Given that it's use is banned in most academic journals dealing with imaging/graphics, you'd be wrong.
And as several journals have brought up in the banning, it's not even good at what it purports to be for these use cases. It's a pretty poor quality image to start off with due to being scanned to a digital file with 1970s technology.
At this point the ones defending its continued use are the vocal minority on some weird anti-woke crusade that doesn't even make sense on technical grounds.
You’re using vocal minority framing right now. When I care about it, I’m a weird crusader for caring and noticing. But then you organize a campaign to change it.
There is a large body of literature using these images so it’s helpful to have a comparison which is persistent through time and familiar.
> Given that it's use is banned in most academic journals dealing with imaging/graphics, you'd be wrong.
Given that it's use is banned in most academic journals dealing with imaging/graphics, you'd be wrong.
And as several journals have brought up in the banning, it's not even good at what it purports to be for these use cases. It's a pretty poor quality image to start off with due to being scanned to a digital file with 1970s technology.
At this point the ones defending its continued use are the vocal minority on some weird anti-woke crusade that doesn't even make sense on technical grounds.
You’re using vocal minority framing right now. When I care about it, I’m a weird crusader for caring and noticing. But then you organize a campaign to change it.
There is a large body of literature using these images so it’s helpful to have a comparison which is persistent through time and familiar.
> Given that it's use is banned in most academic journals dealing with imaging/graphics, you'd be wrong.
Critical thinking caps required for this one.
I was repeating your framing.
> Most people don’t care and a few vocal ones do.