Skip to content

General

Stuff that doesn’t fit in any other category

Tracking uncredited reuse of a popular tweet

The other day, I saw a funny tweet by @gsuberland, and it got me wondering if there were other such bad-tech soldering images out there.

So I went looking, found a few, and sent what I thought was a stupid-simple yet somewhat funny tweet: I stitched together three stock photos showing the actors holding the soldering irons in such a way that they'd be badly burned. I stuck a super quick caption on the image, and off it went:

If you click the image link, you'll see the media has been removed—the copyright owner made a copyright claim. I could probably fight this on the grounds of fair use, education, or satire, but it's not worth the effort, and not really what this post is about. (If you're really curious, here are the three original images.)

The tweet, much to my surprise, took off like wildfire, eventually being liked and retweeted over 2,500 times each, and garnering 250,000+ impressions. I've never sent such a popular tweet. Today, when Twitter removed my composite image, I became curious as to whether it'd been cached anywhere (I didn't save a copy when I made it). So I did a quick Google search on the phrase "all three were taken to the ER" from the original tweet. What I found surprised me, though I suppose it shouldn't have: My tweet was reused dozens of times, and almost never with attribution:

A quick glance through the links finds that most are probably bot-driven sites reposting content from reddit or 9gag. Best as I can tell, the first uncredited reuse—taking my composite image and my text—was in this post to reddit's /funny subreddit.

From there, it was picked up by tons of sites, always without credit or link back to the original source. In fact, of 30 sites I quickly scanned, only one included a linked version of the original tweet: Make wrote about one image in particular (which was the first one I actually saw on Twitter), and included my source link. So thanks, Make, for doing it right.

And to everyone else, glad you enjoyed the humor ... maybe next time you could leave an attribution in place? Hell, who am I kidding, this is the internet.



Looking for a camera recommendation

I'm looking for some help from the camera experts out there for my next camera. At present, I own an aging Nikon D40x, which I generally love except, well, it's bulky as heck, only shoots 10MP, and is getting quite old. So I want to replace it with something else, with these constraints:

  • Resolution of at least 5120x2880, the native resolution of the 5K iMac.
  • Smaller and lighter than my Nikon, so I think that means APS-C or Micro 4/3rds sensor size.
  • Weatherproof, so I can shoot outside in Oregon in the winter rains.
  • Total cost for the camera plus a base lens and a zoom lens in the $750 to $1500 range.

In my research, I've only really found one camera that actually meets all my criteria, that being the Panasonic DMC-GX8. It's weatherproof (and shoots 4K video), and I could get the camera and a couple lenses for right around $1500. However, it just barely makes the resolution limit, at 5184x3888, leaving not much extra room for cropping.

Reviews have also noted that it's quite large for a mirrorless camera, and that's what I'm trying to get away from.

The Sony a6000 is a near-fit, as its 6000x4000 resolution easily meets my needs, but it's not waterproof. It is, however, smaller and lighter than the Panasonic, and has a faster burst mode. Compared to the GX8, it only shoots 1080p video. But it would also be somewhat less expensive, I think, with a couple lenses. (The camera body is much cheaper, but Sony's lenses seem much more expensive.)

Sony is also launching the a6300 in early March. According to this comparison article, it's got a number of nice improvements, such as 4K video recording, a weather-sealed magnesium-construction body, many more autofocus points for fast autofocus, and a much better viewfinder.

However, this camera is about $500 more than the a6000, which means I'd be close to the budget limit after adding a zoom lens.

I've visited Digital Photography Review to read reviews, and to compare the samples for the A6000 and GX8 ... but I'm still no closer to a decision.

I welcome any advice from those with experience in these cameras, and/or more information on image quality comparisons and lenses. At present, I'm leaning to the a6300, even though it's quite a bit more money. It meets all my criteria, has the fastest burst rate, shoots 4K video, and is smaller and lighter than the GX8. But is there something else I should be looking at instead?



Force Awakens Day, based on the greatest movie speech ever given*

* No, not really. Not even close. But the President's speech in Independence Day is perhaps corniest, most over-the-top movie speech ever given. And as such, it's a good basis for this bit of Star Wars: The Force Awakens corny, over-the-top speechmaking…

Good morning. In less than four hours, people from this household will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest opening weekend for a movie in the history of cinema. You, Star Wars Fans, will be doing it.

Star Wars Fans—those words should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our dislike of Episodes One through Three. We will be united in our love of the one Original Trilogy.

Perhaps it's fate that today is a Saturday, and you will once again be having an amazing weekend, not being subject to the tyranny of one man's horribly wrong vision of the prequels. You will have freedom from the annihilation of the Original Trilogy through misguided editing.

We're watching for our right to be entertained, to believe in The Force.

And should we all enjoy the movie, this Saturday will no longer be known as a simple weekend day, but as the day when the world declared in one voice:

"We will not be forced to watch the prequels! We will not endure any more Jar Jar Binks! We're going to live on; we're going to survive the prequel era!"

Today, we celebrate our Force Awakens day!

And with that, I'm off to see a little movie this morning.



Retina lollipops

A candy store at the local mall had the most amazing wall of colorful lollipops, and I thought it'd make a wild desktop image for a retina iMac. As I snapped the pic on my iPhone, it took a bit of upscaling to reach 5120x2880, but I think it still looks fine; here's a small-scale version:

I also thought a tunnelized version would be interesting; here's how that came out:

I have these in my normal "rotate random every 15 minutes" cycle, and still get a kick out of the lollipops when they get chosen.



