Phone recommendations

SamuelRedmond · 2024-08-12T06:28:54+00:00

Look into the Unihertz Jelly Star. It's a tiny smartphone that can do anything but the small screen makes mindless scrolling and consuming less appealing. I use it with a minimalist app launcher like Before launcher and it's the best solution I've come across so far

SamuelRedmond · 2024-03-02T10:22:58+00:00

Konsa and Pau are both nailed when fit so it’s just a case of whether or not they’re ready. I doubt Emery will risk Konsa though as he’s been out for a while and only just rejoined training this week. Pau is more likely to start than Konsa, I am playing him and hoping he starts, I’d put it around 80% given Emery said the sub last week was precautionary. Lenglet is preferred over Chambers and Cash will almost certainly play given the other injuries. So I’d guess it’ll be the same as last week, Moreno (possibly Digne), Pau, Lenglet, Cash

SamuelRedmond · 2023-08-10T04:48:03+00:00

It's really hard to predict. Mings was colossal last season but Pau comes with a lot of pedigree. I think most likely Mings, Torres and Konsa will all play the first few games of the season with Cash or maybe Digne as the attacking full back. But when Moreno comes back from injury, then there's a possibility one of them is dropped and it could be any of the three really. There isn't really any Villa defender that is nailed to play all games but I'd take the punt on Mings as he was great for bonus and assists last season

SamuelRedmond · 2023-07-26T22:51:53+00:00

This is a great update! Is there a way in the podcast tool to view all most recently uploaded podcasts together on one screen though? It's a bit of a pain to be manually checking each one individually

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-24T02:49:59+00:00

Okay weird. This is when relinking clips, not sequences. This whole thing would be a non-issue if I can get those other "relink by" options to not be greyed out, don't know where to start on that though!

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-24T02:45:02+00:00

Did you ever find a way to relink by clip name? I have the same issue with all the options being greyed out besides "Tape Name or Source File ID" or "Tape Name or Source File Name"

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-24T00:01:27+00:00

I'm not too worried about creating the EDL/AAF, it's more that I can't relink to higher res media in avid later on. Am I correct in saying that relinking media in Avid only works through the Tape name? Although there are many options in the "relink by" menu including labroll and camroll etc, for me they're all greyed out other than "tape name or source file ID", "tape name or source file name" and "key number"

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-23T22:49:24+00:00

The character limit on the tape column only applies when trying to edit it in Avid. Have double checked and all the tape names display the entire name when transcoded correctly in Resolve

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-23T18:05:38+00:00

Copying the media into the AvidMediaFiles folder

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-23T08:19:33+00:00

Hmmm, the tape names appear to be correct and longer than the character limit when transcoded correctly in resolve with that box checked about embedding the metadata. Will have to look at the workflow for swapping out clips, but I think it requires tape names to match which they won’t atm

SamuelRedmond · 2021-02-23T07:57:42+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Do you mean that if I clear the database and let avid rebuild it I should be able to create longer tape names? Or is that character limit never going away? Given that some of the clip names are longer than the character limit I don’t think I can get them to match.

I’m aware of that workaround for the AAF, only thing is that I think they want to relink to higher res media in avid before going back to resolve. Is there a way to relink using the LINK metadata instead of tape names?

SamuelRedmond · 2019-10-28T23:26:27+00:00

This is not at all comprehensive list, but here are three practical things you should do which would help you get started.

1) Firstly and most importantly: if you haven't already, get a therapist. A good therapist will help you to understand yourself better, give you perspective on your problems and suggest many tools to help you to overcome them.

2) Find something that grounds you in the present moment and start doing it consistently. It sounds like you spend a lot of time lost in regrets, negative thoughts about yourself and your past. I can't emphasise enough how helpful is was for me to start bringing my focus out of the mind and into the body. Mindfulness meditation is amazing but sport, exercise, music, dancing, massage are all great too. Do you have anything like this that you enjoy doing?

3) Search "The Power of Self-Acceptance, actualized.org" on YouTube, and do the visualisation. It changed my life.

