A minimal acknowledgment about Affinity forum

[Gianni Becattini]

I wish to show you a page from a new book of mine to thank this community for all the help I ask and get here.

[PaoloT]

As previewed by the files you already posted, it's going to be a great book on history of technology. Pure joy for us seasoned nerds!

Paolo

 

[Pšenda]

Just a technical note on the above text - "cropping", i.e. removing unwanted background from image.
"Removing unwanted background" can be done by many techniques, for example, erasing, cloning, inpaiting, but it is always meant without changing the size and format of the image. Whereas cropping always changes the size of the image. I understand that you probably wanted to emphasize the effect on the background of the image, but I would probably formulate the description - removing unwanted parts of images (not just the background) by cutting off a certain area of it (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(image)).
Alternatively, you may have meant to write "cropping", which I use to remove unwanted image backgrounds.

P.S. I noticed your book about oscilloscopes before, and since I used to work with similar types, I was happy to remember those times 🙂

[Gianni Becattini]

Thanks to everybody for answering.

About cropping: this point is very amusing and I want to share my experience. My English is not good enough for a book; my publisher asked me to do something to improve it, and I found a solution that is not perfect but rather good: Deepl. You pay about 10 euros per month, but it does a good work and helped me a lot. 

In the original text, I used the term "cut out" but Deepl changed it to "crop", and I, as a perfect ignoramus, accepted the correction. But later, after this post, I said to myself that cropping was something else, and corrected back to "cut out", but I was still uncertain. In Italian we have a better word "scontornare", but I well know... I am ignorant. So thank twice you for your answer. This also to say that we'd better never trust AI. It can be useful, but you always must to check it more times.

I am happy you love oscilloscopes too, they are my senile love.... 😃

BTW: have you some suggestions about the best technique to cut out? Currently I am creating a curve and then converting it to selection (or mask). I did this million of times, so now I am rather fast, but ready to learn anything better.

 

[Pšenda]

1 hour ago, Gianni Becattini said:

It can be useful, but you always must to check it more times.

I also know from my own experience, that machine translation (certainly from some languages) is a "battle" with the translator and one's own knowledge of words, expressions and their meaning, and repeated testing before a semantically (hopefully) correct translation is created.

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, Gianni Becattini said:

I did this million of times, so now I am rather fast, but ready to learn anything better.

You might be interested in the new features coming in version 2.6.

 

[Gianni Becattini]

The problem with Deepl is that it is good to improve you English, for example, from UNACCEPTABLE to ACCEPTABLE but not from RATHER GOOD to VERY GOOD. 

Sometimes I tested asking to correct my text A and it produced a modified text B. Then I tested again with text B and it corrected it to text A, i.e., returning to mine. I have the impression that they want to show you that Deepl is necessary anyway, even when not needed. In addition, I understand, it is not possible for Deepl to know about anything (but probably it will improve).

With ChatGPT I get often totally wrong answers, but very well presented, so that you might think they are good. If you tell "you are totally wrong", it confirms and apologises....

Forgive me for my chats.

For the 2.6, I am using the beta and tried the new features, but they (or me) are still not usable in my case. 

 

[PaoloT]

That's why we human technical translators have always trusted in us being irreplaceable: we could offer that "very good" level that machines, or dishonest translators depending on machines, couldn't achieve.

Then, the market decided that "acceptable" was acceptable enough…

Paolo