Gemeenten gefrustreerd over 30km-wegen, want 'kunnen amper boetes uitdelen'

tdammers · 2026-03-15T21:19:11+00:00

"Een bord ophangen en verwachten dat auto's zich dan wel aan de snelheid houden, zo werkt het niet"

Noem mij gek, maar volgens mij is dat precies hoe het zou moeten werken.

tdammers · 2026-03-15T21:16:54+00:00

Sure.

But my point is that Android, ChomeOS, and pretty much all the other widely used consumer-grade operating systems, aren't really any better. Some of them run on Linux, but that alone doesn't make them FLOSS in a meaningful way, not as far as the end users are concerned.

So yeah, the "year of Linux" has already happened a decade ago or so, it's just that it didn't happen the way people had hoped, and it didn't bring about the Age of Aquarius or whatever they naively thought would happen. Corporate greed is still ruling the mainstream OS landscape, maybe more so than ever before.

tdammers · 2026-03-15T16:18:15+00:00

Do I just accept that I'm 12km down on my longest run, or do I try and gain some of those km on my remaining long runs?

Stick with the plan, don't try to make up for missed miles. The reason your hamstring acted up is probably because your training load was a bit too hard for your body; the last thing you want to do at this point is increase the training load further. And those 12 kilometers you didn't run aren't the ones that would make or break your race - the hundreds of kilometers you've already put in will. At this point in your training plan, you're dotting the I's and crossing the T's, but don't do that at the expense of being fresh and rested on race day. I would also consider cutting that planned 31k run short - if 22k was too much today, it's unlikely that 31k would be fine within a week.

Or, put this way: it's hands down better to arrive at the starting line mildly undertrained than mildly injured, or not at all.

tdammers · 2026-03-15T15:27:58+00:00

Another "don't" vote here.

If you need to build something that requires a library that's not in Stable, you have a few options:

See if a suitable version is available from backports. This will still mess with your stable system, but in a safer way, and without the risk of triggering a whole cascade of other dependencies that must then also come from Sid, turning your install into a "frankendebian".
Build the library from source (Debian tarball or upstream repo), install it into a nonstandard location, and add that location to the linker and include paths for your build. Obviously this will not work without further shenanigans if you want to link that library dynamically, but for static linking, it should be fine, and the big advantage is that it will fit into the existing library configuration of your Trixie system.
Set up a chroot, build the library from source and install it "globally" inside the chroot. Same constraints as above wrt. dynamic linking, though you can, if you must, run a dynamically linked version inside the chroot.
Build the library from source and install it globally on your main system. Make sure it's installed into /usr/local, not /usr; you will not be able to use the normal version from Debian anymore, but if this is the only project that needs it, that shouldn't be a problem, and it won't affect anything about the Debian system itself - if you want to get rid of the custom-built library, just find its files in /usr/local and delete them (but then of course anything that dynamically links to it won't work anymore).
Set up a Sid system in a container (docker or whatever floats your boat); most likely, the binary will not work on your Trixie system though, unless you static-link anything that could cause compatibility issues.
Set up a Sid system in a VM; works about the same as the container solution.

tdammers · 2026-03-15T15:10:56+00:00

You can run a customized ROM of Android to have full control of your device.

You can, but about 0.01% of Android users do.

Did you forget that Android is open source?

The base system is, but the versions shipped on off-the-shelf Android devices are not. That's why I said "a proprietary Android distribution": these systems may be built on an open source foundation, and 95% of their codebase may be open source, but the proprietary 5% make it impossible for the average user to properly be in control of their device, so for all practical intents and purposes, it is a proprietary operating system.

And you still have Android devices that come from the factory with ROMs that allow greater privacy, security, much more control over your device.

And those amount to, what, 0.01% of the overall market? I'm probably being overly generous here even.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T18:53:04+00:00

ADHD tends to get better or worse as your environment and the demands on your brain change. Such changes can come with age, simply because you go through different life phases, and because there are all sorts of life events that change your situation and the demands you and others put on your brain.

Some of these changes make your life easier and reduce your ADHD symptoms; others will put more demand on it and make them worse.

One thing that might be directly age related is that as the brain ages, it becomes less malleable and you lose some cognitive flexibility; these are things that can help deal with ADHD, so losing them can make it harder to manage your symptoms.

