Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - The Gorn

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 668
61
I had an old -- 2006 vintage Canon with the Imagine stabilization feature. Now that was nice. It ran on 4xAA batteries. I gave it away because its pictures were not any better than the ones made by modern phones.

I have one 2005 vintage Nikon p&s I use as a secondary/roughing it camera. That is ANCIENT. Image sensors much slower, cameras much much slower in cycle time, etc. That's 12 years ago. Look how laptops have improved in that time. Same thing.

A modern p&s is a monster in terms of quality, speed and features in comparison. However, as the OP observes, 99% of the time the quality differential isn't a big deal for kid, cat meme or holiday pictures.

I gave up on buying a decent p&s that uses AA batteries a LONG time ago. Yeah, the flexibility is great, but  I went through AAs like cheap cologne. The battery pack in the Canon G16 is proprietary, but its charge lifetime is fine, much better than AA rechargables I had to use with older cameras.

62
All Technology & Tech Help / Candid photography
« on: April 17, 2018, 07:12:36 pm »
There was a whole crop of famous classic candid street photographers in the 20th century such as Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Smartphones are now so common that they make candid photography almost trivial. You can generally disguise your phone or hold it such a way that the subject has absolutely no clue.

Not quite so easy with a 35mm Leica.

63
Great subject for IT people because digital photography intersects computer science and tradtional optics sciences. Plus art.

I believe that smartphones *mostly* replace low end point and shoot cameras. The one factor to keep in mind is the size of the camera sensor. The larger the camera sensor, other things being equal (such as resolution), the less thermal noise introduced into images in low light conditions. Also, again because of better/less noise with larger sensors, they can be "driven" to extremely high ISO ratings and still perform decently.

Digital photography low-light noise looks like colored speckles, which aren't visible or present in normal sunlight or under flash.

Because of the tiny focal length dictated by the thickness of smartphone cases and bodies, their image sensors are commensurately really tiny. So their ISO range is usually pretty limited.

I have a Moto G5 (a 2017 model) phone. The imager is 12 megapixel (3000x4000 roughly.) It amazes me how nice the images are. It does fairly well in available light. But, no tripod socket.

I also own a Canon G16  prosumerish point and shoot  actual camera. I can set it to 12000 ISO. The images are very rough but they are somewhat usable.

At 1600 or 3200 ISO I can take really good nighttime sky exposures with this camera. I could not do that with the phone.

Lastly there is the shooting stance. The Canon "real" camera is easy to hold for steady, sharp images. Smart phones make you adopt goofy, less stable shooting stances. And you're always having to avoid touching the glass so you don't trigger software.

Nighttime July northern sky behind our house a couple of years ago... with the G16. Click to zoom/expand.

A digital SLR would have no visible grain and would be even sharper.  The dark blob at the lower right is not a dark matter nebula. :D It's a neighbor's tree.

The exposure was 15 seconds at 800 ISO.


64
I'm making a content decision ... threads about technology policy will go into the public technology discussion forum. This includes but is not limited to discussion about social media policies and policy makers.

65
Here. Here's an antidote to Zuckerberg and normie oppression. Our supreme leader.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/p5cTjZvAoUE" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/p5cTjZvAoUE</a>

66
Rodent, lol. He had absolutely no real response to the congresscritter. The example of anti-abortion being lumped in as hate speech is ENTIRELY plausible and this moron is trying to say "no, don't be ridiculous". Fuckerberg doesn't comprehend the issue, which is that the free speech/hate speech line is totally arbitrary - and he's been setting it. 

I want shitposting to become mainstream on Facebook, then I will be happy.  >:D

67
Tell me how someone not in the tech industry can have anything but utter hatred for this preening narcissist control freak douche.

His kind of attitude is why we techies get the shaft in general business and by brokers. Everyone hates an arrogant know-it-all.

68
All Technology & Tech Help / Re: The Tech Support Scam
« on: April 10, 2018, 01:45:57 pm »
Quote
My IT friend says she called a legitimate vendor for help (they sell tax software) and got directed by them to a bogus tech support number. 

That's REALLY bad. Even  official product support can't tell a bogus support company.

69
All Technology & Tech Help / Re: So anyway, about Facebook...
« on: April 07, 2018, 05:27:35 pm »
Cruz voters were fed gun rights news to get them to support Cruz more.

I'm not being partisan because Democrats used FB as a source of psychographic data to persuade voters.  It's the current big data way of doing what campaigners have done all along with primitive door-to-door canvassing.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, they didn't have Cambridge Analytica as a consultant.

I agree completely with what you're saying. Both/either side will take whatever advantage they have available to them. Including psychological vulnerabilities in segments of the voting public. Facebook users are and have been ripe for emotional exploitation.

Facebook reduces everyone to the psychological profile of a 13 year old teenage girl.  :P

70
All Technology & Tech Help / So anyway, about Facebook...
« on: April 07, 2018, 02:06:31 pm »
I  see FB being a self evidently fertile feeding ground for influencing people.

