November 21, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Great question Dwayne!
Dwayne Dibley (11/18/2011)
Hi allThanks for the feedback on the question. The results as they stand make for some interesting reading. Only 31% got the answer correct. So this shows that the loss of precision is not as well understood as it could be.
I understood the percision, but since the QOTD script was a picture instead of text the last 9 looked like a zero for insert 2.
Maybe that affected the percision or percentage of correct answers?
November 22, 2011 at 6:07 am
SanDroid (11/21/2011)
I understood the percision, but since the QOTD script was a picture instead of text the last 9 looked like a zero for insert 2.
Interesting.
That comment surprised me so much that I downloaded the picture, cropped out everything but the 9 at the end of that string, and looked at the bitmap. (Since the image is GIF, there's no lossy compression so the bitmap I see is the one everyone else sees).
It's very much a clear and obvious 9, not the slightest possibility of taking it for zero unless it is displayed using a ridiculously low pixel size.
Since I can't imagine you are trying to read text at the size where that would not be a clear 9 without magnification, I think you would have had the same problem with seeing it as a 9 had it been transmitted as text anyway, and your problem with the image might easily have been fixed by application of a screen wipe.
Tom
November 22, 2011 at 6:39 am
L' Eomot Inversé (11/22/2011)
SanDroid (11/21/2011)
I understood the percision, but since the QOTD script was a picture instead of text the last 9 looked like a zero for insert 2.Interesting.
That comment surprised me so much that I downloaded the picture, cropped out everything but the 9 at the end of that string, and looked at the bitmap. (Since the image is GIF, there's no lossy compression so the bitmap I see is the one everyone else sees).
It's very much a clear and obvious 9, not the slightest possibility of taking it for zero unless it is displayed using a ridiculously low pixel size.
Since I can't imagine you are trying to read text at the size where that would not be a clear 9 without magnification, I think you would have had the same problem with seeing it as a 9 had it been transmitted as text anyway, and your problem with the image might easily have been fixed by application of a screen wipe.
Perhaps that person is not using a digital monitor or is not using the native resolution. Surprisingly a large number of my colleagues change their hi-res monitor to something like 800 x 600 so they can read it easier and that warps all text.
November 22, 2011 at 7:03 am
cengland0 (11/22/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/22/2011)
SanDroid (11/21/2011)
I understood the percision, but since the QOTD script was a picture instead of text the last 9 looked like a zero for insert 2.Interesting.
That comment surprised me so much that I downloaded the picture, cropped out everything but the 9 at the end of that string, and looked at the bitmap. (Since the image is GIF, there's no lossy compression so the bitmap I see is the one everyone else sees).
It's very much a clear and obvious 9, not the slightest possibility of taking it for zero unless it is displayed using a ridiculously low pixel size.
Since I can't imagine you are trying to read text at the size where that would not be a clear 9 without magnification, I think you would have had the same problem with seeing it as a 9 had it been transmitted as text anyway, and your problem with the image might easily have been fixed by application of a screen wipe.
Perhaps that person is not using a digital monitor or is not using the native resolution. Surprisingly a large number of my colleagues change their hi-res monitor to something like 800 x 600 so they can read it easier and that warps all text.
Yes, I see your point - but he seems to be saying that it was hard to read because it was an image, and mapping the bitmap (whether generated by the browser or transmitted as a bit-map from the server) to a non-digital monitor or blowing it up to occupy more of the screen will have much the same effect on text as it does on image.
Tom
November 22, 2011 at 7:33 am
Dwayne Dibley (11/18/2011)
So this shows that the loss of precision is not as well understood as it could be.
I thought I knew the answer. I was wrong. That means I learned something. Great question!
.
November 22, 2011 at 10:32 am
Nice question. Thanks.
December 1, 2011 at 5:59 am
Tricky question on precision of DATETIME. Missed it but learned somthing.
http://brittcluff.blogspot.com/
April 19, 2016 at 4:38 pm
I generally don't need to compare against time so I will often convert datetime to date before the compare. Fortunately I don't have to do this for large sets of data.
Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
This website stores cookies on your computer.
These cookies are used to improve your website experience and provide more personalized services to you, both on this website and through other media.
To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy