Apart from the fact the focal plane distance and distortion due to other lens elements in the existing iPhone lens package screw up this idea...the builder also picked a Canon EF lens, which by default, unpowered is left at full aperture. Canon EF lenses stop down on command through the serial port in the EF interface. If this guy had actually managed to interface the EF mount electronically to the iPhone's camera subsystem...well, that would be pretty cool.
A better choice would have been to use an older Nikon (or M42, or K-mount) which has a manual aperture ring on the rear.
My guess is this setup would yield very narrow field of view (due to the smaller sensor and longer focal length), a fair amount of distortion and probably a lack of infinity focus (due to the distance extended from the existing lens groups--I would assume this is like using an extension tube).
By the way, older Nortel Meridian PBXs still run OS/2, so many more of you have OS/2 on sensitive machines than you might think
No, they don't. The Nortel Meridian series have always run a proprietary "OS" developed by BNR/Nortel. Offboard management was handled by a PC running Windows (Meridian Administration Tools, now OTM). The primary PBX software load (called X11, now CS1K Rel4) continues to be developed, it now runs over top of VxWorks. The management tools also continue to be developed, still on Windows.
What you're probably referring to is a Norstar (the smaller PBX) NAM (Norstar Applications Module) which is an outboard voicemail and ACD system that attaches to a Norstar key system PBX. It is not part of the PBX for call processing.
The NAM does run OS/2 but has been discontinued quite a while ago. It was replaced by the CallPilot 100/150 which runs VxWorks IIRC.
Many of the reality shows in the US are packed with professional actors, but not because they are actors.
Could someone explain to me why so many folks on reality shows are in "Pharmaceutical Sales"? I swear, every Survivor, Big Brother etc season seems to have at least one.
I have a few of the PSone type touchscreens (the Sony one is the nicest, mine are generics with an inferior OEM panel) but have no idea where to source a touchscreen film/digitizer and controller.
I know they make 7" and 8" LCD panels with touchscreen, but I don't want to pay that kind of money for an integrated product. Any ideas?
Action movies today are too fast for 24fps film. With all the fast motion and cuts, it becomes a blur. Those few extra fps on DVD with a clear TV completely blow away a projector. It is a whole different movie at home.
Aren't they shot on 24fps film? Where would you get the extra 6 frames per second on the DVD?
...is the visual display which tells you the target mileage given your current acceleration.
I drove a 04 Prius for a few months and found that the display which tells you the fuel economy you're getting is very helpful. After about a day you realize that speeding up hills eats at your economy and braking appropriately helps too.
If all cars had this feature, fuel economy would be increased. Regardless of the fact the Prius has a hybrid engine, low rolling resistance tires, etc, this simple display is a big psychological factor.
Most people never realize their driving habits affect fuel economy because it only hits them every two weeks at the pump. By that time they never link it to how they brake or accelerate. By closing the feedback loop, you start to change your driving habits.
Only expensive cars seem to have this feature, yet it's ridiculously simple to implement off a modern ECU. I wish they'd make it standard equipment and not a luxury feature.
It's like legos...legos are a toy of creativity. When they start including pre-built shapes to look like spaceships, forts, or castles, it is all over. Who would want pre-built legos?
Part of the skill of designing and building models is to use those pieces in new and innovative ways.
A radar dish from a spaceship can be an umbrella for a picnic table, it could be part of a continuously variable transmission in a Mindstorms robot.
The other thing I forgot to mention is that the are some non-Steadicam ways to get good motion shots-two of the time trusted ones are using a wheelchair pulled by another person, as well as building a dolly to ride on PVC track. They're covered pretty extensively on Usenet and indie film newsgroups.
It's probably better to call it a combination of a vibration isolator (your arm) that counter balances the camera weight (the barbell). It's got some basic concepts of the real system sort of the way a model rocket is like a Saturn moon rocket:)
The real Steadicam, invented by Garrett Brown, counterweighs the camera on a thing called the "sled" which also has a preview monitor for the operator from the video tap (if it's a film camera) or camera output. The sled has significant weight on the bottom from the batteries used to power the monitor/camera. The rig's real innovation comes from a patented isoelastic arm which attaches the sled onto the vest of the operator.
