Didn’t the original full body scanners used at airports use backscatter X-rays, which are ionizing radiation ?

I believe these were mostly replaced by millimeter-wave scanners, and are not used anymore (even banned in some countries) but a lot of the initial pushback and debate surrounding the scanners when they were first introduced was about potential health risks of repeated X-ray exposure from those scanners, and so the idea of ionizing radiation exposure persists to this day in many people’s minds.

photography might be an area where digital hasn’t caught up, since film’s resolution is down to the molecular level

Film resolution is limited by the size of the silver halide crystals that make up the light sensitive layer of the film. Crystals can come in different sizes, but their sensitivity to light depends on their size - generally you need pretty large crystals for usable photographic film, somewhere between 0.1 and 10 microns (depending on the film ISO rating) - about 3-5 orders of magnitude larger than what you would consider molecular scale.

When the film is developed the crystals are visible as film grain limiting the resolution in some ways similar to pixel size of a digital camera (although there are differences, since the crystal size is not completely uniform but rather has a specific distribution, creating a more random effect than the regular pixel grid of digital cameras)

The pixel sizes on modern high resolution digital camera sensors are actually similar, down to 0.5 micron. It’s hard to make an exact comparison, but I have seen estimates that you need a full frame digital sensor of somewhere between 10 to 50 megapixels to equal the resolution of 35mm ISO 100 film.

And modern sensors are much more light sensitive than film, which allows you to shoot more optimally and give you more flexibility (less exposure time, potentially higher f-stop with better lens resolution, lower ISO, less light, etc.) and therefore achieve potentially better results in more conditions. Add to that the hassle and costs of working with film, and most professional photo work is now done in digital as well. Film is generally only used for stylistic purposes, by purists who are not satisfied with digital simulation.

Meeting [redacted] on the [redacted] was such an unexpected and powerful moment for me as well. I don’t even usually get into lore that much in games, but Outer Wilds is so well done I nearly cried in that moment.

But your citation gives both statements:

“In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times.”

and

“The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events that has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly occur an infinite number of times, given an infinite amount of time or a universe that is infinite in size.”

So when you say the number of times is “unknowable” the actual answer is “almost surely an infinite number of times” no ? Since the probability of that can be calculated as 100%. The mindfuck part is that it is still possible that no monkey at all will type a particular text, even though the probability of that is 0.

The probability that only 2 monkeys will type the text is also still 0, same as 3 monkeys, 4 monkeys, etc. - in fact the probability of any specific finite number of monkeys only typing out the text is still 0 - only the probability of an infinite number of monkeys typing it out is 100% (the probabilities of all possible outcomes, even when infinite, have to sum up to 1 after all)

We just know that it will almost surely happen, but that doesn’t mean it will happen an infinite amount of occurrences.

Basically, if we know “it will almost surely happen” then we also know just as surely (p=1) that it will also happen an infinite number of times (but it might also never happen, although with p=0)

Ok, this is interesting, so thanks for pointing me to it. I think it’s still safe to say “almost surely an infinite number of monkeys” as opposed to “almost surely at least one”, since the probability of both cases is still 100% (can their probability even be quantitatively compared ? is one 100% more likely than another 100% in this case ?)

The idea that something with probability of 0 can happen in an infinite set is still a bit of a mindfuck - although I understand why this is necessary (e.g. picking a random marble from an infinite set of marbles where 1 is blue and all others red for example - the probability of picking the blue marble is 0, but it is obviously still possible)

That’s the thing though, infinity isn’t “large” - that is the wrong way to think about it, large implies a size or bounds - infinity is boundless. An infinity can contain an infinite number of other infinities within itself.

Mathematically, if the monkeys are generating truly random sequences of letters, then an infinite number (and not just “at least one”) of them will by definition immediately start typing out Hamlet, and the probability of that is 100% (not “almost surely” edit: I was wrong on this part, 100% here does actually mean “almost surely”, see below). At the same time, every possible finite combination of letters will begin to be typed out as well, including every possible work of literature ever written, past, present or future, and each of those will begin to be typed out each by an infinite number of other monkeys, with 100% probability.

But it also works with infinite number of monkeys, one will almost surely start typing Hamlet right away.

Wouldn’t it even be not just one, but an infinite number of them that would start typing out Hamlet right away ?

The Threnody is definitely his most famous, but he has used that technique in some of his solo compositions for cello as well - example

He’s playing Penderecki

Certainly scorn is too strong. I feel like this was a fad that has mostly passed anyway - both due to increased globalization leading to demystification of the “Orient” in general, and Chinese cultural symbols in particular, as well as general trends towards more boldness and self-expression in Western tattoo culture, such as increasing popularity of face tattoos, intentionally “ugly” tattoo aesthetics and much less hesitation tattooing random English words all over the place. Not that I am necessarily a fan of that either, but I feel like it’s at least some progress, not hiding the meanings behind some “exotic” Chinese characters, and just embracing what you want to say directly.

