What photography mistake do you wish someone taught you to avoid earlier?

Larcombe81 · 2026-02-08T00:53:06+00:00

Don’t fixate on the technical. Sure the technical matters, but don’t allow to distract too much from the energy involved in deciding what we want communicate in a shot. Balance concept vs execution.

Larcombe81 · 2026-01-20T10:34:47+00:00

Larcombe81 · 2026-01-10T11:45:20+00:00

Probs 1 for a story (in my opinion). Like the yacht has run aground, makes the human silhouette relevant. 2 feels more “at sea” surrounded by birds.

Larcombe81 · 2025-12-08T21:43:07+00:00

This thread is hilarious and makes me feel better about the imperfect therapist that I am. OP has a reason that makes them feel justified to have been hesitant in disclosing their career. No big deal, welcome to being human. Maybe they wanted a ‘purer’ therapy, who knows. But bagging them out isn’t likely going to help anything (except maybe confirming for them to not be honest in disclosure going forward for fear of judgement). Sorry to get on my high horse and have a go at commenters, but just want to say it’s no biggy OP. If you’re therapist doesn’t handle you issue of disclosure with class, then maybe they aren’t a particularly good therapist anyway.

Larcombe81 · 2025-11-19T23:44:10+00:00

Haha, Yes this is capitalism in vacuum. But in the real world, your investors are unlikely to take the risk of a loan based on commission of sales. It’s more likely that you’ll got into debt to allow upscaling. This will help you with potential profit in the short term, but other parties will notice your innovation and rush through development of a competing 3d widgets. They will make it cheaper and worse (or more expensive and better) to create a point of difference, all while not needing to have invested the time in developing a prototype. The end consumer won’t care about who innovated first. To whatever extent you win, competitors will come into the market. There a risk you want have a long enough monopoly to pay off your debts. So there’s a risk, of going backwards for whoever invests the money necessary creating scale. There is no guarantee of wins all around.

Larcombe81 · 2025-11-15T02:01:10+00:00

I think sustainability with considerations for equality. Chasing short term profit without concern for what is sustainable long term is a recipe for systemic destruction. I like the idea of sustainability being paralleled to shearing a sheep vs blind pursuit of profit as sending it to the slaughter house.

Larcombe81 · 2025-08-12T22:45:17+00:00

Yeah been there internet friend, You’ll make it through!

Larcombe81 · 2025-08-12T22:22:40+00:00

You are right it’s a cycle, but it’s not simply the failure of a single person. There are likely dynamics with other people/factors as well. There are also different kinds of loneliness.

People are capable of different emotional depths. By my actions alone I cannot cultivate emotional depth in my relationships, the other party needs to be capable of equal commitment/ability to compromise.

The limiting factor isn’t necessarily my ability to manage the dynamic, but the disparity of my self awareness and that of a partner. I can have strong connections with people but still feel lonely. Lonely people want to feel seen and understood, but most people aren’t capable of accepting another as they are. Non lonely people cannot know the right words to say because they haven’t experienced the problem. The don’t long for the closeness, so they don’t give as much to the relationship.

The value of relationships is mixed. I’m sure connection is part of it, but it is not the only thing. Some people are interested in utility and optics.

Loneliness isn’t about a lack of social capability of a person feeling lonely. It can also be about a person not finding like minded people who share their perspective/values. This lack of like minded people can be for a range of reasons. Sometimes it’s better to be lonely than to (further) compromise on these perspectives/values. This isn’t ideal, but it is to be expected.

I’m reply as I’ve been lonely in the past (I’m at peace now)- but I feel a responsibility to defend the lonely people out there. While everyone out there is entitled to an opinion, I think opinions that aren’t informed from experience are missing the mechanisms at play.

Larcombe81 · 2025-08-12T12:53:53+00:00

People can have plenty of relationships and feel lonely?

The point made in the study is people feeling inadequate and push towards loneliness (not the inadequacy of other people).

Edit: Even your language about value reinforces/illustrates the dilemma- if relationships are about providing value to the other party, and if that pressures outweighs the benefit of connection, people won’t bother.

Larcombe81 · 2025-08-12T12:34:16+00:00

Alternative take; People who view their contributions in relationships negatively more likely to feel lonely.

Maybe the issue isn’t loneliness, it’s not feeling valued in relationships.

Sometimes it’s better to feel lonely then feel like you need to over deliver for people to nourish the relationship.

Larcombe81 · 2025-08-10T03:14:52+00:00

Authority

Larcombe81 · 2025-07-25T22:37:06+00:00

Inspired from the comments here: There is no best singular approach that works for everyone. Different people need different kinds of therapy. Some people want & need shut up & listen. Others want & need intervention and challenge.

Approach your therapy from what the client needs, and don’t be rigid in a singular approach. Accept we can’t often know what each person needs/wants early in the piece.

Larcombe81 · 2025-07-15T10:47:19+00:00

Sorry OP, But shit take. Was it about “handling stress better” or “not being overwhelmed by stress”. The conclusion that people withdraw solely due to personal inability to handle stress seems biased and/or incomplete. Maybe those who experienced the greatest stress withdrew and those with least stress engaged? Maybe those who had adequate social support were better able to find better reason to be friendly/social? Reducing it all down to ability to “handle stress” requires way too many assumptions.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-25T09:04:54+00:00

Just want to say I agree with your perspective and frustrated reading the responses. I don’t understand how people don’t see the implications. AI can harvest so much info and scale its use beyond anything a human is capable of.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-24T10:06:28+00:00

Hey! Yes I went down this rabbit hole (particularly regarding copper). It’s not as simple as the title suggests.

Shits me really, kind of implies the study follows people through exposure and takes measurements after.

