Sharing photos

Jul. 27th, 2017 04:36 pm[personal profile] ghoti_mhic_uait
ghoti_mhic_uait: (Default)
One of the things I've been doing recently is learning photography. I'm getting the hang of a proper camera, and taking a lot of photos and hopefully improving. I've taken a couple of photos I'm really pleased with, and want to share further. Where's a good place for that?

This is what I've thought of: Facebook, but then Colin can't see. Tumblr, but I basically only use tumblr from my phone and that's a bit tricky. Just putting them on public galleries on Google, but I find the permissions hard to get right. Instagram, which seems to be a place for editing photos rather than showing off raw photos?

Any other ideas I didn't think of yet? Or is there a reason I'm just wrong about one of those?
andrewducker: (Default)

Happy Tom day!

Jul. 26th, 2017 09:58 am[personal profile] ghoti_mhic_uait
ghoti_mhic_uait: (Default)
I first met Tom in 2001, and he appears to have spent much of the time since dedicated to making my life happier. He assures me this is not the case, and happiness is merely the natural consequence of spending time with him, but I suspect that's because of the myriad of things he does almost without noticing - tea when I'm overwhelmed, holding the baby so I can have a hot meal, switching attention to the toddler just before she got jealous, sharing his knowledge with us, finding exciting day trips.

Head and shoulders portrait of Tom


Anyway, enough about me. The children spent some time thinking about why they love Tom, and came up with some brilliant answers; because he is funny, kind, caring, because he answers questions well, and understands what question you want to ask before you can find the words to ask it. Because he is imaginative, which means he both tells good stories and really understands people.
They landed, however, on what I think is the perfect description: we love him because he is full of love.
Thank you, darling. Here's to the next 40!
andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker: (Default)
Five years ago I had a disagreement with a friend over whether this article was being overly pessimistic about augmented reality and whether we'd have "hard" AR soon.

Five years later, and this is the state of the art:


Which is, I totally admit, a very neat tech demo. But it's not "there" yet. The FOV is too small, and you can see the real world through it. Although, to be fair, most of the time the real world isn't _that_ distracting, you're definitely not going to be able to "see Victorian gas lamps in place of normal lights" or "have a real Coke can that you want to turn into an AR Pepsi can by drawing a Pepsi logo over the Coke logo".

Ah well, I'll make a note to come back in five years time and see where we are then!
andrewducker: (Default)

Review: Kingdomino

Jul. 20th, 2017 01:46 pm[personal profile] andrewducker
andrewducker: (Default)
When I saw that it had won the 2017 Spiel des Jahres I took a look at Kingdomino. On discovering that it was only £15, and that games could be played in about 15 minutes I decided to pick up a copy.

So far I've played games with both [personal profile] swampers and [personal profile] danieldwilliam and both of them picked it up quickly and enjoyed playing it.

It's based (surprisingly enough) on the idea behind dominoes - or, at least, the part of dominoes where you have tiles with two ends and need to match them against each other. In this case the different ends are different terrains (grass, mountain, etc), and you score by forming areas of the same terrain*. Each turn you have to make a judgement between going for the tiles that score the highest, versus going for lower-scoring tiles which allow you make the first move the next turn.

I enjoyed it, and I'm definitely taking it on holiday. If you're looking for a filler game then it'll do a great job of that.



*It's a bit more complex than that, but not a lot.
andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker: (Default)
I posted yesterday about the media using "X defends against accusations" as a way of making you think that there are widespread attacks on them.

47 people clicked through to that post from Facebook. 5 from Twitter.

The 5 from Twitter all did so within an hour of the post going up.

The 47 from Facebook did so over the course of the following 12 hours (19 of them within an hour, but then an ongoing curve downwards).

Which indicates to me that Facebook does a pretty good job of knowing when something is interesting to my friends, and keeping it "active" for a while, whereas Twitter sweeps it away near-instantly, and unless it really grabs people it's gone.

And looking at my overall referrer stats, Facebook gets between three and six times the number of clicks that Twitter does.

(Just had a look at my actual LJ statistics too - yesterday I had 145 readers, of which 100-ish were reading via their friends-page and 45 were going direct to my posts/journal. Sadly I don't get the same info from DW, but Google Analytics tells me that 78 people visited that post on DW.)
andrewducker: (Default)
I've seen this twice in the last week - a newspaper talking about the BBC "defending" the new Doctor Who choice against "angry fans". And then this morning the Game of Thrones director "defends" the Ed Sheeran cameo.

And both times I'm left wondering how many people were actually attacking. Was half of the population of Who-dom out attacking this choice? Or was it actually about 1% of them being noisy enough on Twitter that the newspapers could manufacture a story out of it?

Similarly, I suspect that the vast majority of people don't really care if Ed Sheeran pops up for 10 seconds in the show, does a perfectly average acting job for his two lines, and is never seen again. But that's not a story. And the way to make it a story is to not mention how many people are upset at something trivial, and leave things vague enough that it _could_ be the case that half the population of the country are waving pitchforks outside the studios, rather than seven people having a rant on Twitter.
ghoti_mhic_uait: (Dancing in the sand)
I've often wondered why my shoes seem to wear out more quickly than other people's, given that I don't wear them often and I don't walk very far. Only Tom said I walked more than other people so I went to find the statistics to prove him wrong and it turns out, he's right. So, I generally walk about 15000 steps a day, according to a few varieties of pedometer I've tried (10000 on sedentary days, 20000 on busy days) and according to the NHS an average person walks 3000-4000 steps a day. So no wonder my shoes wear out quicker!

I do feel like more walking would benefit me, though, I don't tend to do very well on 'moderate' exercise, I get sleepy and lethargic and sad.

Speaking of, I am seeing a response to the folic acid. I'm getting fewer pins and needles in my legs, and they're generally more comfortable. I'm still very tired a lot, though, and I still feel worse if I eat less meat.

Other stuff:
Reading: I just finished Oz Reimagined: New Tales from the Emerald City and Beyond, edited by John Joseph Adams, which is delightful and if you like Oz related stuff, worth reading
Watching: nothing yesterday, but I've been listening to LeVar Burton Reads, which is a podcast of short stories with an introduction and a few words at the end.
Playing: On the Underground, Colin and I drew! Child favourites at the moment are Hey! That's My Fish and Coup. I really like Coup, can take or leave the penguins.
Eating: orzo with a tomato, mushroom and mozzarella sauce for the adults and lamb chops for the carnivores.
andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker: (Default)
Photobucket has turned all of the photos on my wedding post into "Please update your account to share these photos" images, unless I pay them hundreds of dollars.

I have literally no idea how idea how to feel about this.

(Other than grim amusement)

Aaah, the modern world...
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 12:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios