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