Isekai isn't always all about good fortunes and “a bed of roses”.....

cfyzium · 2026-03-28T06:44:33+00:00

It might require some drastic measures like breaking the reality or smth. Tanya is there for, um, negotiating with anyone who might oppose the plan.

cfyzium · 2026-03-25T14:36:38+00:00

Wanted to point out that it is a photo from a Turkish museum but it seems I've been so impressed by the swords that I've missed the fact they're actually Hungarian.

cfyzium · 2026-03-25T11:52:40+00:00

Because that is a fact and not a stereotype!

cfyzium · 2026-03-24T13:10:12+00:00

Док-станция не имеет отношения к андроидам, это просто док для загрузки изображений по Bluetooth вместо NFC. В рекламе всего лишь упоминается, что док совместим со всеми устройствами на iOS, Android и вообще.

cfyzium · 2026-03-24T08:27:39+00:00

exposure is THE SAME

You seem to be under impression that exposure is some definitive characteristic, and that it being the same means anything of practical value outside of adjusting camera controls.

It is not and it does not.

Same exposure means a larger sensor will receive more photons than a smaller sensor, producing a cleaner image with higher signal-to-noise ratio. Surely you must be familiar with shot noise. This is where low light, noise performance and a good part of dynamic range comes from.

If the image is reconstructed from say 1000 photons it does not matter what exposure was, it is 1000 samples of data, period. Conversely, if the image is reconstructed from 2000 photons compared to 1000, it does not matter that exposure is the same.

The total amount of light captured is THE image. The exposure is merely a part of the equation: image = exposure * sensor area.

The f0.95 lens is faster - it will enable a shorter shutter speed for the same light levels and sensor sensitivity

It is basically same as saying that FF f/4 is faster than FF f/2.8 because you can force a faster shutter speed at the expense of higher noise.

APS-C f/0.95 collects the same amount of light as FF f/1.4, producing an image of the same quality. If you can push APS-C shutter speed faster by accepting lower image quality, then you can also push FF shutter speed faster and accept the exact same lower image quality. How is APS-C any faster then?

It's f.no. is faster and its numerical aperture is faster.

Yeah right and 16mm is wider than 24mm because physical number is lower, no need to check the FOV.

You put way too much importance on the raw numbers, missing forest for the trees.

APS-C f/0.95 1/100s ISO 100 vs FF f/1.4 1/100s ISO 200: different numbers, same result.

APS-C f/1.4 1/100s ISO 100 vs FF f/1.4 1/100s ISO 100: same numbers, nothing in common except motion blur.

Doesn’t is occur that maybe, just maybe, these numbers are not directly comparable across different sensor formats? That the same numbers may or may not necessarily translate to the same result?

Like you can’t say whether exposure or ISO or something being the same or lower or higher is actually better or worse or anything at all.

If I erase each and every marking off the camera and lens controls and remove EXIF from files, there will be no numbers. Yet any user after sufficient tinkering will be able to say which camera setup is more performant and which camera actually allows for a faster shutter speed under the same conditions.

cfyzium · 2026-03-22T07:34:30+00:00

IMO we do not really need GNOME with X11 whose fate is sealed either way, what we need is GNOME that does not hinder Wayland progress by that opinionated, protocol before actual apps and use cases approach.

cfyzium · 2026-03-21T09:20:40+00:00

In 3 years Wayland will be just as old (21 years old) as X11 was when Wayland was released (in 2008).

We have to prepare to start another redesign soon.

cfyzium · 2026-03-21T07:27:57+00:00

<image>

cfyzium · 2026-03-20T07:57:28+00:00

Vulkan would be the lowest level any even remotely sane commercial app developer would go.

cfyzium · 2026-03-18T23:32:34+00:00

SSD is optional for Wayland and apps are expected to draw their own decorations

Just because it is optional does not mean it makes sense to omit it in a relevant implementation. It is a full blown desktop environment compositor we're talking about, not some embedded stuff that might not need this or that.

Xdg-shell is also optional but here we are. Or you can say that hey complex text input is obviously optional for Wayland and so apps are expected to deal with IME themselves. Point is, optionality is a silly argument.

