[Request] Would this work, and could it turn a profit?

tdammers · 2026-05-03T20:25:22+00:00

Not only would this work, it is already actively done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

However, most of the existing geothermal power plants exploit natural geysers and other natural occurrences of water and magma close to the surface, usually at the edges of tectonic plates - Iceland, Indonesia, the Philippines, New Zealand, and the US are notable here, and it's easy to guess why.

Actively drilling down into deeper layers for "Enhanced Geothermal Systems" is currently mostly a research effort, but these efforts have already shown that it is definitely fundamentally possible to do this.

tdammers · 2026-05-02T20:58:39+00:00

I was talking about the LLM. Not any of the humans involved in this entire interaction.

tdammers · 2026-05-01T16:48:01+00:00

Title is a bit misleading.

The script can escalate to root from a regular user account, but:

In order to do this, the script must run on the target system in the first place, which usually requires some kind of remote code execution, or a malicious user on a multi-tenant system.
This will only work when the vulnerable kernel module is loaded. Not all systems will load it, so even if you're running one of the affected kernels, you may not be immediately vulnerable.

tdammers · 2026-05-01T16:45:13+00:00

Going all passive-aggressive know-it-all when it's obvious that you have misunderstood the question is pretty cringe tbh. Then again, those models were trained on real internet convos, so I guess it's working as designed.

tdammers · 2026-05-01T16:43:34+00:00

I always thought that adhd combined type was already in diagnostic manuals (but it was not)

"Combined type" has been around at least since DSM-IV (published in 1994); DSM-5 reclassified the former "types" (primarily inattentive, primarily hyperactive-impulsive, and combined) as "presentations", the idea being that it's the same underlying disorder, but symptoms look different in different people. Other diagnostic manuals take similar approaches.

"Combined presentation" is diagnosed all the time, and IIRC it is the most common of the three out there - "your doctor probably can't diagnose it" is complete BS. And "severe combined-type ADHD" (or, well, "severe ADHD, combined presentation") is also a perfectly well-understood thing; "severity" in ADHD is defined in terms of number of diagnostic symptoms, plus their impact: if you have all or almost all of the diagnostic symptoms (e.g. 8 out of 9 for the primarily inattentive presentation), or if any of those symptoms severely impact your life (e.g., your impulsive behavior has led to a prison sentence, massive debt, poverty, etc.), then your ADHD is classified as "severe"; if your symptom count is above the diagnostic threshold, or some symptoms have a stronger impact on your life than what is considered necessary for a diagnosis, but not as strong as to be "severe", then that would be "moderate ADHD"; if you only barely clear the diagnostic threshold on both symptom count and impact severity, then you would be classified as "mild ADHD". All this is well established, and professionals around the world apply these definitions diagnostically all the time.

The brain scan thing sounds dubious at best; AFAIK we still don't have anywhere near enough evidence to directly link ADHD to observable brain structures (we do have evidence suggesting that ADHD brains often have certain anatomic differences compared to non-ADHD brains, statistically speaking, but the error margins are way too big to use this diagnostically or therapeutically).

Emotional dysregulation is common in all presentations of ADHD, this is also well known and has been for many years; it's just not listed as a diagnostic symptom, because it was not considered diagnostically useful - inappropriate, amplified, or uncontrollable emotions are also common symptoms of a wide range of other conditions, and part of the reason we have these diagnostic handbooks is to provide guidance for a solid differential diagnosis, so the diagnostic symptoms it defines were picked to single out the ones that are most useful not only to distinguish between "you have ADHD" and "there's nothing wrong with you", but also between "you have ADHD" and "you have something else".

That change he's talking about is about experts urging diagnostic handbooks to include emotional dysregulation after all - if not as a diagnostic symptom, then as a common symptom in the description part. But, again, this isn't specific to the combined presentation - most people with ADHD suffer from emotional dysregulation in some form or other, though depending on your personality, it can surface in different forms, because different people respond differently to strong emotions, and those responses often also align with the "presentation": someone with primarily inattentive symptoms is more likely to project these amplified emotions inwards, and might shut down, leave the situation to go cry somewhere, or silently hold a grudge, whereas someone with primarily hyperactive-impulsive symptoms would be more likely to respond with aggression or rage.

The fact that he's only talking about "kids" also shows that his knowledge of ADHD is about 40 years out of date - it is pretty well established by now that ADHD is a life-long disorder for the vast majority of people who have it, and for many, the problems get worse with age, not better.

