From: yyyyyyyyyyyywwwww@zohomail.eu   
      
   Hello.....   
   Girls, boys, come see:   
      
   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀kohtumispaik2.freehostpro.com/a.php   
   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀kohtumispaik3.66ghz.com/a.php   
   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀kohtumispaik4.medianewsonline.com/a.php   
   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar.medianewsonline.com/firstpage.php   
   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀themostconfortabletalkplace.medianewsonline.com/a.php   
      
      
   I will wait You there patiently, but I may not be all the time there.   
      
      
      
   On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 12:52:35 PM UTC+2, Malcolm McLean wrote:   
   > I'm working on a problem where a user enters a degraded, wiggly curve (it's   
   actually created by tracing software from what might have been once a   
   rectangle, for example, but has been physically printed, then scanned, and so   
   on, so that there are plenty    
   of stray pixels picked up by the tracing software).    
   >    
   > So basically what I want to do is sample the curve at a fairly low   
   resolution, then re-fit it, to get rid of the noise. However I want to retain   
   the genuine sharp corners. So in the rectangle case, the desired output   
   wouldn't be a mathematical    
   rectangle, but it would be four clean almost straight curves, connected by   
   four corners of almost ninety degreees.    
   >    
   > The curve tends to go back on itself. It's like a coastline. It's easy to   
   pick out the real curve from the noise by eye, but harder to do it   
   automatically.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)