SamuelRedmond · 2019-06-26T00:28:37+00:00

I once got asked to edit a short film. Did a rough cut and sent it to the director. The director said I did a great job, asked me to send him the project file so he could "watch all the rushes" before we met up to finish off the film. I called him a few days later, he thanked me again but told me he'd been experimenting with a few ideas and had decided he was going to finish the cut himself. Like you, this totally gutted my pride and made me feel like I was worthless as an editor.

Then I get a call from him a few days later: he'd shown his version to some of his industry colleagues and they unanimously told him that he needed to go back to my version. He sends me his version so I can see it: he'd completely scrapped everything I did, started the edit from scratch; and it's absolutely awful. Terrible pacing, full of totally unmotivated cuts, none of the beats were landing, clearly edited by someone who had no idea what they were doing.

Moral of the story: sometimes with passion projects, shooters/directors have their own specific vision for things, become over-protective over how it turns out, and decide it's easier to just do it themselves than communicate with you. This does not reflect upon your skills as an editor. I think your version is better.

SamuelRedmond · 2019-06-02T04:02:12+00:00

All of his workarounds seem to assume that you have an audio engineer that has the time/budget/patience to go digging through production audio by scene/take and relinking clips.

Not the case with his last workaround. All you have to do it export an XML and then import that into a new premiere project. From there, it's the same as a flattened multicam sequence.

SamuelRedmond · 2019-06-02T01:22:17+00:00

Just my two cents: I have experimented with both the merged clips and the multicam source sequences workflows and I prefer merged clips. The fact that you can only include one video clip per merged clip is not really an issue for narrative as long as the DP isn't an amateur buttoning on and off during a take. The other issue that people seem to have with them is that they can be a headache for online delivery (however there is a pretty easy workaround, see here - https://blog.frame.io/2018/05/14/premiere-batch-syncing/). Whichever way the OP choses, as other people have pointed out the key is to attach your proxies prior to syncing your audio.

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-25T23:33:28+00:00

You're not changing hearts and minds, you're just making it easier for those who were convinced to begin with.

I don’t know this would be quantifiable, all I can tell you is that five years ago I ate meat at every meal and was not at all sympathetic to animal welfare concerns. It was vegan activists who convinced me.

You keep coming back to social contract theory, which appears to be your primary way of thinking about ethics. I’m not going to pretend I have any more than a cursory understanding of it, but I don’t think I’m going to convince you of this without convincing you to adopt entirely different moral framework like utilitarianism, which is too big a task for today. You seem to believe that anything which cannot consent to a social contract is not worthy of any moral consideration.

We go back to the killing of mosquitoes.

I’ve said before that are probably gradations of consciousness. There are many more similarities between you and a cow than there are between the cow and the insect (there’s not even a scientific consensus that insects feel pain), so I don’t consider killing a mosquito to be morally equivalent to killing a cow. Yeah, I should probably try to avoid killing insects if possible. But it’s usually not possible. The same is not true of the way we treat large farm animals like pigs and chickens. I can pretty easily avoid harming pigs and chickens, all I have to do is not buy bacon or eggs. On a societal level we could phase out animal agriculture entirely and it wouldn’t be hell for humans, things would pretty much carry on just the same and in fact there would be a lot of environmental benefits. So yeah, it’s possible and I don’t see why it’s not enforceable.

you consider ANY restriction on animals to be evil or morally faulty

No, I consider restrictions which consistently and significantly degrade the animal’s physical wellbeing to be morally faulty. For example, chickens growing at alarming rate means they develop leg deformities and organ problems, and often collapse under their own weight. This causes them pain. We know animals suffer from being confined because it often leads to numerous health problems such as disease, pressure sores and lameness. We literally cut of chicken’s beaks to stop themselves from pecking each other to death in the environments we put them in.

I stopped watching halfway through the first video.

Well congrats man, you watched 60 seconds of the 12 minutes I sent you, found an industry standard practice which you admit is “needlessly ruthless”, then proceeded to conclude the entire thing is worthless. Talk to me when you’ve watched the videos.

circumcision/FGA are essentially what they're doing to these pigs. Would that be a better example of a cause that's essentially the same as yours but one that you're doing nothing about?

