michrassena

It's neat that this exists, and I'm happy that people are still funding these kinds of projects.

But 6x17 panoramic cameras exist at a price point with money left over for film and processing, a much larger negative, instant shutter, flash sync, wireless, more space than a nomad, etc.

I hope the QNX can fix their antiquated password process on this site. Apparently I still had an account from the last time they opened things up, and I asked for a password reset. I received a six character temporary password by email and used that log in. Then when I changed the password (which wasn't prompted for when I logged in, I had to hunt down the change password option), I was limited to alphanumerics and 20 characters. Edit: I'll also add that the entire process of setting up an account, getting a license, granting yourself a license, then downloading the software center all just to download the Raspberry Pi image was a lot of roundabout steps for something I'm going to play around with on the weekend and never look at again. I know this is an exercise to gain customers, but still a hassle even for those familiar with the process. Ultimately it reads as if QNX is deathly afraid of giving something away.

I can connect to wifi on my old Thinkpad running Haiku. There's no reason FreeBSD shouldn't have full support for wifi out of the box. Even OpenBSD has better wifi support. After many years, reasons start to look like excuses. Make it work.

But at the end of the day, if I work a long time at it I can get FreeBSD to do everything Linux can do. But that's kind of the problem. New users are casual users. What does FreeBSD offer that Linux, MacOS and Windows don't that isn't related to running services on big hardware?

FreeBSD just ends up being like another distro people hop to occasionally, find it doesn't support all their hardware or the software they're used to, and they hop to something else.

I'm looking over at my Decstation 5000/260 with the burnt-out power supply. Maybe this is what I need to get that feeling back.

I was pleased to see a page with photos (and PDF documentation) of the Ceres systems which were used to develop the Oberon operating system.

http://cpu-ns32k.net/Ceres.html

I'm doing something similar with the VisionFive 2, boot is on the SD card, the NVME does the rest.

I've ordered something now to at least get in the queue for the next time. Hopefully by then, some Zero 2 boards will be available.

It looks like it's not possible to order one unless you've ordered something from Pimoroni before 12 May 2023. The only one in stock currently is the Pi Zero. So unfortunately it's still the same story. Yeah, we had lots of stock, but it's gone now and you couldn't order it anyway. I hope it gets better soon, and all this pent-up demand doesn't collapse once stocks are full.

I think I've only ever used the row of GPIO pins on the Pi for UART, and for running the dog-slow screens that use up most of them. These days, I'd put Micropython on a Pi Pico or other MCU for GPIO.

I have a small stack of Raspberry Pi boards that I bought one at a time over the last few years. My issue with them is I could never buy three or four at once. I was always hit with the full shipping cost on something that weighs an ounce. As far as I know this has always been the case in the US.

I want to be able to buy a few at a time, like any other product.

I'm currently trying to do this on my little stack of Pi Zero and Zero 2 boards. I remember at some point this worked great, and then I couldn't get it to work again. So far I'm not having any success. The Pi doesn't show up as a USB device using lsusb on the host. Working my way through a stack of micro-usb cables. Maybe they all are charge only. Anyone have recent success with 64-bit Raspberry Pi OS and Ubuntu on the host end?

I'm disappointed to see that the binaries for the Raspberry Pi aren't available anymore at the bitbucket linked on https://github.com/yshurik/inferno-rpi.

I've run Plan9 in the paste on Raspberry Pi and found it to be a neat experience. Inferno I've only run under Windows, and which seemed kind of pointless.

Is the lack of human authorship the gist of the argument? Can you claim copyright on the output from a compiler? Or is this like work for hire, where you just give instructions to the creative professional?

I've encountered something like this attitude, though it's more a reverence for the newest, flashiest gear in online forums. Certain camera brands bring it out in people, like certain car and computer brands used to.

Oddly, photography is generally an asocial pursuit, at least as an amateur. So what does it matter what the photographic community thinks. If you're in business, they aren't customers, and if you show your work, they aren't the audience.

I agree, Flickr has lost its spark. It might be dying, it might not. But whatever it had is gone.