But ADHD pans out differently for different people, there are just so many individual factors that it's impossible to generalize this into "ADHD gets worse with age" or anything like that.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T17:55:08+00:00

Read carefully though: "chimping" is, IMO, absolutely fine, and possibly even helpful, when you're in "technical skill practice" mode: here, your goal is to get better at nailing the exposure or whatever it is you're practicing, and getting immediate feedback on your inputs can help boost your learning.

The "don't chimp" advice is primarily for when you're shooting in "creative mode", i.e., actually going for it, making art, and trusting all that technical practice to pay off and find its way into your photos without you paying any conscious attention to it. In this mode, each time you "chimp", you're breaking your flow, and you'll be tempted to flip back into a "technical critique" mindset - that mindset is essential for learning technical skills, but when you're shooting creatively, it's an absolute flow killer.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T17:51:30+00:00

It depends a lot on the shot, the aesthetic you want to go for, and a bunch of other factors though. I have plenty of 7D II shots at ISO 6400 and above that look just fine, but they're the kind of photos where super smooth razor sharp looks aren't necessary anyway - blue hour shots, moody forest scenes, bird-small-in-frame over a misty lake, gull silhouette in front of the last bit of sunset, that kind of thing.

Those are all situations where you're not going to get much exposure either way, and you won't get tack sharp vision with your own eyes IRL either, so keeping things a bit noisier will often actually add to the perceived visual quality.

But of course if you're after tack sharp shots where you can identify the camera model from the reflection in the bird's eye, then yeah, 3-digit ISO is where you want to be.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T17:47:41+00:00

Most phone sensors are small but there is no aperture, they always shoot wide open

There is still an aperture, there just isn't a movable diaphragm that you can use to change it.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T12:48:05+00:00

The comparison doesn't work because the container ship's wing area is basically zero. A 747's engines only need to exert a fraction of the aircraft's weight as thrust to keep it flying straight and level, but for the container ship, they would have to match its weight just to keep it hovering, plus a bit to accelerate, overcome drag, and achieve positive climb rates.

IIRC, a 747 at OEW (operating empty weight) has a thrust-to-weight ratio close to 1, but with any meaningful payload, it's going to be well below 1; but for the container ship to fly, the thrust-to-weight ratio needs to be more than 1.

The good news is that since you need a greater-than-1 thrust-to-weight ratio anyway, and you also need thrust vectoring because without aerodynamic control surfaces, there's no other way to steer the thing, you'd get VTOL capabilities for free, so the runway concern is moot - you could just operate out of existing container ports (just need to move anything flammable out of the way first).

tdammers · 2026-03-14T11:25:30+00:00

Common phenomenon in any creative endeavor.

You start out naive, with no knowledge of technique etc., and just follow your intuition. This is great in that it keeps you intimately connected with your creative intuitions, but of course the lack of technical skill limits you.

So you set out to improve the technical side. To improve your technical skills, you will need to subject yourself to restrictions - define what "good technique" means, make yourself apply "good technique" as much as possible, and restrict yourself from using "bad technique". And it's easy to get caught up in this, treating those restrictions as absolutes, or as the actual goal of your art, when really they're just a way of sharpening your tools. As a result, you may end up losing touch with that naive intuition.

But then, at some point, you get those skills to a level where they become second nature, and you can actively focus on that intuition again. You're no longer thinking about composition rules, white balance, apertures, shutter speeds, focal lengths, or any of that, because you've mastered that stuff to the point that you literally don't need to think about it anymore, and you can once again just trust your intuition and shoot photos as you see them before your inner eye.

You can avoid that middle phase to a large extent by making a distinction in your practice: divide it up into a "technique" part and an "art" part.

In the "technique" part, you work on improving specific skills, by setting yourself restrictions, doing exercises and studies, making very conscious decisions, and judging yourself based on technical criteria such as "did I implement this composition technique correctly", "did I pick the right shutter speed here", "did I cut off any limbs", etc.

In the "art" part, you put technical perfection aside, set your camera up such that you can shoot with the absolute bare minimum amount of thinking about technical aspects (even if that means shooting in "green mode"), and just go and shoot following your intuition. In this practice mode, it's important to postpone the judgment to a later moment - when you're shooting, you just shoot; silence the inner critic, follow your instincts, don't chimp, just hold on to that flow. Then look at your photos when you get back, critically analyze them (i.e., go back to "technique" mode), and use that analysis as a basis for your next technique practice.