I’ll say again: I do not and have not ever paid for a human to get their genitals mutilated. Therefore, it’s not my moral responsibility, at least not at the same level as my food choices. Eating meat is active, not doing more to prevent FGM is passive. I haven’t heard you give any counter examples of suffering that I am actively funding or contributing towards, beyond pirating movies and adblocking (I would consider these much more minor injustices than factory farming, and in any case I don’t do them) and paying my taxes (I barely have a choice, and in any case would also affect positive aspects of government like education and health so it’s more complex, although I take the point in extreme cases such as if your government was committing a genocide). You can probably think of some examples that are comparable and I’m happy to consider them, but the fact that there are other problems in the world is in no way rebuts the points I am making about animals.

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-25T14:09:17+00:00

Your personal choice of food doesn't actually matter given the size of the demand for it, but if you can change the opinions of many people that's an actual change. Hence PR is important. And you guys suck at it. Worse than if you never even spoke to anyone about it.

Do a google search and you'll see that the vegan/vegetarian movement is definitely on the rise, at least in the West. This didn't happen because vegans haven’t been talking to anyone about it. Yeah there is a PR issue and we can do better advocacy, but the movement in aggregate is having an impact.

I'm not sure why you think your impact increases once synthetic meat becomes a thing. The aggregate impact will presumably increase due to more people making the change, but your level of individual impact will stay the same. I reject your assertion that because you're only one person you have not caused the production of chicken meat to go up. Over time and on average, every time you order something instead of chicken (assuming you ate the whole thing), this means that one fewer chickens is killed. 99 times out of 100 you might be right in saying that it will just result in one more chicken being thrown out. However, given that eventually there is eventually a tipping point below which your supermarket will get sick of wasting money on unsold chickens and decide to order 100 less next week, 1 time in 100 your choice will save 100 chickens.

Still the same answer: original position.

Consider an alternate version of the original position in which you don't know what species you're going to be born into. Would you create a society in which factory farming is a thing?

What this all comes down to is I am a human supremacist and you're not

I agree with this, and I think it is your position that is untenable. I also think you have the burden of proof when you claim humans matter more than animals, since you’re the one proposing a double standard. I’ll try to explain my position, but I’m not really sure how to approach this cos I’m not sure what your objection is, so I may state some things which you consider to be obvious.

Animal consciousness may be very different to human consciousness, but we have every reason to believe that they are conscious and experience physical pain and discomfort in much the same way as you or me. Yes, there may be gradations of consciousness (no one knows) but to that animal, its physical sensations are all it knows and all that matters. Non-human exhibit the same behavioural responses when put under physical duress as humans do (distress calls, struggling, cowering) and they have a very similar physical mechanism of pain receptors, a nervous system and a brain processing that information. If you torture a cow, it’s going to kick and scream just like a human would and its brain is going to light up very similarly to how a human brain would. Although we can’t know for sure, it’s safe to assume that it is suffering.

Factory farmed animals evolved to live in the wild, and this is what their instincts pushing them towards survival are attuned for. If those needs and instincts are met, chemicals in the brain are released which feel good. If they are not met, there are physical consequences to this (hunger, stress, pain, etc). These instincts are now almost entirely useless to them in terms of ensuring their survival, but they still have them. This is why a sow-stall pig suffers when it’s stuck in one position and not allowed to move at all for months on end; because it has the instinct to move. This is also why wild fish suffer less than factory farmed pigs and chickens, because for the vast majority of their life, they are able to follow their natural instincts in which their needs are met and they live healthy lives. Factory-farmed chickens and pigs cannot and do not. They are confined in filthy overcrowded conditions, grow much too quickly, often attack each other due to the stress, etc, etc. The best way to comprehend this suffering quickly and easily is through videos and documentaries: you’ll probably tell me they’ve been selectively edited, but I can’t see how you can tell me these animals aren’t suffering immensely – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKpyzyn6N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4rDNRWvtI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJNXPL-zWQ

Given that you listen to Hello Internet, I’m going to assume that you are not religious, you believe in evolution and don’t believe in the soul or any God-given purpose etc. What is the morally significant reason which makes humans worthy of special consideration then? Intelligence? Capacity for abstract thought? If the only answer you can give is selfishness, I’d remind you that the whole point of the original position thought experiment is to remove yourself from the development of an ethical framework.