It's a perverse incentive for sure.

Thanks, that explains things a bit better. It sounds like it's better to not use the universe repository at all in that case. I don't suppose I can just switch over to Debian for those packages, can I?

So is this in fact a good thing reframed as something negative because Canonical is asking for money?

So if I'm reading sources.list correctly, universe repositories don't receive security updates from the Ubuntu team. Is it now the case that they do, as long as you've enrolled in Ubuntu Pro?

That makes it sound as if Canonical has taken some kind of responsibility for making these packages secure at a cost for more than five devices.

I don't think we're that point yet, but there's some amazing work on deconvolution for seeing around corners.

I haven't finished the article, but it seems like using the flash on the iPhone might have been enough to lower the ISO for the photo. Lower ISO = lower noise. The end results look like a typical noise reduction process. For screen-sized images, the new phones do quite well. But zoom in and it's often a painterly-blur.

Where can I read more about the mind's senses?

I sometimes get portions of songs stuck in my head for a day or two, but otherwise no music unless I'm really tired. The depiction of hearing someone else's voice when reading a letter from them always fell flat with me.

That's my experience. Dreams can be vivid, or close enough to real life including color. Occasionally I'll see hypnagogic imagery, but more likely I'll hear music when I'm really tired.

I'm not sure myself. Growing up, I remember being frustrated anytime I was asked to imagine something. I imagined what other people's imaginations were capable of, which seemed like so much more. Where reading a book would lead to a movie playing in your mind's eye.

But still, I can see a short column of numbers and add them, move the carry, etc. But it never seemed like the visualizers could.

That's interesting. To the degree I can visualize, it's the same for me.

I would describe myself as having aphantasia. Anything I can visualize is basically black on black in the fog. It certainly seems to me that in describing visualizing a helicopter, you're really seeing your mental model of one. And when people describe the rare phenomenon of eidetic memory, it's more as if they're able to review the actual image in all its detail.

This is pure speculation, but it seems to me that people's mental models succumb to a sort of cartographic compression. Your mind doesn't remember detail which seem unimportant at the time, which makes them impossible to draw later. If your visualization was complete, certainly you could draw the parts, even if you couldn't draw them accurately.

I think you're on to something with how people describe their experience of visualizing. On the one hand, I don't doubt there are artists and architects who can visualization clearly, or musicians who hear music and can transcribe what they hear. But I can't help but think the description of these capabilities are exaggerated for the majority of the population.

I've asked someone to visualize a house then asked them how many windows it has. They didn't have a answer. This isn't any different from what I'd say. I can try to imagine an apple. I know it's red. I know there's a stem and a green leaf on the stem. I know the shape of a Macintosh, with the wide top narrowing at the base. But the serrations and veins of the leaf, I'm not sure of. And I'm fairly confident that most people who claim to be able to visualize couldn't describe the leaf well enough to distinguish it as an apple leaf and not some idealized idea of a leaf. Could they describe it well enough that an artist could draw it?

That's a fair criticism. You could make the case that the film companies didn't care enough to test the film's color reproduction for anything but caucasian skin tones, or didn't put the research dollars into fixing the problem. At the root of that would be racism.

I think essentially that's what this boils down to. Color slide film of the time, like Kodachrome, had a narrow range of exposure. I see no reason to believe this was anything but a technical limitation. A slide film with more stops of exposure would have been a huge commercial success.

Given that narrow range, you could either expose for lighter or darker skin tones. And this is where institutional racism creeps in. In a group where everyone had similar skin tones, you wouldn't face an issue exposing the film properly. But where there was a variety, it was commonplace to treat exposing for the lighter skin tones as more important. The group with darker skin was treated as if it didn't matter, or mattered far less.

I think this is the key idea. Even rejecting the idea that Kodak and other film companies made the choice to exclude a group of people, they created a default, an inertia, which had to worked against to be equitable. My mind keeps coming back to the Pareto principle. In pursuing the 80% of customers might be the wealthier group, the easier to convert, the most likely to use your product, is it often the same %20 who are left out and don't they matter?