条 is a measure word for things that are long (rivers / snakes / pants), but it's not the word for line. The character most closely related to the concept is 线 xian, and 线 is indeed the word for "line" in many senses. In other senses, you find words of more than one syllable.
Yeah, I've choked one office network on a client project (they went through VPN though) with bot tests. :D
But single-digit TB monthly outbound per VPS was not that surprising to me. Almost triple-digit one in naive implementation, scared the hell out of me first time around. Spent hours double and triple-checking and measuring. :D
In the short term maybe, but in the long term apples capacity to generate profit will eventually depend on their ability to implement systems that operate in society with incredibly high levels of trustable operation (autonomous cars, robots... — who knows what the future tech will bring — many of those possibilities will require at least same as level of computing security as is possible now. If it becomes widely possible to remotely compromise anything with an Intel chip — then the intel parts will simply not be viable parts in future products)
You see, even if "young utility focused entrepreneurs" don't like what CCP says, they can pretend they likes it and help spread it. It's called Lying, but people do it all the time. After that, when those entrepreneurs made enough money, they can live outside China and become a citizen of a country they like.
And lying is enough for CCP (or any government I assume) as long as that lie can keep most people loyal to them.
Also, "Young" is just a nature status, it's mean nothing about people's ideology. Lot's of young people joined Nazi in the old days, don't forget that.
The problem of PHP is it's a old & narrowed language. It been designed to run in as a Web Service dedicatedly, and of course limits it's potential.
It's just like no one had motive to make HTML turing-complete. A language dedicated as a web script is good enough as long as it output web page, right? :(
BTW:
> I claim that PHP’s simpler “think; edit; reload the page” cycle makes developers more productive.
Does this can be simulated by automatically recompile and restart the application? I don't think it can be an serious advantage here.
PHP being largely targeted st web app development is a bonus: how many times do ruby apps need to rely on a swath of gems to achieve functionality PHP has in its standard distributed extensions?
You just notice "Old"? Old usually are not cause any problem, but when you combine old and narrow, that is not a good thing.
It just like Morse Code which designed for telegram operators to send and receive message.
By that time when telegram was new, it was a good invention, everyone who wants to use telegram must know Morse Code. And because of it's designed for telegram, it come with every each bonus to make send and receive telegram faster.
However, one day, a new technology been invented, it's called Telephone. Not long after that, telegram started to fade away.
What fade away with it, is of course, the Morse Code. Because it only good at sending and receiving telegrams which not many people still do today.
Now the PHP. It has a lot of old burdens (To make it good at outputting HTTP respond) and poor design decisions. They need to find a way to organize those things and carefully redesign that language. Then, maybe it can become respectable.
It's almost the opposite of what you're saying. As PHP was designed for web development, "newer" languages often need a lot more (configuration, modules, etc.) to produce what PHP can easily do by default.
Bad thing is those Chinese made phones come with their own alternative stuff that worse than Google's, like their own app market etc :(
In China, some phones may annoying user with their own built-in apps or even integrated with AdWare or/and other stuff that will collect your "usage" info. We don't trust those devices in China. But maybe they're better outside? I don't know.
If you want to use Chinese phones as alternative, be picky, use only large international brand, and good luck.
There are NO good Open Source video editing software made for Linux, and I'm pretty confident about this.
I'm currently using shotcut, it's buggy and just work, not great. With it, you can crop the video, change color, do some easy compose it etc, but that's almost all.
If you have a good computer, you can try DaVinci Resolve. Though it's not an open source software, but it will give you After Effect+ level experience.
I had some experience with 3ds Max & After Effect, and I tried Blender few days ago (For Editing Video and 3D modeling). What I found is that the UI of Blender is a chaotic torment even for people like me. It even cause some hard time when all I want is just to "close" (Or Shrink) a panel.
I'm not saying Blender is a bad software, I just hoping Blender can have a more organized, focused and solid UI. Then it will be friendlier for greens who want to learn it.
I tried it the other day and couldn't find a way to make precise cuts. You can move frame by frame, but I didn't succeed in cutting at the current position. I switched to AviDemux. The video editing I've done in the past has been mostly with ffmpeg, i.e. command line and scripts.
Wouldn't Resolve be closer to Premiere than After Effects? Having barely used resolve (my computer wasn't strong enough to mess with the 4k video I shot, and davinci didn't like the codec it was originally shot in) and with probably 25 hours in Premiere and After Effects, I could totally be wrong, but Premiere and Resolve felt more like editors, while AE was more for post effects and such.