The entire affair, for the film models is $30-60K, though most professional ops seem to make this back due to the specialized nature of the work. There's all sorts of variations, remote focus control, tilting camera decks, etc the the operators often customize them extensively. Lower end models range from $5-15K, but they don't support heavier cameras or have some "bones" removed from the arm, limiting their flexibility.
Steadicam did at one point make a JR model which was for consumer cameras, it featured a counter weight but no arm, you held the contraption with a grip that was attached to the camera/counterweight attached with a gimbal/u-joint (not sure exactly). It was priced around $1500 originally.
Over the years, many firms have tried to make balancing stablizers, much like this thing. They vary in quality, both construction and smoothness. The gimbal adds a lot to it on the JR model, but it may very well be better just to put the damned thing on a tripod if you can't afford a JR off eBay.
Ever wonder why GPUs are such a big deal and sound cards are such an after thought?
I think the reason why soundcards don't change very much because the fundamental methods of generating sound isn't compute intensive.
With 3D video, you're computing the display output, ray tracing, shading, whatever it is. Algorithms not samples define the visuals. Certainly there are "samples" (ie, texture maps) but these themselves need to be rendered through computation. At the same time, resolutions for display are increasing, requiring more computational horsepower. Hence a need for progressively faster CPUs to drive larger, more details and faster framerate visuals.
With audio, a lot of the audio world is still sample based--there usually aren't algorithms generating sounds from fundamental principals. If there are, it's in a highly specific use (ie, virtual instruments in something like Cubase, which uses the main CPU) or it's in some sort of environmental processing, like DSP effects, positioning etc which don't require that much performance past existing products today that have integrated DSPs. That and audio resolution in general isn't increasing--not at a rate compared to someone going from a 800x600 to 1920x1280 pixel display. Even adding extra channels doesn't seem to drive this requirement further.
As a result, I guess you just don't see the requirement to have "more powerful sound cards".
At 20mb/update (just a made up figure) times 1000 workstations (again made up figure)
Name me an Apple corporate or educational account with a thousand Macintosh workstations? I know the figures are made up, but there simply isn't that kind of deployment out there like that, with the exception of strange niches like that G5 cluster at Virginia Tech.
Now I don't think too much credit can be held by one action, but do you think this might have been another round of bad PR she managed to generate for the company, and they finally got pissed at her? I know I sent in a strongly worded complaint about this move to her feedback page.
If it did then this is good, it shows that when there are anough pissed off geeks we can press for changes.....
Don't kid yourself. Pissed off geeks have about zero influence on most decisions in the world other than where to plug in the server and what OS to run.
Decisions like this are made primarily due to industry analysts, institutional investors, and general market pressure to the board, not on someone not buying ink cartridges. Boycotts in general are mostly useless.
Steve Jobs obviously has good taste in sensing trends and managing to bring them to market just a little more quickly than others. You could make a list of things that were more or less in the air, that the Mac wasn't first to offer, but successfully offered on a large scale six to twelve months ahead of the PC world.
You could also make a list of stupid nonstandard things the Macintosh has introduced which increased the cost of the system and made it much more proprietary:
--NuBus expansion slots (which followed from 1988 onto early PowerPC models) --Apple AAUI transceiver plug for Ethernet --The ADC video connector --MiniVGA ports
Most of these were ultimately retarded ideas with no basis other than milking Macintosh users with pricey addons. With your "innovation" you also get a lot of suspicious design choices.
SCSI interface
As a side note, if you read some of the backstory on the development of the Macintosh, Jobs was very much against the idea of a SCSI interface or for that matter, any expansion at all. That's why the introduction of a hard disk expandable Macintosh was delayed until the Mac Plus.
This would have kept the Amiga minimally relevant in 1994, but not in 2005. There were really two real markets for the Amiga in 1994, the time of Commodore's demise: Creative professionals and hackers/nerds/hobbyists.
The Amiga's greatest challenge in 1994 was really CPU power and system architecture. It was tied to the 68K series processor and the custom chips which made it powerful in 1985. If these PowerPC based systems and OS came out ten years ago, it would have saved the machine, at least to be a niche player.
The Amiga's primary advantage over other machines for creative users like videographers, artists and the like was the fact it was NTSC synchronized for adding titles, and for driving devices like the VideoToaster. That assumed a world view where the computer stayed as outside of the signal path, modifying analog video somewhere between source and recorder VTRs.
