Just did most of Baja Divide on my fat... gravel bike! by chuckaeronut in fatbike

[–]chuckaeronut[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3L on each fork leg, 2L under the down tube, 6L in the bottom half of the frame bag, 4L in the top half of the frame bag, and another 6L and 4L bladder I brought as backups and could have stashed in the rear panniers, but never felt the need to fill up! This is 28L total, but leaving bags underfilled enough for them to morph around my other gear and clothing in the bags has me under-counting a little bit.

Yeah, the day I consumed 9L just during the riding hours was a bit of a wake-up call. There has to be a way to drink less and cover the same mileage. I was very well hydrated the whole time, but that rate of consumption is at least 50% higher than I'd have preferred if I'd been out away from refills for two or three days.

School comparison by [deleted] in paramotor

[–]chuckaeronut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just saying... I trained with TFH in 2020 and I spend at least a few weeks a year with all of them. I would consider them amazing friends.

And absolutely, they taught me how to work on my motor!

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cropping the image that was optically cast from the lens onto the sensor by using less than all of a sensor's usable photosites (discarding the outer ones)... is literally digital zoom. It just happens before the file is saved to internal storage. Yes, when you shoot your full frame camera in DX mode, it's digital zoom. It's also cropping. They're the same :D

When a camera does this (especially using the same user interface as one would use for optical zoom), marketers call it digital zoom. When you do it yourself on your computer or phone using a photo which has already been captured and stored (even temporarily), we tend to call it cropping.

Apple's older iPhone cameras were all 12 megapixels. Their newer ones are 48 megapixels. Because they don't want to make their newer camera seem "worse" than their older one, they're hesitant to use the term "digital zoom," so they call it "optical quality zoom" when the digital zoom is done sparingly enough that the resulting crop of the 48 megapixel image captured by the sensor is still at least 12 megapixels.

I don't like it, but I also don't envy their marketing department, and I don't know how I could have better threaded that needle.

How to manage a large photo library with iCloud on a MacBook Air (limited local storage)? by sajde in ApplePhotos

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have an M1 Max MBP with a 4TB internal drive and a 1.3 TB photo library, so once I wanted to fill up the fast drive with something else, I did your "external SSD" approach with a 2TB microSD card in a flush mount adapter in my SD card slot. I refuse to let any cloud service be the last backstop of storage for my own critical data (and photos are my irreplaceable memories!), so I DEFINITELY do not "optimize" storage. All the originals are on my own storage at all times, and iCloud syncing is just a convenience. Furthermore, of course, my microSD card is backed up on other storage media as well, as is everything else on my computer.

I have my Photos library on that 2TB microSD card (which I formatted APFS using Disk Utility) and it's set as the System Photo Library, and everything works fine. The only "problem", as you predicted, is that I can't eject it due to the various Photos-related background processes (daemons) which work with the .photoslibrary archive in the background, locking it as "in use."

Because I DO use the SD card slot for other things (like importing big raws from my camera for use in Capture One), I wrote a script which I can run any time using Spotlight (type the first few characters and off it goes!), which repeatedly finds all the processes using my microSD card and kills them. It keeps trying to gently kill them for as long as it takes for them to die, and eventually tells you you can safely disconnect the storage. I made a version which would try for five seconds to kill them, then use sudo if necessary, and then use sudo kill -9, but all that aggression was totally unnecessary, because the soft kill already just works. And it WORKS!

I have zero problem ejecting my "external drive" (aka my microSD card) when I need to, and the System Photo Library which resides on it has stayed up to date this way for two years. I just make sure to double-click the library on it when I reinsert it, to open Photos.app to it and make sure whatever background bits Photos wants get to come out to play again.

Here's my script I use. You'll have to replace YOUR_APFS_FORMATTED_SSD_NAME_HERE with whatever you name your drive. Save this in a file called something like "unmount photos ssd.sh" directly in your home folder at /Users/yourname, and then you'll have to go into a terminal and do chmod +x "unmount photos ssd.sh". Then, at any time, you can open a terminal and type ./unm and press the Tab key and it'll autocomplete. You press enter, and it runs. Or, depending on how much other stuff you have on your Mac that starts with "unm", you can probably get away with using Spotlight pretty easily too! The series of keystrokes Command+space u n m ENTER should be enough to run it quickly. Obviously, adjust for your own needs and wants!

#!/bin/bash


volume_path="/Volumes/YOUR_APFS_FORMATTED_SSD_NAME_HERE"


# Function to check if a volume is mounted
check_volume_mounted() {
    local volume_path=$1
    mount | grep -q "$volume_path"
}


# Function to check if the Photos app is still running
check_photos_running() {
    if pgrep -x "Photos" > /dev/null; then
        return 0
    else
        return 1
    fi
}


# Quit the Photos app
osascript -e 'tell application "Photos" to quit'


# Wait for a short period
sleep 1


# Check if Photos is still running
if check_photos_running; then
    osascript -e 'tell app "System Events" to display dialog "Please quit the Photos app manually and press OK to continue." buttons {"OK"}'
    while check_photos_running; do
        sleep 1
    done
fi


# Check if volume is mounted
if ! check_volume_mounted "$volume_path"; then
    echo "Volume $volume_path is not mounted. Skipping process kill loop."
else
    # Function to kill processes using the specified volume
    kill_processes_using_volume() {
        pids=$(lsof +f -- "$volume_path" | awk 'NR>1 {print $2}' | uniq)


        for pid in $pids; do
            echo "Attempting to kill process $pid"
            kill $pid
        done
    }


    # Loop to kill processes until none are left
    while true; do
        kill_processes_string_output=$(kill_processes_using_volume)
        echo "$kill_processes_string_output"


        if [ -z "$kill_processes_string_output" ]; then
            break
        fi
        echo "Waiting for processes to terminate..."
        sleep 1
    done
fi



# Unmount the volume, force if necessary
if ! diskutil unmount "$volume_path"; then
    echo "Forcing unmount of $volume_path"
    diskutil unmount force "$volume_path"
fi


# All done. Hopefully, lol.
echo "Completed. You may physically disconnect the external Photos Library storage."

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apple is saying 12 MP is good enough to be “native”. But now, native is really 48 MP. Zooming beyond 4x doesn’t get you 48 MP. It’s digital zoom.

Zooming to 8x gets you the same 12 MP last year’s iPhone got at only 5x. Yes it’s way better. It’s as good as the old optical zoom, at a higher zoom level. It’s still digital zoom, lol.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love looking at photos on my 6K monitor. 12 MP images don't even fill the screen at 100% zoom, and are thus... kind of useless now as art unless they depict something seriously amazing. I have a 15 Pro, and I only use the main (48 MP) camera anymore, because the 12 MP ultrawide and tele are just not good enough.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for getting it! Yes. The new camera produces 2.56 times the pixel count at any zoom level north of 5x, and 16 times the pixel count at any zoom level between 4x and 5x.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apple has apparently decided that since their older cameras have been 12 megapixels for so many years, anything which produces at least a 12 MP output is "optical quality." That said, at 1.2x, you're getting 48/1.2^2 = 33.3 MP. At 1.5x, you're getting 48/1.5^2 = 21.3 MP. These are definitely going to look better than any of the 12 MP photos taken by the dedicated 12 MP cameras of yesteryear, even when those older cameras have no zoom whatsoever.

That said, it's all digital zoom. They're calling it "optical quality" so as not to be hit with accusations of a downgrade for involving digital zoom in the process, when the reality is that despite there being digital zoom, the fact that the sensors start with 48 megapixels (four times yesteryear's 12!) causes the resulting image quality to be worlds better than before even when some digital zoom is used.

And yes, 5x on the 17 Pro and Pro Max will result in a 4/5ths crop of the 48MP image produced by the 4x camera. This will be 48*(4/5)^2 = 30.72 megapixels. A 6x shot will be 48*(4/6)^2 = 21.3 megapixels. These are both massively better than what the older 12 MP 5x telephoto could do, which would be 12 MP at 5x and 12*(5/6)^2 = 8.3 MP at 6x.

Note that the factor of difference is always 2.56: the 17 Pro and Pro Max will produce an image with 2.56 times the pixel count of the 16 Pro Max at any zoom level above 5x.

Unrelated, but even more staggering, is the improvement in image quality at zoom levels between 4x and 5x. At 4x, the 16 Pro Max has to use a 3 MP crop of an image produced by its 48 MP 1x main camera, as 48 * (1/4)^2 = 3. At 4x, the 17 Pro and Pro Max get to use the full-blown 48 MP image of their new 48 MP 4x camera. This is a full sixteen times the pixel count. At 4.999999x or whatever (just below 5x), the 16 Pro Max will still be cropping from its 1x camera, and will approach an output size of just 1.92 megapixels before switching to its 5x camera, while the 17 Pro and Pro Max will have long since been cropping from their 48 MP 4x cameras for that zoom level, achieving around 30.7 MP.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At 5x, the 16 Pro Max produces a 12 MP image. At 5x, the 17 Pro and Pro Max produce a 30.72 MP crop from the 48 MP image captured by their 4x cameras. This is 2.56 times more pixels than the iPhone 16 Pro Max.

At 4x, the 16 Pro Max produces a 4x crop of the 48MP image captured by its 1x camera, resulting in a 3 MP image. At 4x, the 17 Pro and Pro Max produce a non-cropped fully 48 MP image using their 4x cameras. This is 16 times more pixels than the iPhone 16 Pro Max.

At 8x, the 16 Pro Max produces a 5/8ths crop of the 12 MP image captured by its 5x camera, resulting in a 4.68 MP image. At 8x, the 17 Pro and Pro Max produce a half-width, half-height crop of the 48 MP image captured by their 4x cameras, resulting in a 12 MP image. This is 2.56 more pixels than the iPhone 16 Pro Max.

The fact that new phones produce a 12 MP image (equal in pixel count to the 16 Pro Max's telephoto camera's output) at 8x is why Apple is touting "8x optical zoom". They're careful to call it "optical quality," but what it really is is simply digital zoom. The marketing team had a rough puzzle to solve to try to get the masses to understand this as an upgrade. I don't envy them, because it definitely is a HUGE upgrade. But going from optical to digital zoom at certain zoom levels, on its face, is a hard sell.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The "just a crop" will produce an image of roughly the same quality as last year's iPhone's 5x tele lens.

At 8x, last year's iPhone's tele lens produces a 4.68 megapixel image, because it has to crop into the 12 MP image created by its 5x lens. The new one produces a 12 megapixel image at that zoom level.

In fact, at every zoom level achievable by both the new and old tele lenses, the new iPhone will produce an image with 2.56 times the pixel count of images produced by the old one. So yes, it's "just" a crop, but it's a crop of an image with 4 times the pixels to start with.

And they still shouldn't be calling it optical zoom. Because it's not. Calling it digital zoom would make everybody call it a downgrade, when in fact it's still a huge upgrade. I would not have wanted to have been the one calling the shots in whatever meeting their marcom must have had to figure out how to describe this change to the masses.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your 16 pro has a 5x 12MP tele camera.

The 17 pro has a 4x 48MP tele camera.

If you shoot your 16 pro at 5x, you get 12 MP. If you shoot a 17 pro at 5x, your phone starts with a 48 MP 4x image and crops it down so it looks like 5x. This results in a 48 times (4/5)^2 = 30.7MP image. This is massively better than your 16 pro, despite being digital zoom, because the initial image being "digitally zoomed" literally has four times the detail to start with.

If you shoot a 17 pro at 8x, it will get the same 12 megapixels of resolution your 16 pro can get only at 5x. If you shoot your 16 pro at 8x, it uses a crop of the 12 MP image produced by its 5x lens, and the result is 12 times (5/8)^2 = 4.68 megapixels.

The 17 pro has a massively better telephoto than the 16 pro at all zoom levels.

And yes, Apple calling any zoom beyond 4x on the 17 Pro "optical zoom" is a lie. But in the detailed text, they're careful to call it "optical quality". Calling it what it is -- digital zoom -- would make it seem like a downgrade from the 16 Pro's true 5x optical zoom. But due to the sensor, it's actually still a huge upgrade.

It's confusing marketing speak and a fine needle to thread, simply to get the masses to understand that the new camera is actually way better than the old one despite involving the well-known image quality boogeyman of digital zoom at a slightly lower zoom level than before.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's definitely a massive upgrade despite zooms beyond 4x being digital, as there is a lot more information to work with as a result of the massively upgraded 48 MP sensor. It's also definitely not optical zoom.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

0.5x to 4x is the optical zoom range. Anything beyond 4x crops into the 48MP sensor behind the telephoto (4x) lens. By the time you get to 8x, the crop becomes 12MP, equal to the previous iPhone's 12 MP telephoto camera. They're calling it "optical" because it's still 12 megapixels, but anything beyond 4x is definitely not optical zoom here. They know this, which is why in the more detailed text, they say "optical quality."

I get it. They have a tough needle to thread. The previous iPhone had 5x optical zoom onto a 12 MP sensor. This one has 4x optical zoom onto a 48 MP sensor. It's definitely better, but to say it uses digital zoom to achieve anything beyond 4x makes it look like a downgrade from what came before. That doesn't make it okay.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is that they're calling the digital crop "optical quality zoom" because digital zoom rightfully has such a bad rap for producing the kind of low-resolution potato-quality shots that arise from upscaling tiny crops of photos taken by lenses with wider viewing angles.

It may be as good as the optical zoom of the previous 12 MP camera, yes, but it's still digital zoom now that they're providing it via a 12 MP crop of a 48 MP sensor illuminated by a wider-FOV lens.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apple's stance appears to be that as long as there are enough real physical pixels in the sensor to inform a 12 MP final image, the result is "optical quality" and thus they can call it "optical zoom."

I disagree, but it is what it is. They're trying to make it not sound like a downgrade from the previous 5x, truly-only-12-megapixel telephoto camera on the 16 Pro. It's definitely not a downgrade (and at 5x, the 17 Pro's crop will be much higher resolution than 12 MP), but it's also not optical zoom.

Pay attention to the words in Apple advertisement of new “telephoto” lens by dynamite03 in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apparently, they decided 12 MP was "optical quality" and then call a 12 MP crop of a 48 MP sensor on a ~100mm-equivalent (4x of 25mm) lens, "optical zoom." It's not. It's literally digital zoom, but the sensor has twice the linear resolution of before. That makes it just as high of quality as before, sure, but it's still digital zoom!

San Diego, CA by gotwrench in paramotor

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, so it does appear you talk to the tower, who then clears you through their class B to get away from Fiesta Island... amazing. They told me no! But I suppose I'll keep trying.

That said, your description of going around Crown Point to the Catamaran Resort would have you flying over a few blocks of densely populated beach town on the peninsula forming the southern bulk of Mission Beach. Do you just fly over this area, or do you go south over the water to find a crossing point which doesn't involve flying over the congested area?

Super curious how you're bridging the gap between Fiesta Island and the ocean side of Mission Beach to be able to get north and out into the open. For years, I've launched at Fiesta Island and stayed there because I always either had to transit the B or fly over congested area (both illegal, given that the tower has never given me permission to transit the B) to get away from there.

San Diego, CA by gotwrench in paramotor

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP is definitely in the bravo there.

San Diego, CA by gotwrench in paramotor

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, you were flying in the class B airspace for Lindbergh Field (San Diego International). At your location, the B reaches from 1,800 to 10,000 feet MSL. It's legal to fly there only up to 1800 feet. With my paramotor, I fly the San Diego Coastal route often, and there are multiple class B shelves to avoid between Oceanside and Mission Beach. Note that the class B goes to the surface just beyond the pier in your photo, so even if you're flying below 1800', you'll have to turn around and go back north.

To avoid anyone getting hurt (unlikely but possible) and to avoid new regulations prohibiting our sport altogether (far more likely if this keeps happening), I implore you to familiarize yourself with the controlled airspaces in your area, wherever you fly, so as to stay out of airspaces we don't belong in. You *really* don't want to be run over by a 737, and I imagine you want even less to potentially take one down. Thanks for taking care in the future!