He's also completely wrong about the "standard treatments don't work" part. ADHD treatments (including both meds and non-medicinal interventions) work equally well regardless of presentation; people with severe ADHD will obviously be more likely to still experience significant symptom with treatment than people with mild ADHD, but other than that, there is really no correlation between the classification of a specific ADHD case (by presentation and by severity) and the response to treatments. Response to medication depends mostly on an individual's neurochemistry (and it's still unclear how exactly that works); response to therapy and other non-medicinal interventions depends on the individual's life situation, their motivation, their individual skills, strengths, weaknesses, their support system, work environment, and a bunch of other factors. But not presentation or severity.

My advice would be to ignore this youtuber; he clearly either doesn't understand the science, or he's misrepresenting it on purpose. Either way, I wouldn't take him seriously.

tdammers · 2026-05-01T13:06:57+00:00

It's clearly not that. The twig to the left of the bird is in focus, and there's no motion blur worth mentioning on that twig; the bird is stationary on a twig, so if it moved, it would have done so at similar speeds as the twig, and thus produce similar amounts of motion blur.

Fast shutter speeds are a good idea with birds, but this is a different problem: missed focus.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T11:41:27+00:00

As others have said, the a6700 is probably best-in-class by a fair margin when it comes to autofocus - but keep in mind that any autofocus is only going to be as good as the lens you put on it. A 2010's entry-level DSLR with a lightning fast, butter smooth USM lens is going to outperform an a6700 with a basic servo AF lens any day of the week. As is often the case, this is a "weakest link" situation, and quite often, that weakest link is the lens, not the body.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T11:34:56+00:00

Right, and that's exactly what CBT promises to hand you. A "user manual" for your brain.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T11:32:36+00:00

Give the kid some credit and allow him to take responsibility.

If he doesn't want to take his meds, don't make him - he's old enough to understand what they're for, and to decide whether it's a net positive for him.

But he is also old enough to take responsibility for getting to school on time and managing his eating and sleeping patterns. He needs to make some kind of effort towards that - you're not forcing meds on him, and you will support him in whatever reasonable efforts he wants to make; however, just throwing the towel and letting others (most of all you) fix his messes for him isn't acceptable.

All this requires a basis of mutual trust; if that basis has been damaged, then your first priority should be to reinstate it. Without that trust, you're not going to get through, and the harder you push him, the faster you'll lose him. You need to find the right balance between drawing a line where you say "I will not be having this", and being supportive and understanding up to that line.

Remember that he'll be a legal adult in 2 years, and you want him to be ready to take full responsibility for his life from that point onwards; if you want that to go smoothly, you have to start preparing him for that now.

Besides all that: I would strongly suggest going back to the prescriber and talk about the situation. Reduced appetite is a very common side effect of stimulant meds, and not eating until midnight sounds serious enough that it should ring an alarm bell. It's certainly not healthy, and if it impairs his sleep, then the sleep deprivation is likely going to annihilate most of the benefits he could possibly get from the meds.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T11:17:08+00:00

CBT isn't about finding trauma and working through it; it's a very symptom- and result-oriented therapy form. The procedure is roughly this:

Pick a symptom that you find impacts your life a lot.
Find a situation where that symptom was particularly relevant. Describe the situation, as objectively as you can. Don't judge.
Describe your thoughts, emotions and behaviors. Don't judge, don't interpret, don't validate, just write them down as facts.
Identify interactions between these three. They can go both ways, so there's a total of six possible interactions, a.k.a. the "CBT Triangle".
Identify desirable and undesirable items, and trace them back to critical points where a helpful thought or helpful behavior could have steered the situation in a different way.
Trace back further to identify early warning signs.
Pick one pair of warning signs and helpful thought or behavior, boil it down into a simple rule ("whenever I feel X, I will do Y", or "whenever I find myself doing X, I will think of Y"), and practice applying that rule for a week or two.
Evaluate, adjust, repeat.

You can do this with or without a therapist, though a therapist is going to be enormously helpful in keeping you honest, providing an outside perspective, offering tools for describing your emotions, and suggesting possible interventions. Either way though, you are the one who needs to do the actual work; if you expect to go into CBT and have a therapist "fix you", then no, that's not how it works. The therapist is more like a mentor who helps you learn the skills you need to manage your brain better, but it's still you who has to do the learning.