People on Facebook who cultivate their personal Facebook image and who buy into the culture deeply are vulnerable to influence and manipulation. Since they themselves have already selected themselves to be manipulated.

I'm saying that the cheap thrill aspect of the "Facebook dopamine rush" is only one sliver of the entire environment.

71
This is a really good analysis. Thanks!

Very interesting. I've seen this link, and I didn't bother to look into it.

Facebook's example is that the goal is to enhance social interaction.  One interviewee described a resonance effect with people being fed self-affirming information feeds from like-minded people and fake news so that eventually a mirror is built for them by Facebook in which they figuratively gaze into and ask “Who is the fairest of them all?" and you get back,  "You, you after all!” 

Having lived inside the Facebook bubble for a couple of years and lived to tell about it :P I wouldn't exactly call what Facebook does "enhancing" social interaction.

Real social interaction as humanity has experienced it for the duration of our species implies that you have to bargain, reason, cooperate and compromise literally all of the time with other individuals who have their own problems and agendas. At the same time you often don't have much information on what others are thinking when they interact with you since in normal society people generally don't reveal their thoughts openly.

Facebook won't help with mastering any of that, in fact, it's counter to actual healthy relationships.

What Facebook does is hugely amplify your ability to interact with people who tend to create less friction with you than the run of the mill humanity, and who themselves are being affirmed constantly. At the same time people on Facebook visibly show in numerous ways how they reason and think and what they value.  In other words with Facebook (or any other online venue, but to lesser degrees) you learn much more about the image that people want to convey about their thinking. But you always have a big "off" switch to dismiss anyone who is disagreeably argumentative. You can't do that in real life.

That "building an image I want others to see" is pervasive on FB. It tends to foster unrealistic behaviors and it rewards bad behavior. It's both the home of virtue signaling as well as narcissistic preening.  In real life you'd tell someone who is talking down to you to f*ck off. On Facebook if you stake a political position you get to use it as a hammer to show how morally superior you are.

From the comments on this board I know for a fact that everyone currently on the board (except perhaps Pxsant and of course me) is unaware of how it feels to participate heavily on Facebook. Y'all see it from a distance. The average citizen in society with a social media addiction isn't familiar to us here on this board. 

I'm saying that to a specific personality type Facebook is as addictive as cigarettes or anything else that's bad for you. And FB instills a need to see others conform to your world view.

I could go on at length about other aspects... Facebook allows you to create "group hugs" that would look really foolish and out of place in real life. You can synthesize causes and you can then even convince the subsets of the normies on Facebook that your cause is just what they need to feel included and special. It CAN happen in real life but it's much harder.

Again, it's all artificial counterparts of real life social interaction.

Lastly I wouldn't say that Facebook ropes in stupid people... or actually maybe it does. It ropes in average people who get lonely and who need affirmation. Facebook is normie central.

I get very lonely and I need affirmation, but I know that FB has too many strings attached and distorts real life, so I stay away from it because it's just not for real.

FB is like an AI of real relationships.

72
All Technology & Tech Help / Analysis from a business perspective
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:28:07 pm »
There are a lot of content creators and freelancers and e-commerce/inet marketer types who genuflect at the altar of Facebook. Including that dipshit I did the profitable membership site for who just f***ed his site with an expensive overhaul.

They rely on the mindless trust that FB once inspired. Like that guy I am citing who gets coaching clients from his Facebook group.

Facebook today is mainly for narcissists who need to show everyone their great life that you're (explicitly in my case) not invited to. Like that guy. You look at his personal FB page and it's "look at me and how wonderful I am all of the time".

The people on that coach guy's FB group are dumber than a pile of compost for fawning over him.

I realized over a year ago that I was compromising myself by spewing to the "audience" there, and angering people who didn't think I was being "cute".

Every like you click and every comment you make on FB is databased into a composite of your personality and marketing affiliations. That was creepy. And I wasn't getting any closer to people on that site.  The uniquely Facebook narcissism fest/dopamine rush environment is what secures the audience for this source of data.

In time nobody smart and aware will want to use Facebook, and that has actually been the case for awhile. Those on the site now are legacy users. As a result the pool of users contributing to that marketing data source and that pool of consumers of content will inevitably become lower and lower quality.

Facebook is headed for MySpace / Topix.com / City-data forums levels of quality of user.

73
Discussions - Public / Re: Amusing or Outstanding Image Memes
« on: April 04, 2018, 09:54:13 am »
Ok, I can get in on this bullying too  ;D


74
Oh, good, you caught that.  ;D

75
On any review site if I see a review that's pivotal to my buy decision, I'll try to inspect the review history of the account attached to the review. I like to see a balance.

If it's someone who has only 5 star/high reviews of various products, I start to assume that it's a shill.

Likewise I don't totally trust curmudgeons. I'm the only completely negative person that anyone should trust.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 668