For those reading this post and wondering "what is it like to 'close (Or Shrink) a panel' in Blender?":
Here is a sketch of what Blender looks like by default:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------------+--------+
| | B |
| +--------+
| C | |
| | |
| | D |
+----------------------+ |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
A, B, C, D, and E are areas - rectangular subregions of the application window. There are three rules about the arrangement of areas in Blender:
1. Areas are always rectangular
2. Every pixel in the window belongs to exactly one area
3. Every area is at least as tall as the height of a menu bar, and at least as wide as the height of a menu bar.
If you've used a tiling window manager before, then you're probably familiar with these rules and with the benefits of these rules. Areas always have a rectangular shape, so they are always laid out in a consistent way. Every pixel in the window belongs to an area, so no screen space is wasted. No part of the window has two areas, meaning that no area can ever be obscured by part of another area. And every area has a guaranteed minimum size, so you can never lose an area by accidentally shrinking its height or width to zero.
Because of these rules, some arrangements of areas are impossible. For example:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------------+--------+
| +---+ | B |
| | F | +--------+
| +---+ C | |
| | |
| | D |
+----------------------+ |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
This violates either the first or the second rule - area C must be rectangular (no holes!), and it cannot be covered by another area.
This is also not possible, because it would violate the same rules:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+-------------------+-----------+
| | B |
| +--+--------+
| C | |
| | |
| | D |
+----------------------+ |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
This, however, is allowed:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------+--------------+
| | B |
| +--------------+
| C | |
| | |
| | D |
+----------------+ |
| E | |
+----------------+--------------+
You would accomplish this by placing you mouse cursor anywhere along the vertical line that separates C and E from B and D. The cursor would change to "<->". You would then hold down the left mouse button, drag to the left, and then release the left mouse button.
You could also do this:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------------+--------+
| | |
| | B |
| C | |
| | |
| +--------+
+----------------------+ D |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
...by placing your mouse cursor over the horizontal line that separates B from D, so that the cursor changes to the up-and-down arrows. Then, click the LMB, drag down, and release the LMB.
Besides changing the size of the currently-existing areas, you can also add new areas by dividing existing ones in two. For example:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+-----------+----------+--------+
| | | B |
| | +--------+
| C | F | |
| | | |
| | | D |
+-----------+----------+ |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
This can be done by placing the mouse cursor over either the top or bottom edge of area C, so that the cursor changes to the up-and-down arrows. Then right-click. A menu will appear with two entries: "Split Area" and "Join Area". Select "split area", and a vertical line splitting area C will appear. As you move your cursor around, the line follows. If you move your cursor out of area C and into another area, the vertical line will follow into that area. When you click the LMB, area your cursor is over will be split into two, with the vertical border passing through where you clicked.
Horizontal divisions are, of course, also possible:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------------+--------+
| | B |
| +--------+
| C | D |
| | |
| +--------+
+----------------------+ F |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
Finally, you can reduce the number of areas by "joining" them. The only requirement for joining areas is that they must exactly share one edge. For example, this join is possible:
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
| A | | A |
+----------------------+--------+ +----------------------+--------+
| | B | | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| C | | -> | C | |
| | | | | B |
| | D | | | |
+----------------------+ | +----------------------+ +
| E | | | E | |
+----------------------+--------+ +----------------------+--------+
... because areas B and D exactly shared one edge. This join is done by placing your mouse cursor over the edge shared by areas B and D so that the cursor changes to the up-and-down arrows, right-clicking, and selecting "Join Area". Immediately, a gray overlay with an arrow in it will cover one of the two areas. If you move your cursor between areas B and D, the overlay will switch to the area your cursor is over.[0] This overlay makes it very clear which area will be enlarged to take over the other area. When the overlay covers area D, just click the left mouse button, and area D will be removed, and area B will be enlarged to fill its place.
One more note about joining areas. With the default layout, only area C can be joined to area E:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------------+--------+
| | B |
| +--------+
| C | |
| | |
| | D |
+----------------------+ |
| E | |
+----------------------+--------+
However, by moving the border between areas B, and D, we can get this layout:
+-------------------------------+
| A |
+----------------------+--------+
| | |
| | |
| C | B |
| | |
| | |
+----------------------+--------+
| E | D |
+----------------------+--------+
In this layout, either area C or area D can be joined with area E.
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
| A | | A | | A |
+----------------------+--------+ +----------------------+--------+ +----------------------+--------+
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| C | B | -> | | B | or | C | B |
| | | | C | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
+----------------------+--------+ | +--------+ +----------------------+--------+
| E | D | | | D | | D |
+----------------------+--------+ +----------------------+--------+ +-------------------------------+
> because they get tricked into thinking it's dark and they act like it
This is a really bad example :DDD
I don't think that is totally true for human eye. You can test it by putting a LED spotlight in front of you at night, and have someone else check your pupil before and after you turn on the LED (And remember test it in different distances).
Camera works differently, they have multiple ways (Metering Modes) to test the brightness of a scene. So how it work will depends on the selected Metering Mode.
And camera can collect more light by letting light keep entering the light sensor for longer time. Plus, bigger lens can also collect more light, some people may even mount their camera on a telescope, thus more light entering. So maybe this is the physical reason why so many gears got destroyed?