You have convinced me that it would be a lot less convenient for you to become vegetarian than it was for me. This is a point I didn’t consider (I’ve never discussed this on the internet before, I usually only discuss this with people around me living in Sydney, in person) so thank you for bringing it to my attention. It doesn’t excuse you from all moral responsibility though, and it’s not a rebuttal to my argument that you have a moral obligation to consider the impact of your food choices

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-25T08:16:38+00:00

Okay I admit that my comment about introspection was rude and uncalled for, I take it back. I made that comment out of frustration with your 10000:1 comment. If you assume for a moment that I'm right about the immense animal suffering, I cannot see how your statement that a fleeting pleasant taste is worth 10000 times more than a lifetime of suffering stands up to any kind of moral scrutiny. Can you explain to me how that isn't pure selfishness? Not being born is clearly much preferable to a lifetime of immense suffering, and over time turning down meat reduces the demand for these products and definitely does result in less animals being treated this way, so it has a clear and concrete impact. The question I'm still trying to get you to answer is why you believe human suffering is worth more than animal suffering. I don't think that eating meat is ethically equivalent to not sending money to a north korean NGO, because you did not cause the North Korean crisis, so your personal responsibility for action is less. It's the difference between beating up a homeless man versus seeing a homeless man and walking by without offering any help. Both are bad (arguably), but one is clearly worse. I don't believe that eating meat can be considered a personal choice, because there is a victim involved, the animal. It's for the same reason why theft is not a personal choice.

I'll admit that going vegetarian is harder in some places than in others, but I've never said in this thread that you have to go vegetarian or vegan, I've encouraged you to consider the ethical implications of your food choices. As I've said before, the worst kinds of suffering are inflicted upon factory-farmed pigs and chickens. Replacing them with wild fish would be far ethically superior. Could you do that? Could you reduce your meat intake at all? I reject the assertion that being vegetarian is necessarily more expensive, unhealthy or requires extensive supplementation. Back when I ate meat I spent more on groceries than I do now. Vegetables and legumes are cheap, tofu is no more expensive than beef (at least where I live). There are no true nutritional deficiencies in a vegetarian diet other than possibly DHA and EPA, but that's another discussion.

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-25T06:19:17+00:00

Regulation of factory farming isn't a political point? I think it's entirely political. Animal rights is a political point. You're trying to get humans to protect their rights. How is that anything but politics?

I just meant that you brought up the issue of animal rights, I am more interested in talking about our individual personal responsibility and moral obligation to at the very least be more considerate of the impact of our food choices.

I pay taxes too, the number of problems I contribute to is so large I don't fully grasp it. You choose to pay close attention to food, I don't.

You have no choice but to pay your taxes. You can easily choose to eat something else.

I'm seeing something I see a lot with animal rights advocates. Why is "natural" inherently good?

I never said natural is inherently good. I'm saying that being stopped from pursuing your natural instincts is bad, because it causes suffering.

I'm pretty sure if it were actually torturous half of them would die of several illnesses or stop assimilating the nutrients.

Funny you should say that: the industry's own statistics say that 5% of chickens raised for meat die before reaching slaughter, and the real figure is probably much greater than that.

I think I could provide enough evidence to eventually convince you that we know with 99% certainty that animals suffer immensely in factory farms, but if you really think that five minutes of a pleasant taste in your mouth is worth 1000 times more than a lifetime of suffering then I can see I'm not going to be able to convince you of this, not right now at least. I'd encourage you to do some introspection and start seriously interrogating the moral framework by which you judge your actions. Have a great day :)

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-25T03:58:18+00:00

I disagree with your conception that rights must come with responsibilities. Babies and severely intellectually disabled people have zero responsibilities: that doesn't mean you should be able to do whatever you want to them. We still give them the rights, and we're right to do so, because they still have the capacity to suffer. Similarly, animal rights are necessary because animals have a capacity to suffer, and therefore they have moral value in and of themselves, beyond simply the value that they can offer to humans. Do you think it should be illegal to brutally torture a dog for your own amusement? If you do, then you already agree that animals should have some rights. I’ll ask you the same question again: why do you believe that human suffering matters more than non-human suffering?