The world changed very quickly--and the desktop video world instantly picked up on nonlinear editing. Suddenly everything, given enough power and bandwidth, was INSIDE the machine. Certainly NewTek responded with the ToasterFlyer, but this was still a rehash of using the Amiga between playback and record devices. By 1997, even the cheapest desktop PCI NLE board was processing effects in the digital domain: The Amiga couldn't keep up, tied to the 68K series alone and was doomed in the video market.
The OS was very much suited to media applications: It was lightweight, quick and supported multiple resolutions plus had a lot of built in file formats like ANIM, 8SVX, IFF ILBM etc. But with enough CPU power and memory, this becomes a non issue: Through the brute force of a Pentium with a PCI video bus, and I don't care how bad the OS is, it's still going to be more powerful than an overheating 040 with bandwidth limited Amiga custom chips or a late model VL bus VGA chip slaved off on the Zorro II bus.
The hobbyist market was also lost when Commodore died. A lot of people, myself included, had piles of fun learning about how the Amiga worked. But when CBM went bankrupt and it's later owners died as well, most of us turned elsewhere or plain well gave up on "playing" with computers. Many turned to Linux, BSD, BeOS and the like.
There is no real market for this device, at least not a serious one.
In the end, this will be a curiosity, primarily like the cool Jeri Ellsworth C-One board. Most people buying it will be the truly hardcore. Few hobbyists will be interested, as the casual computer enthusiast will be turned off by it's high price and low feature count.
It's a free market. They come up with a product idea, they bring it to market. People either buy it, or they don't. If people buy it, they make money from it. If they don't, they cancel the product and move on to something else. There, I've just answered your question.
I guess that's why they still sell the Pontiac Aztek or the Toyota Echo.
Let me add to the string of "I don't get it" replies.
I get case modding. I understand and appreciate those who try and build beautiful cases, like the Art Deco HTPC or all the cool stuff on Mini-itx.com: It's an artistic or creative pursuit.
That's great--there will always be people at different levels of any field: There will be engineers at racing and car companies with CFD and simulation, the guy who builds custom hot roads, and the guy who airbrushes artwork on the side of vans. That parallels the people who design supercomputers, or the guy who hand built their first computer out of discrete logic, the guy who builds neat cases. There will also always be the guy who lamely screws on some parts he ordered from the "custom performance" shop. That's fine, we all have different abilities or interests.
But what I don't understand is all the case mods with the ugly window, the garish neon lights, and the crazy colours. It looks so...crass. Looking for a new case for my PVR, I tried hard to find a case that wasn't ugly. Apparently such cases do not exist for under $100 Canadian.
Is it me, or are these things just ugly!? Like, a giant perspex case with neon bulbs? You couldn't find something so tacky this side of Las Vegas.
These RAM displays not only seem ugly (you'd expect a stock quote or "Now Serving Customer 87" to scroll by) but they even seem like they keep you from adding extra DIMMs because they overhang the adjacent slot.
Regardless, as you point out, even with an $80 margin it's a worthwhile venture for Apple.
Unless it cuts away from higher margin iMac sales or delays upgrades to G5 Towers. You have to remember there's a product portfolio to manage, not just simple profit on each machine.
What would make no sense is, this is advertising FOR Apple by people who love Apple. If they are willing to foot the connection and hosting bills, Apple should THANK them, not sue them. Sadly, corporations never think this way.
No, because it's not the message they want to convey, when they want to convey it.
Enthusiasts of any type, (Mac, Amiga, sports car fans) think any publicity is good for a company. It's not: Fans put their own spin on it, and their own filter over top. Even if it's a simple webcam broadcast, the fact that the public may view it on a blurry feed may ward off potential customers. A fan blog might highlight the wrong parts of the keynote, expecting a new sub-$500 Mac when the major announcement might be something else.
The other thing is the fan presence may not be the image Apple wants to use to sell their product. Dedicated, zealot fans often are not the proper spokespeople for a corporate venture. For example, I think many of the public are turned off by Star Trek because of the Trekkie fan base being so visible. Is that good for Paramount? If their entire viewership was Star Trek fans, sure. But they're not. UPN or Paramount counts on casual viewers to tune in and watch advertising.