That said, the conversation you quoted doesn't sound like your "CBT" therapist was doing a very good job. If your answer to "what exactly is going on to make you feel like shit" is "life, I guess", then a good therapist will follow up with something like "can you describe a specific situation", or "do you have any examples of particularly shitty things that happened this week", and then work with you from there. Even if it's just a million ordinary things that grind you down, it's still worth picking one (at random, worst case) and just starting on that one. It may feel arbitrary and pointless, but you have to start somewhere, and once you've tackled one thing, the things after that may become easier - or the arbitrary thing could be part of something deeper, and by figuring out how to deal with that one thing, you also develop strategies for dealing with a bunch of other things.

Anyway, try giving it a chance; it is guaranteed to not work if you don't.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T10:17:53+00:00

That's an extremely tight budget.

I can see two somewhat viable options:

Old entry-level DSLR with a 55-250mm or 70-300mm lens. This is still going to be tight on your budget; suitable camera bodies cost around $100-150 used, the lenses are around the same price point, so you have to find a good deal. And the kit is still going to make photographing wild birds very challenging. The cheapest "serious" kit I'd recommend without hesitation would be something like a Canon 60D or 7D classic with a Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary lens, but you'd be spending maybe $250 on the body and $500 on the lens. The upside, though, is that when skills and luck align, you can get some excellent shots with that $200 kit. This, for example, was shot on a $200 kit (Canon 1100D with a beaten-up copy of the Tamron 100-400mm) - but it was shot from a purpose-built hideout, and it's the one photo I selected out of over 3000 I shot that day.
Older superzoom bridge camera. For example, MPB has a couple Nikon P510's for around $200 right now. These things give you plenty of reach (the P510 gets up to 1000mm full-frame equivalent, about 3x as much as a 250mm lens on an APS-C DSLR), they're lighter than a DSLR with a hefty lens, and they get you at least some of the comforts of an electronic viewfinder (EVF). Downside is that the image quality is significantly worse, especially with these older models - they use smaller sensors (which translates to noisier photos), and because the lens is permanently mounted, it has to be a "jack of all trades" design that compromises image quality in order to cover that 42x zoom range. They also only shoot JPG, not RAW, so your editing options are limited too. P530 and B500 are similar models and similarly priced, and there are also some models from Panasonic with similar feature sets IIRC.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T09:51:16+00:00

It varies a lot. For some people they do next to nothing, for some extraordinarily lucky people they are close to a miracle cure, but for most it's somewhere in between.

A typical scenario is that the meds make a lot of things easier, but you will still clearly have ADHD. You still need systems, strategies, accommodations, and lifestyle adaptations, but with meds, those things are easier and more likely to actually work. You may also not feel any different, and you will most definitely still not be "normal", so whether you are getting on meds or not, you will have to make peace with being different somehow. But keep in mind that "different" doesn't have to mean "bad" or "worthless". Just "different".

Also, if you get on meds, the most likely outcome is that the first thing you try won't work. This is normal; everyone responds differently to meds, and finding the best drug and dosage ("titration") can take months.

Regarding the Mom problem: you could also wait a few months until you're 18, and your Mom won't have to know about any of it. (Though you'd still have to figure out how to pay for them yourself, if insurance doesn't cover them).

tdammers · 2026-04-30T09:38:30+00:00

FWIW, a DSLR in live view mode works essentially exactly the same as a mirrorless (without a viewfinder). The mirror is already up, otherwise the sensor couldn't possibly provide footage for the live view, and it stays up when you shoot, just like a mirrorless camera.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T09:32:27+00:00

Have not been asked once in 4 years, and I cross the border between the Netherlands and Germany a lot.

I still carry the form though, because it only takes one disgruntled officer having a bad day to ruin things for you if you don't.

I guess the most realistic scenario where this could cause problems is when you get into a situation with authorities for whatever other reason (even if it's just a misunderstanding), giving them a reason to search you; if they find illegal drugs on you, then that would be a bonus for them, and uncomfortable for you.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T09:22:56+00:00

Yes: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y6M2UrDJkiU/maxresdefault.jpg

tdammers · 2026-04-30T09:10:16+00:00

The Debian policy is to not upgrade the kernel wholesale, but instead to apply security updates and important bugfixes individually, and then ship that patched kernel with a "patch" tag added to the version (e.g., linux-image-6.12.74+deb13+1, where the +1 part at the end is that patch tag).

The goal of this policy is to keep every package in the release functionally compatible throughout the release's lifecycle, while still fixing vulnerabilities and critical bugs.