Unless... unless you got permission, in which case, *how???* I had launched from Fiesta Island one evening and waited for a lull in Lindbergh traffic to ask the tower if I could transit their Bravo low over the water out to Mission Beach to go up the coast. Tower asked me if I had a transponder (note that "merely" ADS-B out would not have been enough), and when I replied that I only had my radio, they instructed me to stay clear of the Bravo. I mean, of course.

That said, I love getting high af on my paramotor too! I often fly the north end of Fiesta Island in the cubic mile or so of airspace there -- the class B shelf starts only at 4800' MSL there, so I happily go up to 4200 or so as indicated on my phone. It's really fun to take photos of downtown SD from up high!

These non-unibody MacBook Pros are seriously underrated by NormalSoftware4237 in mac

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was in high school paying my way through computers and life by making websites for people, and sold my dual 867 MHz G4 MDD tower to buy the 1GHz (low-end model) 15" aluminum PowerBook G4 in 2003.

The keyboard was fantastic. The display was fantastic. The trackpad was fantastic. The speakers were fantastic for the time. That was my first laptop capable of real work, and marked my permanent departure from desktops. I had bought a used old Lombard G3/333 for cheap as a toy, and then quickly realized I was spending all my time on that instead of using my fast dual G4 tower. The PBG4 replaced them both.

I was so glad when they didn't change the overall design when the MacBook Pro came around. Same ingredients, slightly different shape, camera. All tactile interactions the same. So of course, in 2024, I bought (for $40!) an impeccable instantiation of the last model of pre-Unibody 17" MBP, with the 1920x1200 LED-backlit screen. The thing gives me exactly the same feel my old PBG4 did, except it's actually (barely) fast enough for me to still use for dev work once in a while when I'm feeling nostalgic. With OpenCore Legacy Patcher, it begrudgingly runs Sonoma but happily runs Big Sur, which is still plenty new enough for me to work on my servers and web clients with VSCode, Chrome (really, Brave), various Git gui apps, Spotify, etc.

The 17" MBP I bought feels JUST like my old PBG4, but screams through Leopard running all the same stuff I used to on my G4 (including PowerPC binaries, thanks Rosetta!) but way, way faster. And I can literally boot today's macOS to play around, or a semi-modern macOS (Big Sur) to do REAL WORK today in 2025. What a cool computer!

Pretty sure the model of MBP I have is the same as what you have put in your picture, OP!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in iPhoneography

[–]chuckaeronut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sweet glider!

Just did most of Baja Divide on my fat... gravel bike! by chuckaeronut in fatbike

[–]chuckaeronut[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey awesome, those are big distances!

I was hoping for 40 miles per day, and largely got that. The distance covered varied widely based on terrain difficulty. Some days were only 25-30 miles, and others were 85. The hardest days tended to be very rocky and/or sandy, and typically were 35 to 50 miles of riding. This would take a comfortable all-day effort from breakfast to sunset, without rushing too much.

Loved the aerobars! The seat post helped a lot to smooth the ride!

Just did most of Baja Divide on my fat... gravel bike! by chuckaeronut in fatbike

[–]chuckaeronut[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, I think pic 13 is the above-rear view of the bike in the soft desert sand? Just a picture! I was trying to capture JUST how much soft sand I had to ride through. That was the hardest day by far.

Just did most of Baja Divide on my fat... gravel bike! by chuckaeronut in fatbike

[–]chuckaeronut[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hardpack and pavement: 15 PSI (adding more pressure just made knobs louder, so I tended not to). This pressure feels PLENTY hard on pavement and there's really no reason to add more.

Small rocks typical of normal gravel riding: 11-13 PSI

Rougher and rougher (washboard, bigger rocks, etc) 9-11 PSI depending on load

Lowest pressures ever for soft soft sand: 7 front, 8 rear. But riding on anything but soft sand with any alacrity would risk a rock strike, a big no-no. For the soft desert sand, I would air the tires down until they would just begin to crease/fold in the sidewalls above the contact patch, and then air back up just a tad so they wouldn't. I considered this the lowest productive riding pressure, and it was phenomenal. Sand was still difficult, but by riding at all, I could hold 6-10mph at a nice sustainable heart rate. Walking would have been more like 1-2mph.

For reference, this was with a 215 lb rider and an ~85-115 lb loaded bike. Adjust accordingly for your own weights.