Apple wants to convey a specific image through a marketing plan, in which the fanboy is not a key player.
to be fair (although it's not an excuse), but 32K crew changes in a month? that's like 1,000 a day? that's crazy!...
I would suspect the attitude of debating a limit without knowing the business context your design choice exists in is probably what created this error to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from the fact the focal plane distance and distortion due to other lens elements in the existing iPhone lens package screw up this idea...the builder also picked a Canon EF lens, which by default, unpowered is left at full aperture. Canon EF lenses stop down on command through the serial port in the EF interface. If this guy had actually managed to interface the EF mount electronically to the iPhone's camera subsystem...well, that would be pretty cool.
A better choice would have been to use an older Nikon (or M42, or K-mount) which has a manual aperture ring on the rear.
My guess is this setup would yield very narrow field of view (due to the smaller sensor and longer focal length), a fair amount of distortion and probably a lack of infinity focus (due to the distance extended from the existing lens groups--I would assume this is like using an extension tube).
No, they don't. The Nortel Meridian series have always run a proprietary "OS" developed by BNR/Nortel. Offboard management was handled by a PC running Windows (Meridian Administration Tools, now OTM). The primary PBX software load (called X11, now CS1K Rel4) continues to be developed, it now runs over top of VxWorks. The management tools also continue to be developed, still on Windows.
What you're probably referring to is a Norstar (the smaller PBX) NAM (Norstar Applications Module) which is an outboard voicemail and ACD system that attaches to a Norstar key system PBX. It is not part of the PBX for call processing.
The NAM does run OS/2 but has been discontinued quite a while ago. It was replaced by the CallPilot 100/150 which runs VxWorks IIRC.
It's a 90 degree angle bracket piece which makes building with the new rounded beam pieces much easier:
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/55615
It's a very clever and handy piece.
Could someone explain to me why so many folks on reality shows are in "Pharmaceutical Sales"? I swear, every Survivor, Big Brother etc season seems to have at least one.
For example:
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor11/survivors/ bio_stephenie.shtml
or
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor7/survivors/b io/tijuana.shtml
or
http://www.realitytvmagazine.com/blog/2005/07/apri l_lewis_a_p.html
I have a few of the PSone type touchscreens (the Sony one is the nicest, mine are generics with an inferior OEM panel) but have no idea where to source a touchscreen film/digitizer and controller.
I know they make 7" and 8" LCD panels with touchscreen, but I don't want to pay that kind of money for an integrated product. Any ideas?
Won't you lose these minute changes when you transcode to DVD or some other format for distribution?
I have a suspicion Lexmark couldn't care less.
Aren't they shot on 24fps film? Where would you get the extra 6 frames per second on the DVD?
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.sys.amiga.hardw are/msg/0ad15a71868ff577?dmode=source&hl=en
There's a fantastic book called Defying Gravity about the development of Newton. It's worth the read.
Sure wish I got one while they were around--a local store was giving away a copy free with every Newton 2100 back in the day.
...is the visual display which tells you the target mileage given your current acceleration.
I drove a 04 Prius for a few months and found that the display which tells you the fuel economy you're getting is very helpful. After about a day you realize that speeding up hills eats at your economy and braking appropriately helps too.
If all cars had this feature, fuel economy would be increased. Regardless of the fact the Prius has a hybrid engine, low rolling resistance tires, etc, this simple display is a big psychological factor.
Most people never realize their driving habits affect fuel economy because it only hits them every two weeks at the pump. By that time they never link it to how they brake or accelerate. By closing the feedback loop, you start to change your driving habits.
Only expensive cars seem to have this feature, yet it's ridiculously simple to implement off a modern ECU. I wish they'd make it standard equipment and not a luxury feature.
Part of the skill of designing and building models is to use those pieces in new and innovative ways.
A radar dish from a spaceship can be an umbrella for a picnic table, it could be part of a continuously variable transmission in a Mindstorms robot.
The other thing I forgot to mention is that the are some non-Steadicam ways to get good motion shots-two of the time trusted ones are using a wheelchair pulled by another person, as well as building a dolly to ride on PVC track. They're covered pretty extensively on Usenet and indie film newsgroups.