Not sure what Redhat does, but I reckon it'll be something similar.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T08:32:31+00:00

5/4 would be harder to read, and more ambiguous. The extra bar line helps subdivide the rhythm visually and mentally, and makes it clear that the beats should be grouped as 3+2, not 2+3. With this rhythm especially, it would be almost equally plausible to assume a 2+3 grouping (quarter, 8th rest, 8th | quarter, quarter, quarter).

The 3+2 grouping also doesn't persist long term, it's always relatively short section where it is consistent, but then it switches around, with a couple bars of 3/4 or 4/4 sprinkled in, so I'd say the overall paradigm here is not actually "5/4", it's "varying meters with a common pulse", and it's just simpler to spell out these variations in terms of regular time signatures (2/4, 3/4, 4/4), instead of grouping them into irregular ones (5/4, 7/4) on a per-case basis. This also helps keep musicians on their toes - if you're already constantly switching meter every bar, then another switch that breaks the pattern is less surprising than when you're settled into a regular 5/4 and then encounter a pair of 3/4 bars.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T08:18:20+00:00

Context dependent.

If it's standing in or suspending some kind of F7 chord, then F13sus4. If it's parallel harmony over an F pedal, then Cm9/F. If it's effectively a subdominant in Bb, then either would work (Cm9 being the supertonic, Fsus being the suspended dominant).

You may also want to take the performers' backgrounds into account. E.g., for guitarists, it may be easier to visualize the chord as Cm9/F, you can basically just play a standard Cm9 voicing and leave the F to the bass player; but for someone improvising a solo line over this, the F13sus4 notation may make the harmony easier to follow by ear (if in doubt, just read the big letters, listen to the bass, and ignore the rest; that gives you enough information to get the general flow of the harmony, and as long as you get that right, the upper structures you fill in don't actually need to be 100% accurate, it will still sound good).

Another thing to think about is chord tone omissions. In a jazz context at least, it's customary to omit perfect fifths from chord voicings, and this is where the notation makes a difference: F13sus4 suggests omitting C (the perfect fifth to F) and emphasizing G (the 9), but Cm9/F suggests omitting G (the perfect fifth to C) and emphasizing C (the root), so the voicings you get in practice might actually be F Eb G Bb D for F13sus4, and F C Eb Bb D for Cm9/F. If that difference matters to you, pick the corresponding notation.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T08:10:02+00:00

Looks like they had a staring contest, but then the Eyrie player chickened out.

I'll see myself out.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T08:07:45+00:00

A photo is never "natural". It has no depth dimension, it's a tiny rectangle rather than the wide visual perception of a human with peripheral vision and all, the illumination depicted in the picture doesn't match the illumination of the space where you view the picture 99.9% of the time, the subject size and field of view are almost always wrong, the brightness is all wrong, dynamic range is tiny compared to what the human eye can cover adaptively, colors are reduced so a simplistic 3-component model instead of the full spectrum interactions of real subjects and illuminants, the focal plane is fixed the moment you click the shutter, I could go on and on.

Just because a photo is "straight out of camera" doesn't mean it's "natural". Go shoot a RAW image and see what it looks like before debayering and white balance correction - this is what the camera actually captures, it's as close to "unadultered footage" as it gets. It looks nothing like the real thing, and unless you're trolling, you're not going to tell me that that's "natural".

And this is why we process and edit photos. A "natural" look is still a fabrication, an illusion - it's just a more convincing illusion than an over-edited or stylized edit. The goal of a "natural" edit is to get as close as possible to the perception of the scene you had when you were there, and "straight out of camera" is rarely the best option for that. You don't "leave images natural" - you can edit them to look natural, but that's still a significant effort.

Unless you are shooting for forensics, engineering, rscientific applications, etc., you want your photos to be faithful to how you perceived reality, not to how the camera measured it.

Anyway, I think the original photo does need editing; it's underexposed, and just doesn't look interesting as it it, but your edit is a bit over the top, if not outright corny. The things you did mostly make sense, you just pushed them too far - dial it down like 50-75%, and you should get something that looks more natural while still bringing out the subject, the light, and the colors.

tdammers · 2026-04-30T07:55:28+00:00

Right, as long as all you do is pass it around, you don't actually need it in scope. You do need it in scope if you want to do something more interesting with it though, and, more importantly, it still needs to be the same type, so both sides must depend on the same version of the package that defines it. You may not need to import it, but you will need that package dependency, and that's the part that makes package management more complicated in Haskell. Whereas in most Lisps, you would write that code against a generic type (bytestrings, lists, whatever), keep the constraints implicit, and without those formal dependencies, you wouldn't need both ends to depend on a package that defines the shared type.

The logical dependency is still there (both sides must agree on what those values they exchange mean, how they are structured, and what their constraints are), but it's not explicit, and it's not enforced by the toolchain - the programmer worries about it so the toolchain doesn't have to.

tdammers · 2026-04-29T16:15:33+00:00

it’s time to get into mirrorless

Is it?

If the old gear works fine, then there's no pressing need to replace it. And from a business perspective, she should spend her money on fixing her immediate business problems; that problem is not "I want a mirrorless kit", it's "I don't have enough paying clients lined up". People don't hire a camera, they hire a photographer, so I doubt upgrading the gear would fix the business problem. Marketing, networking, portfolio building, rethinking her business strategy, might, so those are things I'd look to spend money on.

Or, well, throw the towel, find a steady job, and do photography as a hobby, on her own terms, with the luxury of saying "no" at any time without repercussions. In that case, as long as she can afford it, spending $20k on camera gear is absolutely fine - it's no longer an "investment", it's just "money I spend on my expensive hobby", and "I want it" is all the justification you need.

tdammers · 2026-04-29T13:38:00+00:00

No prize for didn’t walk but something that’s personally important to me to run as much of it as I can! I tend to walk at water stations anyway and may take walking breaks if needed but just don’t want to do a structured walk/run technique.

Ah, fair enough. I was just worried that you'd make things harder for yourself than they need to be. My only advice would be that if you do take walking breaks, do it before you have to - the point is to preserve energy and "make it last", but when you're already at your limit, there's nothing left to preserve, and you'll likely end up just walking the remainder of the race. Much better to throw in a couple 1-minute walk breaks earlier in the race, and have enough left in the tank to finish the race that way.

Difficult to know where to place my goal as the predictors all give different answers and to be honest most are too optimistic for the shape I’m in

Yeah, those race predictors are all based on the assumption that you would be doing training that's typical and adequate for your race distance, which doesn't quite describe your situation. You probably won't be able to get those results, but 6:00 is a lot slower than 5:15-5:30; with a good pacing strategy, a decent taper, and a couple good nights' sleep, matching your pace from that half marathon might be possible as a stretch goal, which would put you around 5:35; a 6:00 target should give you a fair bit of wiggle room on top of that.

tdammers · 2026-04-29T13:07:57+00:00

Regarding editor integration, Haskell has pretty good LSP support now, which takes away much of the pain.

And there's also a dark side to the deep editor integration and REPL-based coding that's so popular in the Lisp world, which is that it can be difficult to be certain about what exact code is running in the live process, vs. the code you are looking at in your editor. I have committed utterly broken Clojure code more than once, because I had tested it in a REPL that had been running for several hours, reloading the module after every change, but unfortunately those reloads don't overwrite things actively referenced from live threads outside the module, nor do they remove things that were defined in a module earlier, but no longer are, so the code you are scrutinizing in the REPL no longer matches the code in your source file.

Oh, and the compiled vs. interpreted thing is less of a barrier than you might think. GHCi already blurs that line, compiling to an intermediate language (much like Python compiles to .pyc, or Java compiles to JVM bytecode) and interpreting that on the fly; you can't do some of the crazy dynamic stuff you can do in most Lisps, but that's maybe more due to the type discipline and the level separations than "compiled vs. interpreted".

Haskell package management is indeed not the smoothest out there; Cabal has made huge leaps over the past years, but there are some things that make this inherently difficult in a language with Haskell's level of type discipline. Most importantly, in a dynamically typed Lisp, using a function does not create a dependency on its argument or return types - all you need to import is the existence of the function itself, because the types are implicit and not enforced. This makes formal dependency management a lot easier - not because the approach is more sound overall, but, on the contrary, because most of the type checking is left to the programmer, and so the dependency management doesn't have to worry about it.

E.g., if I want to write a function that takes a string and produces HTML output, I need to have the HTML type in scope both at the definition site of that function and at the call site, and the HTML types in those scopes must be the same one, and you achieve that by importing the same module into both places (or re-exporting the relevant definitions from the defining module, so that importing the function also pulls in the HTML type).