If you wouldn’t get something tattooed in English because it seems a bit cringe, well it will still be cringe in Chinese - possibly more if you mess it up. And if you do like Chinese culture, characters or calligraphy - at least try to get something that does it some justice and maybe has at least some cultural relevance beyond just “some words, but in Chinese”

Compare the OP with some actual Chinese artists doing Chinese calligraphy tattoos - for example in Hong Kong or Taiwan (some of the photos are a bit NSFW, so be warned)

There is a bit of difference between “Chinese calligraphy” and “write me a list of words in plain Chinese characters”

I have no problem with people tattooing whatever they want on themselves btw - but it’s true that from the perspective of someone who can read Chinese, these tattoos (like in the OP) are not “beautiful Chinese characters” or “calligraphy” - they do come across as mostly just confusing lists of strangely formatted and crudely written random words.

It’s more like this

Sure, but tattoos in sans serif fonts are still super common, and honestly, it makes little difference, the one in OP is still basic as fuck - call it Times New Roman instead of Arial. It reads like plain text to a Chinese reader, not some kind of calligraphy - what you call “stylized” is actually just the default original textbook stroke style of the standard script. The sans serif version with monowidth lines is actually more of a modern stylized form of that.

日語 happens to mean Japanese Language, in both written Chinese and Japanese.

Same for 日本人 (Japanese Person)

It might look artistic to you, but to a Chinese reader this example looks basic and dull, so they just see the meaning of the words much the same as the “WATER” on the left. There just isn’t any real aesthetic or artistic value here, in the context of Chinese writing.

It kind of goes both ways though, back in the day there was a fad in Asia too of people wearing clothes with random English words on them, because there those looked exotic and cool, even though to Westerners it looked a bit dumb.

There are different Chinese fonts (in print/computer context) and also different Chinese historical scripts, each with different styles of writing, and finally a very diverse variety of calligraphy styles.

The idea of what is considered “old”, “fancy” and “fancy old” doesn’t necessarily map the same way as it does in Latin/Western writing in general, the cultural and historical sensibility and connotations are often quite different, although in most broad sense, you could find some style analogues to achieve a similar vibe, but it would be quite context dependent.

To me it looks done by hand, the inconsistencies in character sizes and stroke widths wouldn’t be seen in an actual font. The 独 also looks very hand drawn, the vertical strokes on 無 as well. It’s very “textbook” calligraphy, done by someone who knows the strokes and has some practice, but dull and with no personality, and still a degree of insecurity and inconsistency in the strokes, so perhaps a late beginner to intermediate level student of calligraphy. Not necessarily by the tattoo artist either, it could have been tattooed from a template written on paper.

So many Chinese character tattoos are done in the Chinese equivalent of boring Arial 10 font though, that’s part of the point. The one in the photo is at least hand written, but by someone with poor aesthetic sense, it still looks dull and ugly.

Pretty sure she is on a petrol one - there is a fuel tank above the front wheel, and you can see the fuel line going into the throttle body above the single piston engine. You can also see the exhaust and muffler below and behind the piston.

Also looking into it more, I don’t think the Autoped was ever offered with an electric motor. Apparently the confusion comes from the fact that the company was bought out by the battery manufacturer Eveready, and sold as Eveready Autoped. Eveready modified the Autoped by adding a battery and ignition coil, replacing the original magneto system, but propulsion was always by means of a petrol engine.

I don’t think the one in the photo has the battery and coil however - the coil can be seen here in front of the gas tank, but is missing in the OP photo.

Edit: looks like the batteries and coil might have been separate - here is an article from 1917 that describes the Autoped as having a magneto ignition system (no coil) and also a battery box to operate the front and rear lights. And here is an example with an ignition coil powered from the wheel, but no battery box and no lights (which were probably optional) The one in the OP does appear to have the battery box and lights, but uses the magneto ignition, so it’s the same model as described in the article.

Fast film (you can see how grainy it is when you zoom in a little) and shooting in full bright sun = you can shoot very short exposure and freeze motion. There were already cameras in the 1930s with mechanical shutters that could do 1/500th and even 1/1000th of a second exposure, which is plenty fast for this type of shot.

The lens looks pretty fast too - depth of field is very shallow, although part of that is also due to possible use of medium or large format - faster lens (lower f stop) and larger film both allow more light capture, and therefore faster exposure as well, but at the cost of less depth of field.

Edit: here is a good print of the full frame - looks like ~1.50 ratio, so probably 35mm film (not medium or large format) - I can’t find a lot of information about what cameras Max Alpert used in the 30s, although he did use a 35mm Leica on at least some photos from that era. A Leica III could do 1/1000 in 1935 for example. The early Soviet cameras from the 1930s were also basically direct copies of Leicas. The frame also looks a bit underexposed, which could be due to pushing the exposure for more speed.