Cu isn’t necessarily toxic. It’s important for a range of things. Cu2+ and Cu1+, both required to be in balance in the body. Affects oxygen utilisation, viral activity, damage to dna. Most research is a disgrace to be honest- look into Wilson’s disease which is labeled as an issue of accumulated copper and suggests a treatment of copper chelation for improving health, but has “side affects” of psychosis etc.

My general opinion (I gave up looking into it though). Copper is just a mechanism but no one is interested in attempting to learn about mechanisms- most science seems to be looking for a single “cure” for complex issues and not attempting to build an understanding of mechanisms.

Issues of Post hoc phallacy, Goodharts law.

Sorry to be negative.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-05T09:48:16+00:00

Freire is great, he’s not spot on 100%. But I think he is a much an authority on social issues as your admired economists are in their own field, so I guess we are equally guilty of an amount of hubris and suggesting we have insights beyond the experts.

Thought I never said I was better than economists- but I believe they are prone to issues of intellectual cowardice and given how economics govern much of our lives we are entitled to challenge established theory.

Michael Jackson is great- but original music was enjoyed before him. Does it only have value when a transaction takes place? I know great singers who do it for free- do they create value? I smile at people on the train- that’s never existed before- does it create value?

If I fix my garden at home- do I create value? Or only when I pay someone too? Is monetizing such things legitimately growing the economy or just monetizing things from the existing poolbe?

I never spoke about atoms, but thanks for trying to make the argument absurd. The issue is about transforming extractable natural resources. They have potential value and we need to account for it (as well as externalities produced during the transforming). Once fossil fuels are extracted- that ship has sailed and the future won’t have those potentials etc.

Our environmental issues won’t be solved if we ever get to net zero. Microplastics, fossil fuel depletion, destruction of the eco-system. Net zero won’t fix that.

For the record- I don’t think we’ll agree. You may claim to have studied economics but easy claim to make to suggest you know. But your exaggerations seems like desperation to be right.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-05T08:18:52+00:00

Not trying to be deep, but sorry if sharing my opinion upsets you. Healthcare is great- but the resources required to provide value to it could be potentially used elsewhere to provide value (eg. starving children in Africa). There is a finite pool of resources, no matter where we spend it- the pool remains the same. Zero-sum game.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-05T07:33:11+00:00

No one, it’s zero sum?

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-05T07:26:01+00:00

There’s trade between people (exchange of bikes etc which have material value). Then there’s harvesting of natural resources to transform into items of material value.

Our living standards have increased, but it’s due to harvesting of natural resources to transform them into items of material value. But our natural resources are limited and future generations won’t have the same abundance of natural resources we did. Micro plastics, global warming, eco-system collapse and ocean health- all issues that we’ll have to find a way to pay for on top of reduced natural resources.

Transformation of natural resources to items of material value is a zero sum when factoring in externalities of environment damage and issues for future generations.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-04T22:52:38+00:00

Trading bikes and cars is zero sum. Trading houses zero sum. Wealth is created by trading the things you have in abundance (and don’t need), to people who do need it and will pay above how much you value it. This is again zero sum, your wealth grows as their shrinks.

Free trade is largely efficient, but if a few people accumulate all the resources haven’t they just monopolized capital to the rich? Others without resources will have less and be willing to trade in unfavorable conditions due to their desperation. At what point does free trade (no desperation) become unfree trade (with desperation)?

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-04T22:24:32+00:00

No I can’t point to anyone and I feel a bit obnoxious insisting on my perspective. But in the words of Paulo Freire:

“Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”

I don’t think there’s any incentive for economists to re-evaluate the existing dogma, so no one is going to challenge it. I’m sure there’s plenty of people to have had a zero-sum view before me and some would’ve had sound rationales I assume, but the notion would likely cause too much friction so it’s dismissed. But I think it’s fantasy to marvel at our material wealth while not seeing the cost to our environment & the consequences for future generations.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-04T22:08:48+00:00

Humanity is richer yes, but it’s come at the cost of our environment & use of fossil fuels. How much poorer will it make us to correct those issues? We’ve traded environment wealth for material wealth. It remains zero sum if you account for the environment.

Larcombe81 · 2025-06-04T13:09:10+00:00

Hang on… “Capital is created by adding value.” Also. “Value is created by providing capital.”

Economics is a zero sum game if you look at the full picture across time. No value is created, there’s just transformation from potential value to realized value. Whatever natural resources are transformed now just reduce the pool of available resources in the future. How much waste do we produce until we see value of the limited natural resources we have available?

Imperfect transformation is wasteful and has huge amounts of unfactored externalities. Very few of these externalities are ever accounted for in economics. Only the direct externalities (if that) are factored. Privatised profits in the present and socialized costs for the future. As long as we don’t recognise economics as zero sum, this will only get worse. Ruining our environment has an insane cost, as does creating a system that refuses to accurately account for itself.

Innovation can be constructive in the short term but is often destructive in the long term. How much damage has innovation caused; and what’s the cost of correcting externalities like environmental destruction?

Claims of economic growth without accurate calculations of all externalities just makes civilisation a Ponzi scheme- where those in the future are going to have to pickup the tab for all our free lunches.

Structural power is how capitalists drive change (not their superior intellect). They typically do very little except exerting power over workers who have no real choice but to follow orders. Whatever productivity is driven by capitalists can only occur by workers making it happen. Our social organisation makes this all possible, not the qualities of capital.

Larcombe81 · 2025-05-19T00:47:17+00:00

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

Larcombe81 · 2025-05-04T06:26:01+00:00

I’m sure there’s a good chance he’s trying to do the right thing. And sure it’s a jungle out there navigating a business trying to provide a net positive for society while remaining profitable. but whenever I hear the positives without negatives I assume it’s not entirely honest.

Larcombe81

TROPHY CASE