## What were long, flat point and shoot film cameras called?

What were long, flat point and shoot film cameras called?

You don’t want to know what I called the cheap 110 Instamatic I was forced to use when I was young and couldn’t afford anything better! The reason they were called 110 cameras is because they used the 110 film format introduced by Eastman Kodak in 1972.

They were immensely popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Several things probably contributed to their popularity:

• Small size and very light weight made them easy to take almost everywhere one might go.
• Affordability (camera). Although there were some fairly high quality (and more expensive) cameras available in the 110 format, the vast majority of them were designed and manufactured to be sold as cheaply as possible. Even the Kodak model pictured in the question is ‘high end’ compared to a lot of the cheap no-name brands with plastic lenses sold at discount stores.
• Affordability (film & developing). 110 was more economical to shoot than 35mm. The film was a little cheaper because the very small format size required much less film and the chemicals used in the photographic emulsions. A single 36 x 24 mm frame of 135/35mm film used as much film emulsion as four frames of the 110 format that was 17x13mm. Developing 24 exposures of 110 in a large, automated photo lab developing machine required less developing chemicals per print than developing 24 frames of 35mm film.
• Affordability (prints). Prints were 3 1/2 x 4 1/2 inches for 110 film, compared to 3 1/2 x 5 inches for 35mm, so they used less paper when printed on 3 1/2 inch wide roll-fed machines. Consumer level photofinishing was a highly competitive business at the time. Most of the competition between various photofinishers for the business of non-professionals or non-enthusiasts in the 1970s and 1980s when 110’s popularity was at its peak centered on price. In the early 1990s the emphasis shifted somewhat to larger prints and faster turnaround times as more consumers were willing to pay extra for ‘1 hour’ service and 4 x 6 inch prints.
• Simplicity of operation (film). The film was sold pre-loaded in a cartridge that had light proof spools on both ends. The film was loaded on one end, was advanced through the camera to the other end as it was shot, and required no rewinding before being taken to a photofinisher for developing. The film had a full paper backing and a see-through window in the back of the cartridge that showed the exposure number. Most 110 cameras also placed a transparent window on the back of the camera so the frame number and information on the film’s label could be seen. All the user had to do was drop the cartridge in, shut the door, and advance the film one frame and they were ready to shoot. When the roll was used up they only had to open the door and remove the cartridge.
• Simplicity of operation (camera). There were very few user adjustable controls on most 110 cameras. The cameras were designed to use a specific speed of film for daylight operation or a higher speed of film for indoors. Different cameras were compatible with different speed films for their ‘high’ and ‘low’ speed ranges. 100 (low) and 400 (high) were the most common. The small film format and the resulting short focal length of the lenses combined with a fairly narrow aperture meant the lenses built into most 110 instamatics had very deep depth of field and no focus adjustment. Most 110 cameras had a single shutter time and aperture. They relied on the latitude of the film to allow adjustment of the exposure during the printing process.
• Reusable flash. At a time when most instamatic type cameras still used disposable four sided flash cubes, many of even the cheaper 110 cameras had a small, built-in strobe that ran on common ‘AA’ batteries. Again, this served to lower the overall cost per picture of taking flash photos as well as increase the convenience of doing so.

Interestingly enough, the Agfa pocket series that you recall offered several models with a variety of advanced features. As 110 cameras go they were fairly high end. Built-in telephoto or macro converters that slid in front of the main lens, variable shutter speeds up to and including electronically controlled shutters that could be set from 1/15 to 1/1000 second, and even wider aperture lenses with manual focus wheels were offered in various models. Yet Agfa only offered one 110 pocket series camera model with a built-in electronic flash – the 3000 that lacked any other advanced features. Most of the Agfa 110s had a receptacle for ‘flip flashes’ that were an 8 or 10 bulb card version similar to earlier 4 bulb flashcubes. The reason it was called a flip flash is that after firing the first four or five bulbs in sequence on one side of the card the user had to pull it out, flip it over, and plug the other end of the card into the camera’s flash receptacle to use the other half of the card. Agfa did offer an optional electronic flash unit that attached to some models via an end mounted hot shoe foot that could also hold a tripod socket adapter. Another version flash screwed directly into the tripod socket on other models. It had a cable that plugged into the flip flash port.

When the 110 film format was introduced by Kodak in 1972 typical 35mm cameras required a fairly steep learning curve to operate – both in terms of exposure and focusing. Particularly among the lower priced offerings, 35mm cameras and their lenses were heavy and bulky and still a bit pricy for many people. The 110 format introduced a cheap, easy to use small and lightweight camera to the masses in much the same way that the Kodak Brownie had offered the masses an alternative to medium format view and rail cameras a generation or two earlier.

Eventually semiconductor electronics reached the point where automation for exposure became more sophisticated and accurate. Manufacturing electronics became cheaper through the widespread use of printed circuit boards. The popularity of the cheap 110 cameras and the 110 film format they supported waned in the face of new point and shoot cameras in the 135/35mm film format that provided higher quality images with much of the same ease of operation the 110 cameras had. The emergence of autofocusing 35mm lenses in the late 1980s that trickled down to compact 35mm point and shoots by the early 1990s put the final nail in the coffin of widespread 110 usage.

## Fate conflicts are taking too long due to players stacking advantages

I am looking for advice regarding Fate/FAE conflict.

In my group, the conflict takes quite a while. Not because our team is just doing simple attacking and defending. We spend lots of time on “create-advantage” and “overcoming” action. However, it just becomes a tedious advantage arm race.

Sure, the situational aspect they are building is different each time. But my players feel all of the combat feels too similar. In the end, it is whoever stacked the most advantage, without getting erased by overcoming action, is the winner.