It's probably better to call it a combination of a vibration isolator (your arm) that counter balances the camera weight (the barbell). It's got some basic concepts of the real system sort of the way a model rocket is like a Saturn moon rocket :)
The real Steadicam, invented by Garrett Brown, counterweighs the camera on a thing called the "sled" which also has a preview monitor for the operator from the video tap (if it's a film camera) or camera output. The sled has significant weight on the bottom from the batteries used to power the monitor/camera. The rig's real innovation comes from a patented isoelastic arm which attaches the sled onto the vest of the operator.
The entire affair, for the film models is $30-60K, though most professional ops seem to make this back due to the specialized nature of the work. There's all sorts of variations, remote focus control, tilting camera decks, etc the the operators often customize them extensively. Lower end models range from $5-15K, but they don't support heavier cameras or have some "bones" removed from the arm, limiting their flexibility.
Steadicam did at one point make a JR model which was for consumer cameras, it featured a counter weight but no arm, you held the contraption with a grip that was attached to the camera/counterweight attached with a gimbal/u-joint (not sure exactly). It was priced around $1500 originally.
Over the years, many firms have tried to make balancing stablizers, much like this thing. They vary in quality, both construction and smoothness. The gimbal adds a lot to it on the JR model, but it may very well be better just to put the damned thing on a tripod if you can't afford a JR off eBay.
Ever wonder why GPUs are such a big deal and sound cards are such an after thought?
I think the reason why soundcards don't change very much because the fundamental methods of generating sound isn't compute intensive.
With 3D video, you're computing the display output, ray tracing, shading, whatever it is. Algorithms not samples define the visuals. Certainly there are "samples" (ie, texture maps) but these themselves need to be rendered through computation. At the same time, resolutions for display are increasing, requiring more computational horsepower. Hence a need for progressively faster CPUs to drive larger, more details and faster framerate visuals.
With audio, a lot of the audio world is still sample based--there usually aren't algorithms generating sounds from fundamental principals. If there are, it's in a highly specific use (ie, virtual instruments in something like Cubase, which uses the main CPU) or it's in some sort of environmental processing, like DSP effects, positioning etc which don't require that much performance past existing products today that have integrated DSPs. That and audio resolution in general isn't increasing--not at a rate compared to someone going from a 800x600 to 1920x1280 pixel display. Even adding extra channels doesn't seem to drive this requirement further.
As a result, I guess you just don't see the requirement to have "more powerful sound cards".
Name me an Apple corporate or educational account with a thousand Macintosh workstations? I know the figures are made up, but there simply isn't that kind of deployment out there like that, with the exception of strange niches like that G5 cluster at Virginia Tech.
If it did then this is good, it shows that when there are anough pissed off geeks we can press for changes.....
Don't kid yourself. Pissed off geeks have about zero influence on most decisions in the world other than where to plug in the server and what OS to run.
Decisions like this are made primarily due to industry analysts, institutional investors, and general market pressure to the board, not on someone not buying ink cartridges. Boycotts in general are mostly useless.
Steve Jobs obviously has good taste in sensing trends and managing to bring them to market just a little more quickly than others. You could make a list of things that were more or less in the air, that the Mac wasn't first to offer, but successfully offered on a large scale six to twelve months ahead of the PC world.
You could also make a list of stupid nonstandard things the Macintosh has introduced which increased the cost of the system and made it much more proprietary:
--NuBus expansion slots (which followed from 1988 onto early PowerPC models)
--Apple AAUI transceiver plug for Ethernet
--The ADC video connector
--MiniVGA ports
Most of these were ultimately retarded ideas with no basis other than milking Macintosh users with pricey addons. With your "innovation" you also get a lot of suspicious design choices.
SCSI interface
As a side note, if you read some of the backstory on the development of the Macintosh, Jobs was very much against the idea of a SCSI interface or for that matter, any expansion at all. That's why the introduction of a hard disk expandable Macintosh was delayed until the Mac Plus.
This would have kept the Amiga minimally relevant in 1994, but not in 2005. There were really two real markets for the Amiga in 1994, the time of Commodore's demise: Creative professionals and hackers/nerds/hobbyists.
The Amiga's greatest challenge in 1994 was really CPU power and system architecture. It was tied to the 68K series processor and the custom chips which made it powerful in 1985. If these PowerPC based systems and OS came out ten years ago, it would have saved the machine, at least to be a niche player.