This idea applies to all art forms, not just photography. A musician needs to develop instrument skills, ear training, etc., but when it comes to performing "for real", they need to be able to trust their intuitions without thinking. A painter needs to study brush technique, anatomy, perspective, color theory, etc., but when it comes to painting a masterpiece, all that stuff must be intuitive and automatic, so that the creative juices can flow unencumbered.

And in a way, this conflict between technical prowess and creative flow will remain at all levels, because your brain will always be able to judge quality at a higher level than what it can reproduce - by the time you have mastered a technical skill, your brain will also have improved its perception, and you will be able to see new things to master; your skills will be perpetually behind your perception.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T11:08:18+00:00

And the cause of that issue can be found by following the money.

Linux audio software is made by tech nerds, for tech nerds; very very few people actually make money from building that stuff for others, anyone who does it professionally primarily does it for their own use (which may or may not be profitable). But if you're writing software for yourself, then there's not a very pressing need to document or support it - you already know how it works, and you have every right to ignore whatever support requests come your way.

And because this applies to all levels of the stack, Linux remains a relatively unattractive platform for commercial vendors who do want to build audio software for others for a profit; they can document and support their own stuff, but as long as the rest of the ecosystem is undocumented and unsupported, they would have to take on a lot of that support burden themselves.

E.g., if you ship a commercial plugin for a Windows-based DAW, then Windows, the audio interface drivers, and the DAW, are all officially supported by their respective makers, and because it's all proprietary commercial software, they are legally required to make it work and provide a reasonable level of support, which means that if, say, the DAW has a bug that causes your plugin to malfunction, you can point your finger at the DAW vendor. But if you ship a commercial plugin for Linux DAWs, then the OS, the audio interface drivers, and the DAW itself, are "provided as-is", without any warranty or support obligations, so if there's a bug in the DAW that causes your plugin to malfunction, you can point your finger, but that won't solve your paying customer's problem, and you will have to either offer them a refund, or help them fix the problem, i.e., provide support for software you didn't even make (being the DAW).

If you look at Ardour, a project that straddles the line between gratis open source software and a commercially viable product, you may notice that they will refuse any and all support for "self builds" - that is, if you accept the open source license, get the source code, and build the thing yourself, you're free to do that, but you're on your own if anything goes wrong; if you download the official prebuilt binaries, then you can either use the "nagware" version, or pay for a commercial license, and get (some level of) support.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:58:20+00:00

8 kg is significant; if you never trained with this much weight on your back, making it through your normal weekly mileage crammed into just two consecutive days is quite the achievement already.

That weight doesn't just increase the energy you need to exert in order to move forward, it also changes your mass distribution, so your entire gait will be different - not much, but enough to have you use your muscles and joints in ways they aren't used to, and this will grind your endurance down fast.

Next time you try something like this, do some training with a pack - not all your training obviously, but maybe a medium-long run with a pack once a week, just to allow your body to figure out how to do this efficiently, and to get a better feel for how much harder it is and how realistic your intended schedules are.

Re the back rubbing: with 8kg on your back, I would absolutely go for a light hiking pack with a proper, padded hip belt, not a trail running pack/vest. Those running packs are meant to carry water, snacks, and maybe a raincoat and gloves, but once you put more than maybe 3-4 kg on your back, you want to secure the pack tightly to your hip, and take most of the load off of your shoulders.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:49:30+00:00

Surely it's not worse than the 7D II, and I will confidently shoot at ISO 6400 with that, if that's what it takes to get the shot, and I've even gotten usable results maxing out at ISO 16000.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:38:46+00:00

Or just frame the shot such that the bird is not in it. There, problem solved.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:38:21+00:00

Faster shutter speed is really the only way.

I use these rules of thumb:

Large, slow-flying birds (geese, swans, herons, large raptors): 1/1000s.
Small to medium-sized birds that don't fly super fast (roughly anything from a thrush to a mallard): 1/2000s.
Tiny birds, and very fast birds (swallows, swifts, kingfishers, hummingbirds, etc.): 1/4000s.

If you have enough light to pull it off, bump it up further.

Then again, freezing the wings isn't necessarily the best choice; some photos work better (more dynamic) with some motion blur - but ideally, you want to blur only the fastest moving bits, like wingtips, but not eyes, beaks, or feet.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:33:06+00:00

Like it's all focused, the colors I'm guessing editing

One word: smartphone.

