The OP simply misspelled 'principal'. By ">50% of principal" they meant that the interest paid over the life of the loan is more than 50% of the original loan amount.
742 karma · joined July 4, 2016
The key difference is "Among US adults..." versus "Among Chinese adults..."
Hmmm, maybe it's not the eggs?
I very much relate to the "really think about it each time I pressed that shutter". I spent so much time shooting film that now, even after over 15 years of digital, I still struggle to kick this habit and need to constantly remind myself to take more shots: explore more variations on a subject, grab a shot even if I don't think it's going to be outstanding, etc.
"Our kids are used to sushi."
Their problem isn't being outsmarted by the system. Their problem is feeling entitled to a lifestyle they can't afford.
To achieve the "shockingly simple" 11 year FIRE goal in that blog post, someone working 40 hour weeks at $15 an hour would need to indefinitely keep their annual expenses below an inflation-adjusted $12K to build the required savings prior to their early retirement and to live off those savings afterwards.
In reality, the math is only shockingly simple if you can control all the inputs.
It's obvious that OIS + EIS > EIS. However it's not that case that OIS > EIS for all applications. One could argue that given just OIS one could apply EIS in post, but that's just a different implementation of OIS + EIS.
As far as I know, the GoPro is fixed-focus - there's no moving parts in its optical system. Adding mechanical stabilization whether optical or sensor-based would reduce the durability of a system of which one of the main criteria is being able to withstand repeated impacts. Maybe it's possible to build a sufficiently ruggedized OIS solution, but it's not clear whether the expense or size/weight of that would make it viable for action cameras.
> I'm pretty educated on what I'm talking about.
Then you should know that tilting is rotation. Unless by rotation you mean specifically around the optical axis to differentiate from pitch and yaw... in which case you should know that such rotation is uncorrectable by optical systems - though it is correctable by sensor-shift systems.
I think the point you're trying to make with "a few degrees has magnitudes more of an impact" is that rotation has more impact than shift. I agree that the rotation caused by moving the lens a few millimeters has more impact than shifting the camera a few millimeters for sufficiently distant subjects. This is why early IS systems were focused on mitigating pitch and yaw as opposed to shifts: moving lens groups to counter millimeters of rotation is within the physical capabilities of a system that can fit within a lens and it gives a lot of bang for the buck in a narrow sweet spot. Rotational movement is most prevalent in hand-held cameras while operating the camera - for example pressing the shutter button - and less so when it's just being held. This is why there was a standard trick in still photography of using bursts of continuous shooting to get clearer captures: the first frame is impacted by sudden pitch but subsequent ones are much less so. OIS does an excellent job of addressing that first frame blur.
Due to inertia, when a camera is attached to a larger object in motion (athlete, surfboard, vehicle, etc.) random rotational movement is much less pronounced while continuous shifting is. Correcting sustained directional movement - be it rotational or shift - is not something OIS systems are designed to handle. They are meant to correct random movement around a mean, essentially they provide an instant mechanical "reversion to the mean" of sorts. Correcting tens of centimeters of shift is well outside their capabilities and shifting a camera tens of centimeters during exposure will absolutely result in noticeable blur. It doesn't remotely require "the fastest possible athlete" to achieve that level of shift during a 1/30s exposure.
The point is not that EIS is better than OIS - the systems serve different purposes. The point is that OIS doesn't bring as much value to action camera use cases and it comes with the significant downside of reduced durability.
OIS systems move a subgroup of lens elements to compensate for movement of the camera. The degree of that movement is very limited. The main purpose of OIS is to approximate a stationary camera platform from a near-stationary one. Many OIS systems get turned off for panning - while more sophisticated ones support being turned off in the panning axis - specifically because they don't handle movement outside of a very limited range. For applications where the camera is intended to be in-motion the appropriate mechanical solution is using a gimbal, not OIS.
The main purpose of gimbals or EIS is not to produce sharper individual frames but to reduce jarring across a sequence of frames by smoothing the camera movement - gimbals do it physically while EIS simulates it after the fact by using a subset of the total sensor area.
At 30fps the longest possible per-frame exposure is 1/30s. An action camera-wearing athlete moving at a leisurely 20mph will travel about a foot in 1/30s - and that's just movement in one axis. OIS is not going to help with per-frame motion blur when the camera moves that much or more during the exposure.
The additional moving parts of OIS systems make them less suitable for ruggedized cameras.
No need to duplicate Peleton's nice bike. Quality indoor bikes were around long before Peloton added the connected/remote class angle to one. Example: https://www.keiser.com/fitness-equipment/cardio-training/m3i...
If we extend "San Francisco" to mean "Bay Area" and estimate that New York + Bay Area have a population of about 16M then if the company manages to get 5% of locals to become regular riders, $100M in annual profit is over $10 per regular rider per month. Assuming sufficient demand is there, consider the number of scooters that would need to be deployed and maintained to provided sufficient density to service this adoption level. Does that $100M in profit still seem probable in these two metros?
Yes. That's the point. The volumes I was referring to were the volumes of the appliances' tubs, not the volume of the load. The assumption is that the load is constant since it needs to go from washer to dryer.
Everything that makes soda soda is bad for me. I could buy soda and remove that stuff myself, which is a fair bit of work. Or I could pay someone to do it for me. The fact that Pepsi does this at no additional premium over the soda is something I appreciate.
"We know that people can maintain an unshakeable faith in any proposition, however absurd, when they are sustained by a community of like-minded believers." - Daniel Kahneman
It's funny that you should bring up Atkins and then suggest "following the money"... Atkins Nutritionals sued some of the people that you are labelling as liars, and lost all of their lawsuits. If there's one thing I've learned from my two decades living in America it's that when a corporation loses a lawsuit to individuals here, the individuals are probably barking up the right tree.
Have you considered the possibility that what you are terming "liars" is just "people that disagree with my strongly-held belief"?
> choose your poison: do you think it's safer to be fat?
This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not keto or obesity. And losing/maintaining weight is one of the short-term & measurable goals I was alluding to. It's trivially achievable in a fairly short time with various approaches and keto is certainly one of them. Many of the others require less self-discipline than keto however, and a number of those have orders of magnitude more man-years of aggregated long-duration testing behind them.
> But don't believe the army of liars that's been spreading FUD consistently over the years.
That's good advice, but how do I identify which one is the army of liars and which one is the army of truth? :)
Even for short-term goals anything non-measurable is highly prone to confirmation bias - e.g.: "I feel more energetic on this keto diet!" because I expected to feel more energetic on this keto diet and these Instagram accounts I follow keep reinforcing that this is what I should expect. Additionally there is the issue that the human body is a complex system where things that seem good in the short term can be quite bad in the long term - e.g.: "These 6 cigarettes a day are really helping with the over-eating I'd been struggling with!".
For many of us who care to research nutrition more than superficially the goals tend to be more long-term ones like not developing Alzheimer's, cancers, atherosclerosis, organ failures, etc., all in support of staying healthy & active for as long as possible. Those goals don't lend themselves to a hill-climbing optimization via self-experimentation.