Our usual conflict goes like this:

A wants a’, B wants b’. A’ and b’ can’t coexist together, so they get into conflict. (For instance, A needs to get out of this temple, and B wants A to stay in the temple.)

1st round:

• A makes an advantage a1.
• B either tries to disarm the a1 or try to make b1. (Usually disarm fails because A use advantage defensively too)

2nd round:

• A makes advantage a2 if a1 is defended.
• B either tries to disarm a2 or try to make b2.

(repeat 1,2 round for 5~6 times)

A or B, whoever feels confident they can knock out the other side with stacked advantages, finally attacks. With three players, this usually means 5~6 advantages, thus winning the fight. (Usually Knock out doesn’t happen, but gives 1 or 2 consequences, thus forcing the other to concede or risk losing)

If one side doesn’t reach that point, we continue to create advantages or sabotage the other side’s advantage. Both sides, knowing attacking with a mere one or two advantage won’t cut, continue to churn them out. This making advantage to the tipping point is what slows our conflict process. More often than not, the competition-type scene is faster and more engaging for my players because they don’t have time to create multiple advantages. In competition, players can try to make advantage only once and have to fight right away. They can’t just sit there and keep making advantages till they sure win.

So how should I help to make conflict more engaging & fast? Changing Stress Box from 1, 2, 3 to 1, 1, 2 slightly helped.

TL;DR: Our team stacks advantage during the conflict until they can surely win. This advantage grinding makes the battle feel dragging and boring. What could I do?

## Should I have a cooldown time between audio notifications for a group chat? If so, how long?

Taking as a base a research study from Nielsen: 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

Take 2 principles in consideration:

### #1: Visibility of system status

“The design should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within a reasonable amount of time.”

### #4: Consistency and standards

“Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform and industry conventions.”

What this means is that as we change the dynamics and flows we force the user to learn new things making our application harder to use and understand, more if we take the decision in their place.

That being said I wouldn’t take the approach to not add the sound to the notifications, but rather enable a function to silence them as many messenger do; for an hour, a week, forever…, if you really want to keep them add a configuration setting where the user can change the alert message from sound to visual after x consecutive messages but let the user take that decision and action. You can also suggest it after x consecutive received notifications.

## On Facebook, how to list all events for a specific month a long time ago when your event history is huge?

I have more than 12 000 past events on Facebook. Now I want to see all events I attended in August 2015. I spent a few hours scrolling backwards but so far I have only reached March 2019. Is there a way to jump directly to a specific date in the list of past events or similar?

## mining theory – What exactly determines how long it takes a given miner to mine 1 btc block? (not talking about hashrate)

Every miner is working a on different block. While they share some of the same data, there are several parts of a block which are completely up to the miner to decide, and those differences make the blocks different. This also means that they have different hashes so every miner is searching a different part of the SHA256d search space.

Although each of the blocks every miner is working on will share the same height and parent block, they will have different transactions, and may have different block version numbers, and timestamps.

But the most obvious thing is going to be the transactions, which are hashed into the merkle root. Just one transaction being different, or just one transaction in a different position, is going to cause the merkle root to change, which causes the block header to change, which thus makes the hash different. And every miner is going to have at least their coinbase transaction be different from everyone else’s. This is because the coinbase transaction contains the output that pays the miner, so obviously every miner is going to make their coinbase transaction pay themselves, not someone else. From this simple fact, the transactions in the blocks that miners are working on are going to be different in at least the coinbase.

So because miners are all working on different blocks, every nonce that they try is going to result in a block hash that no other miner has seen yet. Thus a small miner could be lucky enough that the block they are trying has a nonce that makes the hash meet the PoW requirement before a larger miner finds such a nonce for their block.

## france – French Long stay Visa for girlfriend

I am joining a French institute as a post-doctoral researcher and would like to take my girlfriend (and soon to be wife) with me. Our marriage date is just 7 days before the date of journey and therefore we have to apply for the visa much earlier than the marriage date. Is it possible to take her with me with a dependent long visa? I can even show the proof for the notice of registry marriage. If yes, is there any lower limit on my bank balance?

## nt.number theory – Cutting “long” rectangle into minimum number of squares

Here is the original problem: (from Korean Olympiad in Informatics regional 2015)

The lengths of both sides of a rectangular paper which is a positive integer are given. This paper is to be cut several times with a knife so that every piece is a square with a positive integer length.

The rules for cutting paper with a knife are as follows.

1. Only vertical or horizontal cuts are allowed. In other words, you can’t cut it with an oblique line.
2. You can’t change the direction of the knife while cutting.
3. You can’t stop the knife in the middle of cutting. That is, once a piece is started to be cut, it must be cut in two.
4. The length of each side of a truncated piece must be a positive integer.

According to the above rules, after cutting so that only squares remain, what is the minimum number of squares that can be remaining when you cut a rectangle with sides $$m times n$$?

I know that this problem can be solved using dynamic programming. However, I am interested in cutting “long” rectangles, where one side is significantly longer than the other. What everyone seems to assume when solving this problem is that:

Let $$p(m, n)$$ be the min number of squares that can be cut from an $$m times n$$ rectangle. When $$m ge 4n$$, $$p(m, n)=1+p(m-n, n)$$.

Which implies that, when m is large enough compared to n, it is optimal to cut off an $$n times n$$ square at one end of the rectangle, and the threshold that this holds is $$m ge 4n$$.

When assuming this statement is true, it seems to give the right answer. but I have no idea how to prove it. Can anyone help?

Note: This is different from tiling, since the direction of the knife can’t be changed nor the knife be taken off in the middle of cutting. So, the “corner case” mentioned in Will_of_fire’s answer of this post can’t occur.