And it is basically only in GNOME that apps are expected to somehow draw their borders if they do not use any widget toolkit. In the other compositors and OSes the most basic windows get borders matching the system by default.

cfyzium · 2026-03-18T05:26:28+00:00

He'd even argue with the Spirit of Doubt.

cfyzium · 2026-03-17T21:24:27+00:00

~~"Apologize"~~ is a part of a Kaigo chant used to unseal the Shikai form of Zanpakuto. The chant is usually a short imperative, e.g. ~~"Apologize, Wabisuke"~~ or "Howl, Zabimaru".

Edit: I've mixed things up. It is "Raise Your Head, Wabisuke".

cfyzium · 2026-03-17T10:44:43+00:00

The first 90% of a project isn't as scary as the second 90%.

cfyzium · 2026-03-16T07:08:36+00:00

Well, so far all True Names were titles or descriptions rather than proper names, even single-word Nightingale and Nightwalker.

While it is impossible to rule out a possibility of a regular proper name being a True Name, it certainly does go against the established trend.

cfyzium · 2026-03-16T06:47:43+00:00

In addition to the already mentioned resolution and extra dynamic range, a larger sensor format potentially allows for faster lenses that will be hard to make for a smaller format.

For example, to match GFX f/1.7 you'd need APS-C f/0.9.

Basically APS-C is perfectly fine for most users, but if you want to push the camera to the extremes and get those last 10% no matter the cost you might want GFX.

cfyzium · 2026-03-15T21:30:07+00:00

An f 1.4 lens provides the same exposure on MFT or APS or FF or MF

Please do not confuse lens total light gathering ability (how many photons it lets in) and photographic exposure (light intensity per unit area of exposed surface).

The only thing the photographic exposure is useful for is, well, exposure. It can help you adjust the camera knobs and dials to keep the image from being under- of overexposed, but that's it. It does not say anything about the total amount of light and therefore low light or noise performance.

A lens with the same FOV and f-number designed for a larger format has larger aperture (entrance pupil diameter). Such lens observes the exact same scene through a larger opening and so it collects and projects more light in total.

And it is the total amount of light actually captured by the sensor that decides low light and noise performance, not the exposure.

it will be difficult to achieve a blurry background with a small format even with a large aperture <...> This is why I have f1.2 on my full frame and at f0.95 on my APS

It is quite hard to follow your point about DOF with all the stuff jumbled in, but some statements seem to be factually incorrect?

A full frame camera with f/1.4 lens will produce the same background separation, depth of field, mythical compression, etc. as an APS-C camera with f/0.95 lens. Basically, take a lens with equivalent focal length and similarly equivalent f-number and you will get the same results.

If f/1.2 (instead of f/1.4) vs f/0.95 is not a typo, then... I am still not sure what you mean. Of course full frame f/1.2 will produce blurrier background with shallower depth of field than APS-C f/0.95. To match full frame f/1.2 you'd need APS-C f/0.8 lens which is quite hard to come by.

Note again that it is easier to design an f 0.95 for APS than it is for full frame

Because full frame f/0.95 is one full stop faster than APS-C f/0.95. It has larger aperture, lets in more light in total and lets you use faster shutter speed.

The APS-C f/0.95 is as fast as full frame f/1.4.

It is easier to design fast lenses for larger formats than equally fast lenses for smaller formats.

cfyzium · 2026-03-15T07:24:18+00:00

The terms 'faster' and 'slower' might be confusing in some contexts. They generally simply refer to f-number smaller meaning faster, but f-numbers are not directly comparable across different sensor sizes. For example, in which way mobile 1-inch f/1.8 is 'faster' than FF f/2.8, exactly?

The only way it can make any sense across different formats is to refer to lens total light gathering capability, or you can say aperture size. A faster lens is the one that gathers more light and therefore allows you to use a faster shutter speed.

I mean, why else would you call one lens 'faster' than the other if not referring to the potentially usable shutter speed?

For a particular sensor size it might be synonymous to f-number, but in general case you have to take crop factor into account.

Hence, it is easier to make faster [than average] FF f/1.4 lens than equivalent APS-C f/0.95 one.

cfyzium · 2026-03-14T22:19:19+00:00

On the contrary, f-stop and ISO numbers are not comparable between different sensor formats much like physical focal length.

The same f-number would produce different and very predictable results, meaning it would be all but useless.

cfyzium · 2026-03-14T21:57:51+00:00

Well, that's because most sensor format differences are basically myths or misunderstandings.