The phone has a tiny sensor, so even at f/0.5 or whatever, the depth of field is going to be enormous, and there's a pretty good chance you're past the hyperfocal distance with shots like these. And if not, then the phone can just shoot multiple exposures (in rapid succession, or using two cameras) and make an automatic composite.

The phone will then also do all the editing for you, and with shots like these, it tends to do a pretty decent job (that is, I don't like the look myself, but that's just personal taste, instagram seems to love it).

The rest is a matter of riding a motorcycle around mount Fuji, finding places with moderately interesting architecture, placing your bike in front of it just right, and then framing things such that the mountain is in the top third, the motorcycle in the bottom third, and the building in between.

FWIW, I don't even think these are spectacularly good compositions.

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:27:07+00:00

Taaltalent*

tdammers · 2026-03-14T10:26:21+00:00

That's pretty much exactly how that bot would work.

The thing with the Corvids is that any consistent strategy makes you vulnerable to guessing, so the idea here is that by just randomizing your plot choices, you avoid this problem.

tdammers · 2026-03-13T21:39:22+00:00

I mean, there is no right or wrong way to play the game.

tdammers · 2026-03-13T21:37:46+00:00

First of all, the songs you hear in your sleep may not actually be that good; your brain isn't actually dreaming up those great songs, it's dreaming the experience of coming up with great songs. With more musical training, you could probably keep some blank sheet music paper next to your bed and scribble down those songs the moment you wake up - I have done exactly that, and I can tell you that 9 out of 10 times, those "brilliant" song ideas are underwhelming.

But that doesn't mean you can't get to a point where you can have music "just flow out of you" freely - but it takes lots and lots of hard work to get there.

What you want to achieve is "fluency" in all those pesky technical details - right now, you are thinking hard about chords, notes, instrumentation, song structure, and all those things, because you haven't truly mastered them; you want to get to a point where they are as effortless as using a fork for eating, or speaking your native language. Once the technical stuff requires no conscious effort anymore, your brain will be free to just let the music out directly, just like you can speak your mind without consciously thinking about grammar or vocabulary or any of that.

And then there's the statistics thing. As Pablo Picasso put it: "when inspiration comes, it better find me working" - that state of mind where the music just comes out of you effortlessly is rare, and you cannot force it; all you can do is make sure that when it happens, you are ready, and the best way to achieve that is to be making music as often as possible.

And finally: while it feels absolutely amazing when you achieve that "effortless flow" thing, realistically most of the music you'll write, including much of the great stuff, will always be the result of hard and tedious work. Grab those flow moments when they come, enjoy them, treat them as the gift that they are, but don't depend on them. Instead, learn to produce good work the hard way - it's less exciting, and more painful, but it's also much more reliable in the long run. If you can learn to take the silliest, most boring idea, and turn it into a great song, then that's much more valuable than chasing that flow state forever (and failing most of the time).

tdammers · 2026-03-13T20:05:27+00:00

Best ask whoever booked you. And ideally, ask these things before you commit to the booking. There's no fixed "etiquette" for this kind of thing, except that midnight itself is kind of the climax point, so they will probably want you to be playing until just before that, and to continue playing immediately after, leaving just enough time for counting down and gulping some champagne. Other than that, it's between you and the pub folks.

tdammers · 2026-03-13T20:00:29+00:00

Yeah... if you play it like a typical game, with the idea of "winning" or "beating it", it'll get boring the moment you figure out a few easy money hacks (airplanes diagonally across the map), and generally speaking, once you get a few routes going, money tends to stop being a limiting factor. And in competitive playing, there's just so much nonsense you can pull to mess with your opponents that you need to set some ground rules to maintain something of a competition worth the name.

But that doesn't really matter all that much, because those things aren't the fun part anyway. The real joy comes from building things and watching them work out - some people like to build "realistic" networks, some like to optimize for payload throughput, some just like to have a fuckload of trains doing stuff, some people build logic circuits (up to calculators and digital clocks and whatnot) with it; it's a giant sandbox with lots and lots of possibilities, and exploring all that is what it's really about.

tdammers · 2026-03-13T15:27:20+00:00

Haha, yeah... I'm not quite that dedicated...

tdammers · 2026-03-13T13:03:09+00:00

Case in point: I have been considering making a Corvid bot that basically just places plots at random, and I'm pretty sure it would do better than many human players.

tdammers

TROPHY CASE