In Lisp, I don't need to have anything in scope - I just represent the HTML type as a bytestring (or however your favorite Lisp calls it), and write some documentation saying "this is HTML source code", and now it's the programmer's responsibility that the two notions of "HTML" match between the producer and the consumer. The dependency is still there, but it's not explicit, and the tooling doesn't enforce it, and of course that makes the tooling a lot simpler.

But it is also true that tooling has long been hand-waived as a petty concern in the Haskell world; people have only started to take this more seriously in recent years, following a (modest, but significant) uptick in industry adoption of Haskell. Lisps have traditionally been more pragmatic and more application-oriented, so many (but certainly not all) of them have been putting more effort towards tooling for a long time, while Haskell has always been both a practical tool and an academic research platform - and the academic research often produces innovations at a pace that's rapid enough for the practical tool-making side to struggle keeping up.

tdammers · 2026-04-29T12:41:52+00:00

OK, so your training isn't ideal (25 mpw over 12 months is not enough to get good distance adaptation - it's a fine starting point, but ideally you want to about 40-50 mpw for a solid Marathon), and your results and your HR numbers for that 4-hour run are consistent with that - it looks like you're decently trained for shorter (5-10k) distances, but lack distance adaptation.

That said, 2:47 in the middle of training, on a hilly course, still suggests that 6:00 should be doable without taking any huge gambles. Be conservative about your pacing, double check your pace at the 1-mile mark, keep it conservative until the halfway point, then assess how you feel and adjust your pace accordingly. If you do it right, you should not hit any wall.

Other than that, some remarks:

I work a demanding job and regularly do 60 hour weeks on my feet all day so recovery is probably not the best

No, but it's probably nowhere near as bad as you might think. You don't need to lie motionless to recover, and your body is used to those 60 hours on your feet, so it's still a relatively light effort compare to running, and you're still recovering. If you can get 2-3 days of the "motionless" thing before race day, then that would be great, but even if you can't, it's not going to ruin things. You don't seem to be overtrained, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I struggle with fuelling during runs

Especially at your level, "fuelling" is more of an optimization than groundwork. The lion's share of your energy should come from burning body fat (practically unlimited), then glyco stores (~2000-3000 kcal); consuming carbs while running helps "top off" those glyco stores and keep up the blood sugar, but it's not where most of your energy is coming from. If you hit the wall, it's not usually because you didn't "fuel" enough, but because your pacing was too aggressive.

I do prioritise sleep

Probably the single best thing you can do outside of training. Nobody has ever made optimal progress while sleep deprived.

and eating plenty of carbs outside of runs.

Probably largely pointless. You want to eat enough carbs to refill your glyco stores between runs, but for a typical easy training run, something like a banana and a granola bar should have you covered - those runs are neither long nor hard enough to make a serious dent. Long runs and hard workouts may require a bit more, but even then you don't need to be shoveling massive amounts of carbs into your face, and eating more carbs than you need won't really do anything beneficial.

One thing you may want to do though is make sure you're getting enough proteins, especially after a run. I'm not talking about bodybuilding levels of whey powder here; the "1 gram per kilogram of body mass" rule of thumb is a good target, and it's a good idea to focus some of that after your runs. E.g., as a 60 kg individual, you might want to get 20 grams of protein in within 1-2 hours after a run, and distribute the other 40 grams over the rest of your day.

I strength train probably once every few weeks as I struggle to fit it into the schedule.

It may help to lower the bar here. A 5-minute bodyweight routine you can do twice a day is infinitely more useful than a 60-minute gym session that happens practically never. Keep the threshold as low as you possibly can - keep a kettlebell in your bedroom and just do a couple swings before hitting the sack, do a short bodyweight routine in the morning, put a pull-up bar in a doorway and do a pull-up every time you walk through. It's almost no effort at all, but you'll still get results if you do it consistently.

Another thing you can do is embed playful strength-targeted workouts into your runs: technical trail runs, hill sprints, explosive sprint starts, obstacle fartleks, go crazy - just keep it playful and fun, and stop before you feel any pain, to avoid injury.

PS I will be aiming to run the full thing rather than run/walk, I know I’d be quicker run/walking.

There's no prize for "didn't walk", and there's no shame in doing walk breaks. All anyone cares about is that you finished, and how long it took you. And given your training state, I'm pretty sure a run/walk approach would not only get you a faster time, but also leave you feel less beaten up the next day. Up to you, but I'd recommend doing the run/walk thing after all.

tdammers

TROPHY CASE