The Amiga's primary advantage over other machines for creative users like videographers, artists and the like was the fact it was NTSC synchronized for adding titles, and for driving devices like the VideoToaster. That assumed a world view where the computer stayed as outside of the signal path, modifying analog video somewhere between source and recorder VTRs.
The world changed very quickly--and the desktop video world instantly picked up on nonlinear editing. Suddenly everything, given enough power and bandwidth, was INSIDE the machine. Certainly NewTek responded with the ToasterFlyer, but this was still a rehash of using the Amiga between playback and record devices. By 1997, even the cheapest desktop PCI NLE board was processing effects in the digital domain: The Amiga couldn't keep up, tied to the 68K series alone and was doomed in the video market.
The OS was very much suited to media applications: It was lightweight, quick and supported multiple resolutions plus had a lot of built in file formats like ANIM, 8SVX, IFF ILBM etc. But with enough CPU power and memory, this becomes a non issue: Through the brute force of a Pentium with a PCI video bus, and I don't care how bad the OS is, it's still going to be more powerful than an overheating 040 with bandwidth limited Amiga custom chips or a late model VL bus VGA chip slaved off on the Zorro II bus.
The hobbyist market was also lost when Commodore died. A lot of people, myself included, had piles of fun learning about how the Amiga worked. But when CBM went bankrupt and it's later owners died as well, most of us turned elsewhere or plain well gave up on "playing" with computers. Many turned to Linux, BSD, BeOS and the like.
There is no real market for this device, at least not a serious one.
In the end, this will be a curiosity, primarily like the cool Jeri Ellsworth C-One board. Most people buying it will be the truly hardcore. Few hobbyists will be interested, as the casual computer enthusiast will be turned off by it's high price and low feature count.
I guess that's why they still sell the Pontiac Aztek or the Toyota Echo.
Let me add to the string of "I don't get it" replies.
I get case modding. I understand and appreciate those who try and build beautiful cases, like the Art Deco HTPC or all the cool stuff on Mini-itx.com: It's an artistic or creative pursuit.
That's great--there will always be people at different levels of any field: There will be engineers at racing and car companies with CFD and simulation, the guy who builds custom hot roads, and the guy who airbrushes artwork on the side of vans. That parallels the people who design supercomputers, or the guy who hand built their first computer out of discrete logic, the guy who builds neat cases. There will also always be the guy who lamely screws on some parts he ordered from the "custom performance" shop. That's fine, we all have different abilities or interests.
But what I don't understand is all the case mods with the ugly window, the garish neon lights, and the crazy colours. It looks so...crass. Looking for a new case for my PVR, I tried hard to find a case that wasn't ugly. Apparently such cases do not exist for under $100 Canadian.
Is it me, or are these things just ugly!? Like, a giant perspex case with neon bulbs? You couldn't find something so tacky this side of Las Vegas.
These RAM displays not only seem ugly (you'd expect a stock quote or "Now Serving Customer 87" to scroll by) but they even seem like they keep you from adding extra DIMMs because they overhang the adjacent slot.
Regardless, as you point out, even with an $80 margin it's a worthwhile venture for Apple.
Unless it cuts away from higher margin iMac sales or delays upgrades to G5 Towers. You have to remember there's a product portfolio to manage, not just simple profit on each machine.
No, because it's not the message they want to convey, when they want to convey it.
Enthusiasts of any type, (Mac, Amiga, sports car fans) think any publicity is good for a company. It's not: Fans put their own spin on it, and their own filter over top. Even if it's a simple webcam broadcast, the fact that the public may view it on a blurry feed may ward off potential customers. A fan blog might highlight the wrong parts of the keynote, expecting a new sub-$500 Mac when the major announcement might be something else.
The other thing is the fan presence may not be the image Apple wants to use to sell their product. Dedicated, zealot fans often are not the proper spokespeople for a corporate venture. For example, I think many of the public are turned off by Star Trek because of the Trekkie fan base being so visible. Is that good for Paramount? If their entire viewership was Star Trek fans, sure. But they're not. UPN or Paramount counts on casual viewers to tune in and watch advertising.
Apple wants to convey a specific image through a marketing plan, in which the fanboy is not a key player.
Also interesting to note that the car at auction may very well be a salvaged vehicle, previously in a major accident.
I would suspect the attitude of debating a limit without knowing the business context your design choice exists in is probably what created this error to begin with.