3 ms·
You are shameless alright. OK, I was answering a lot of questions that day and I went to the direct links the person gave to the jpeg images and not the paper.
by kguttag 10y ago
You are shameless alright.
OK, I was answering a lot of questions that day and I went to the direct links the person gave to the jpeg images and not the paper. The first one was obviously altered but the picture I saw did not have the caption. Same for the second, I never saw the caption or that paper before I went back to check tonight.
As for speckle, it would not have shown up in the low resolution pictures. It might also not be there due to the vibrating fiber (some types of vibration will essentially eliminate speckle but usually it has to be the screen that is vibrate).
BTW, my website may be down for a while.
- dang 10y ago> You are shameless alright You're of course welcome to comment here, but HN commenters are required to remain civil and substantive, and especially to refrain from personal attacks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- kguttag 10y agoThe person implied I was a shameless, a liar, and that I was eviscerated. I was just using his words back.
- kbenson 10y agoNo, they stated you may be biased and were eviscerated (which I interpreted to mean your views were throughly disproven). They laid out evidence that they believe points to you being wrong. Their postscript regarding being shameless is a self depreciation that applies to their self promotion, not you. It's a fairly factual and benign set of comments to my eyes.
- cma 10y agoMy use of shameless referred to me.