There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. There are about 200 trillion galaxies in the parts of the universe that are observable from earth. Which is to say, galaxies outnumber the stars in our galaxy by about 20 to 1.

If we limit it to stars we can see with the naked eye, then instead of 100 billion stars, you’re down to something like 5,000 to 10,000 stars depending where on earth you are observing from. In which case galaxies in the observable universe outnumber the stars we can see about 20 billion to 1.

Oops, sorry, I assumed you were talking about a smudge on the glass of the lens, not a glass window.

In the case of a smudged glass window, that’s an issue for both types of autofocus, and it occurs because the glass is closer than the subject you’re trying to focus on. And due to the way the physics of light work, it’s easier to find focus on closer subjects than distant subjects, for the same reasons that your depth of field increases the further your focal point is away from your sensor. And because the smudge itself is something that provides sufficient detail for autofocus to work, the smudge will often become the target of the autofocus.

There are a few ways of dealing with it though.

You can step closer to the glass, so the smudge is within the minimal focal point distance of your camera. If it’s too close for your camera to focus on, it won’t accidentally focus on it. Some lenses also have switches that let you control the minimal focal point distance. This is more common on telephoto lenses, but if your lens has that kind of switch, you can use it to ensure that the smudge is too close to focus on.

You can also change the active autofocus points on your camera so the smudge is under an autofocus point.

You can also drop the camera down to one autofocus point, move the camera to focus on the distant target without the smudge in the way, then half hold down the shutter button, and then reframe the shot whilst holding the shutter. That will keep the focal length set to where it was, but it won’t actually take the photo until you press the shutter the whole way in

Nothing, because that’s not what happens.

Edit - Oops, see my other reply. I didn’t realise you were talking about a glass window, and assumed you were talking about a smudge on the lens itself

It depends on the camera and the method of auto focus it uses.

Cheaper cameras use contrast detection, that alters the focus until the edges of an object in the focus zone are as contrasty as possible. The smudge makes it harder to find clean edges on the subject.

Old school dSLRs and modern mirrorless cameras often use a different, faster method of auto focus called phase detection. It’s more expensive, because it requires specific hardware to work. It uses two different sensors (or a single hybrid sensor) to split the light coming though the lens and overlay the resulting images. When the images are identical, the image is in focus. But because of the way this system works, smudges don’t really stop the auto focus from working. The smudge will still reduce the contrast and crispness of your final photo, but you’ll still get good auto focus.

Yes, but not visually. Which is to say, if I’m sitting in a room, looking at a wall, and then close my eyes, I still have a sense of where that wall is in relation to me, despite no longer being able to see it. I can navigate through a mental space “spatially” in the same way, with a sense of my own imaginary presence and its spatial relation to the memory of the place I’m moving through.

Interestingly, I can also do it with objects and animals. So despite not being able to visualise a horse, I can conjure up a mental spatial map with me and the horse in it that lets me “know” our relative sizes and locations. I can move it all around as well, and still feel “where” everything is, without seeing any of it

Because I don’t believe that kids (or people in generally) magically develop effective techniques for dealing with addiction and bullying when they reach a certain arbitrary age. They don’t suddenly know how to deal with complex social situations when they turn 16. They don’t know instantly gain knowledge of how to deal with the addictive nature of gamified social media platforms when they turn 16. So hiding them from that stuff, and then letting their first exposure to it be when they’re trying to learn to be independent and less likely to look for answers outside of their own experience solves nothing.

Social media can be addictive, screen time can be addictive, and navigating online scammers, bullies and fraudsters is something that takes experience to work recognise and work through.

So I approached it by talking to my kid about recognising what this stuff looks like, about the importance of not revealing personal information, of asking questions if they have doubts. I also let them have as much screen time as they wanted, and told them that the issue isn’t how much time they spend in front of the computer, the issue is whether the computer is the only thing they want to spend time with. If they always say no when someone asks if they want to do something else, if the devices start to get in the way of life, and they never want to leave their room, get resentful at having to do chores etc, then the balance is off. And that’s what I cared about. Teaching the kid how to fit this stuff in to their life whilst they were young enough to still take my advice onboard.

That’s why

Edit - Unrelated, but maybe not unrelated, I also told me kid I don’t care if they swear around the house, with their friends or whatever. However, I also told them that lots of people do care if they swear, and they need to be aware of the impact that their choice of words has on the people around them. Swearing at a teacher at school for example, is going to get them in trouble, and “I can swear at home” isn’t an excuse for that. I tried to teach my child that the issue isn’t the words, but rather, the way your words impact the people around you and your relationships with them.

Kids need to learn by doing and by trying. They don’t learn by being told by their parents “this is how it is”. And the more hard rules you put in front of them, the more things they have the need to rebel against and push back against when they try and find their independence. And every single kid that has ever lived explores and pushes at boundaries in some form or another. So don’t turn the shitty harmful things in to forms of finding independence.

You give kids independence by giving them agency in their own life, and the life experience to use that agency in an informed way.

I didn’t drink until I was in my 20s, and I’ve never driven a car, let alone crashed one.

I also let my kid use social media in their pre teens.

What’s to worry about though? Remember before you were born? It’s going to be exactly like that.

I mean, I don’t want to die, but I also don’t understand what there is to be anxious about.

Most models don’t have any kind of display at all. The most recent model that isn’t widely available anywhere yet has a tiny notification window.

The vast majority of glasses out in the wild that people are using today do not have displays.

That will change, but right now, if you see someone wearing these glasses, you can be close to certain it doesn’t have a display.

They don’t have a display.

The glasses don’t have HUDs/screens. There are no real time visual clues.

I use vernissage rather than pixelfed, but yeah, it’s the only one I deliberately try and post to every day!

The person you replied to isn’t a Piefed user…

It’s called remote deposit cheque fraud. It’s a fake cheque. If you cash it, it will eventually get flagged as a a fake, and the bank will take the money back, even if you’ve already spent it or sent it to the scammer. And if you never send money to the scammer, they get nothing, but it also costs them nothing to make the attempt, because you’re the one depositing the cheque and wearing the risk.

I got a new PC and was really upset at the idea of putting windows on it. The ad lack of ownership of my own hardware, I couldn’t do it, and so I installed Linux (again), but this time, it stuck.

Vernissage. It’s a federated photography sharing platform. In theory it’s similar to pixelfed, but more like flickr, and less like instagram

I do the same. My name is pronounced differently by hispanohablante folk, and I use that pronunciation when speaking Spanish.

My “thrill” is in not funding corporations that are speed running enshittification whilst also making bank off of bigotry and hatred.

I doubt I’ll ever get bored with that…

The same thing happens in trans communities, but the answer isn’t for the old guard to try and handle everything themselves, burn out and then shut down newbies that are looking for community and help.

The answer is for the crusty old guard to create the space and keep the worst offenders out, whilst letting the people that aren’t burnt out support each other and keep the community thriving.

Sometimes that means letting common questions be common, because if you’ve got a positive community, someone will always be there with an answer and a link to an even more detailed resource.

Interesting that he frames LLMs as both a tool that he needs to use to compete, whilst also framing their use as a scarlet letter that will tank sales if he uses them.