite a bit. I kind of know my stuff.

Analog photography is not superior, but different. It's absolutely true that the limited amount of film, and the cost of developing, promotes thoughtful composition, framing, and anticipation. Selecting the right film, understanding your lenses, and, crucially, undesrtanding that the most important piece of kit is the lens, 2nd the tripod, and then the body,
helps a lot in getting superior photographs. If you know what you want, understand your film, your camera, your kit, you can get results unmatchable by digital, no matter how much post-processing. What, why, how, are necessary ingredients in film photography.

That said, I would think, compose, etc the photo in my mind, and then shoot bursts, the ask for a contact sheet, and choose what I wanted for prints. No need to gamble all on the speed of your index finger. Film was the cheapest variable in the equation, except for Kodachrome, the GOAT of films. Fuji makes some very good film, but Kodachrome was beyond anything.

Kodachrome 64, and occasionally 25, how I miss you! those films demanded discipline, but the rewards were astounding.

Yes, in some respects, film is still superior to digital, ***IF ***you understand the medium, kit, process, and thinking.

A digital compact? Fine, but get one of the later ones. Advice from someone who bought and used an Olympus 1.2 Mpx fixed lens in 1999. There is NOOOO redeeming value in an early digital, except.... Yeah, NONE.

Anecdote: I recently saw a kid, floating around his friends, taking pics with an old point-and-shoot. The cringe was strong. I was thinking, "Jeez, kid! I'm all for film, but buy an actual reflex with a proper lens, they are cheap as fuck in second hand marketplaces!!

Safety