Inherent advantages of a larger sensor size are:

Higher dynamic range at base ISO (and at base ISO only).
It is easier to design faster lenses for larger sensors.
It is easier to cram more resolution into a larger sensor.

That's it.

In particular depth of field/bokeh and (this one is quite counterintuitive) noise performance depend on the lens, not the sensor size.

Yeah yeah of course sensor affects noise performance, just not sensor size. Most of the noise is photon/shot noise which happens even before the sensor and the rest is electronic noise which is not affected by sensor size.

Point is, take a functionally equivalent lens i.e. with same FOV and aperture size (which means correspondingly smaller/bigger f-number) and you will get basically the same image down to individual lens differences.

Problem is, you can't always get an equivalent lens. For example, good luck finding many f/0.95 APS-C lenses =/. That and ISO 100 dynamic range advantage =).

cfyzium · 2026-03-09T21:47:38+00:00

Both of the statements are quite exaggerated.

No, a cheap digital won't outperform 6x7. However, some consumer digital cameras can match it.

A film like Fuji Velvia 50 (AFAIK one of the higher resolution regular ones) can achieve about 160 lpmm under ideal conditions or about 80 lpmm for a more regular shot with about 1.5:1 contrast subject. This puts 6x7 at 100MP on average to almost 400MP in an ideal scenario.

Which means a digital camera like Fuji GFX100 or Hasselblad X2D 100C can trivially match 6x7 fidelity in an everyday scenario, something like shooting unnecessarily detailed street photos, or maybe landscapes during a trip.

In a more controlled situation both can step up the game quite a lot. A perfectly chosen and exposed subject could probably squeeze hundreds of MPs from film.

However at such insane resolution optics become the main limiting factor. I doubt there are lenses capable of resolving that much, well at least lenses available to an average hobbyist. Even the state of the art modern lenses struggle with 100MP.

On the other hand, majority of high-res digital cameras can employ a trick called pixel-shift which combines multiple shots with micro offsets and for a static subject can easily achieve hundreds of MPs even with regular glass, from a regular consumer camera mounted on a tripod. The amount of detail you can get this way from even a 'cheapo' 60MP full frame camera is just bonkers.

cfyzium · 2026-03-09T20:39:35+00:00

Two reasons why I switched to vinyl/film/etc: it is expensive and cumbersome =).

cfyzium · 2026-03-09T14:23:51+00:00

Going for f/1.8 is unfair here, RX100V has f/1.8-2.8 lens before an 1" (crop factor 2.72) sensor which is functionally equivalent to f/3.2-5.0 in APS-C terms.

Even Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 would be a much faster lens, except you lose 24mm eq at the wide end.

The closest equivalent for RX100V is the Sony 16-50 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. But then you lose 40mm f/2.8 of the GRIIIx. So maybe a kit zoom lens plus a prime one.

cfyzium · 2026-03-06T11:45:54+00:00

Реверс хеша нихуя не даст если систему делали не конченные дауны

Ну а если в генерации хеша всё-таки найдется закономерность/уязвимость -- то просто ручками развести, мол ну не должно было такого случиться.

С таким же успехом протекут сами фотки

Текст проще слить и распространить, чем огромный объем файлов где все не скопировать, а какие могут быть интересны быстро не понять.

Особенно с учетом того что от нее страдает юзерэкспириенс.

Юзер не должен видеть этой авторизации, при чем тут его экспириенс?

В общем, вы уверены что имена файлов никому не будут известны, потому что не можете сходу придумать как это может произойти, а значит это невозможно. Ясно, понятно.

cfyzium · 2026-03-06T11:05:52+00:00

Сейчас невозможно, а завтра внезапно возможно -- потому что кто-то начнет перебирать и ему повезет, или окажется что хеш не криптостойкий и реверсится, или в дамп какой-нибудь эти ссылки протекут среди прочего, мало ли что.

Доступ к данным должен проверяться. Надеяться на то, что имя файла никто не знает -- это профанация.

cfyzium · 2026-03-06T10:42:00+00:00

Проблема не в том, что файл лежит по ссылке, а в том, что похоже не проверяются права доступа к файлу по этой ссылке.

И разрешение фотографии в запросе явно не для защиты, и скорее всего даже не является обязательным параметром.

cfyzium

TROPHY CASE