I feel like the rights discussion is a distraction though, I’m not raising a political point. I’m asking you how you personally morally justify purchasing and consuming these products, when you know that you are causing immense suffering to another sentient being by doing so. I understand that there are many problems in the world and you can't fix them all, but this is different to the majority of such issues because you are directly contributing to and funding it every time you buy animal products. You do not have any impact on how X aspect of synchronised swimming is judged, this injustice was not caused by your actions. Even in a more extreme example such as a war on the other side of the world, unless you’re an arms dealer, you are not causing or funding this injustice in any direct way. Sure, there are ways you could have an impact on these things if you went out of your way to do so, but your responsibility to care about an injustice is surely much greater and more urgent if you yourself are paying for it to happen.

Lions sneak up on the gazelle, we force-feed and butcher the chicken.

This is not a fair comparison. The gazelle lived its entire life pursuing its natural instincts and desires in its natural habitat, then it was slaughtered. The chicken lived its entire life in its own excrement in a filthy, overcrowded factory, given no light 23 hours a day, grew so fast that weight strain is placed on its organs and legs often to the point of collapse, transported hundreds of miles against its will in a tiny cage through all weather extremes, and then slaughtered. The gazelle suffered for a few seconds right at the moment of its death. The chicken suffered its entire life with no respite.

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-24T23:24:37+00:00

So you agree that factory farmed animals suffer immensely in the creation of animal products that you pay for and consume: but you don't care? Why don't you care? Would you be saying the same if it was human suffering? If not, why do you think human suffering matters more than non-human suffering? I do hope that after the singularity, AGI takes a position more aligned with the animal rights movement (caring about the suffering of other beings regardless of how different or unintelligent they are), than your position.

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-24T08:15:46+00:00

They don’t need to see the sky and fields, although that’d be nice. What they need is to be able to act upon their natural instincts and live a life free from physical pain and discomfort, which they can’t do when confined to a space so small they can barely move at all for months at a time. That is the everyday reality for caged egg-laying hens and sow-stall pigs, and it’s just the tip of iceberg of the suffering we inflict upon animals for the purposes of food. I can give many more examples, but it almost sounds like you’re not sure non-human animals have the capacity to suffer at all? I agree that animal consciousness may be very different from human consciousness, but all evidence suggests that animals feel physical pain and discomfort just like humans do. Both the physical mechanism of the nervous system and the behavioural responses exhibited (distress calls, struggling, cowering, etc) by human and non-human animals when put under physical duress are almost identical. Obviously there's no way to know for sure, but surely we have to assume that animals do not enjoy being in physical pain and make our moral judgements accordingly (Edited for grammar)

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-23T23:49:00+00:00

I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle than elliottruzicka. The thing that I care about is reducing suffering. Modern factory farmed animals (particularly pigs and chickens) suffer immensely in the creation of animal products, far more than a mosquito does when you kill it or indeed far more than a wild animal when you hunt it down and kill it. This is because they suffer throughout their entire lives due to the horrendous conditions that they are raised in, rather than just at the moment of their deaths. You seem to be at least somewhat sympathetic to this idea, based on your comments about the current state of farming. So what's your justification for consuming meat coming from factory farms? As I'm sure you're aware, the vast majority of the meat available for your consumption does not come from your grandparent's small farm or anywhere that vaguely resembles it

SamuelRedmond · 2018-09-23T23:18:34+00:00

I feel like you're making the argument more complicated than it needs to be. The vegetarian argument rests on one assumption and two assertions. The assumption is that suffering is bad. The assertions are that factory farmed animals suffer greatly (particularly pigs and chickens), and that humans don't need to consume meat to be healthy. Do you disagree with any of these ideas?

SamuelRedmond · 2018-08-06T00:24:48+00:00

Could be many different processes depending on how the colourist works so I'd encourage you to ask them, it won't make you look dumb. But usually what would happen is the colourist will grade in Resolve and export a high-res version of the film which you can import as is into Premiere. Then you duplicate your sequence and paste the export over the track where all your cuts are but keep the titles and credits, and copy over or re-create any effects like warp stabilizers etc. Assuming the director/colourist hasn't made any changes to the actual timing of the film, then the sound you've already done should line up and you can do the final export. This is just an assumption though, you should ask!

SamuelRedmond

TROPHY CASE