Smart TVs know—and share—what you’re watching

If you own—or plan to own, or plan to give as a gift—a "smart TV" from LG, Samsung, or Vizio, are you aware that these sets share your viewing data with third parties? If not, you should be—even if you're a very 'open' person, the amount of data collected and shared by these sets is quite scary.

For example, Samsung Smart TVs collect the following data:

Information about content that you have watched, purchased, downloaded, or streamed through Samsung applications on your SmartTV or other devices; Information about applications you have accessed through the SmartTV panels; Information about your clicks on the “Like,” “Dislike,” “Watch Now,” and other buttons on your SmartTV; The query terms you enter into SmartTV search features, including when you search for particular video content; and Other SmartTV usage and device information, including, but not limited to, IP address, information stored in cookies and similar technologies, information that identifies your hardware or software configuration, browser information, and the page(s) you request.

Vizio isn't much better; here's what their sets collect:

For VIZIO televisions that have Smart Interactivity enabled, VIZIO will collect data related to publicly available content displayed on your television, such as the identity of your broadcast, cable, or satellite television provider, and the television programs and commercials viewed (including time, date, channel, and whether you view them live or at a later time).

And while I couldn't find LG's privacy policy, it's been caught spying on users.

All three manufacturers ship their sets with data sharing enabled, but it's relatively easy to disable on all three brands. Consumer Reports provides clear instructions for all three companies; unless you really enjoy sharing your viewing habits with unknown third parties, I suggest you disable these onerous data collection tools in your smart TV.



With Siri, it seems verb tense matters

My buddy Kirk McElhearn posted a blurb on his blog about Siri and 18th century painters: Siri and the History of Art. In a nutshell, he asked Siri who was the greatest French painter of the 18th century. She replied with "one eighteenth is approximately zero point five five five." Say what?

He asked me to try, but when I tried, here's what I got:

So Siri only knows art history in the USA, it seems? (Kirk lives in the UK.) Actually, no. On closer inspection, when I spoke, Siri heard "Who is the greatest…," versus Kirk's Siri hearing "Who was the greatest…."

So I tried agin, making sure Siri heard me say "was." Sure enough, when Siri hears "was," I get math results. When Siri hears "is," I get art results.

If you want Siri to help you with your history, it seems you should talk to her in the present tense!



A unique lava lamp time-lapse

We occasionally take our kids to a local place, Big Al's, which is one of those bowling/arcade places that give out tickets as rewards from the arcade games. Being good parents, we too sometimes play the games (you know, to spend time with the kids…yea, that's it). Over the years, we amassed quite a bunch of tickets, but weren't quite sure what to spend them on.

The last time we were there, I was smitten by a lava lamp, similar to this one, but ours has a black base and blue "lava." I don't know why (childhood flashback?), but I decided some of our points cache would go to this mesmerizing but otherwise useless device.

When I got it home, I was surprised at just how long it takes to warm up: It can take nearly an hour before any "lava" starts flowing, and about two hours before it really looks like a traditional lava lamp. During the first hour, though, the melting wax in the lamp makes some really cool abstract bits of art, as seen in the photo at right.

I thought this might make a neat time lapse, so I set out to record it with the iPhone. My first attempt failed, due to the iPhone's auto-adjusting time-lapse feature. Because the lamp takes so long to get going, the gap between frames winds up being quite long. Long enough that when stuff does start happening, the iPhone's time-lapse gaps are too wide to make for an interesting video.

I needed another solution, so I headed to the iOS App Store to see what was available…

[continue reading…]



The mysterious case of Mail’s vanishing Rules actions

I have used OS X's built-in Mail program for nearly 15 years. I use it for both personal and work emails, and as such, I rely on rules to sort my mail—I have 75 separate rules. (Note to Apple's Mail team: If you would allow boolean logic in rules, I could slash this number to about 10. Please?)

Recently we changed the Many Tricks store, and as a result, I needed to modify about 30 of my rules. As I was working on these changes, which requires editing and testing each modified rule, I noticed a most-frustrating Mail bug: The "Perform the following actions" section for all rules would slowly vanish as I edited my rules.

Needless to say, editing a rule when you can't see the Actions section is impossible.

[continue reading…]



The 15th club in my golf bag…

For those who don't know, the rules of golf only allow you to carry 14 clubs. But in my case, I do carry a 15th "club" in my bag: a ball retriever. If you don't, this little story might convince you that you should, too.

I don't know anyone who likes paying for golf balls. But most people do enjoy playing with nice, clean, new-looking balls. By carrying a 15th club that is a golf ball retriever, you can play with others people's nice new golf balls!

I carry JB's nine foot model, and its telescoping poles and simple head design have worked well for me. Expect to spend $15 to $50 for a retriever, depending on the length you desire, the design of the head unit, and the construction quality. Whatever you spend up front, with a dozen golf balls costing $20 to $60, your retriever will quickly pay for itself.

As an extreme example, I recently played at a course that features a creek that meanders between the last two holes. As I was playing alone, and way out in front of everyone, I took about 20 minutes to wander along this creek as I played the last two holes (see note below) I didn't walk the creek's entire length, nor did I retrieve every ball I saw. And my retriever is only nine feet long, so there were balls I could see but couldn't reach.

* Note: This is not something you could do during a normal round. During a normal round, I just walk near ponds and creeks, and if I see a ball, I'll quickly scoop it up while my partners are busy prepping for their shots. Using this technique, I can still collect up to 20 balls a round. If you're delaying the game due to ball collecting, you're doing it wrong.

So how many balls do you think I collected in that time, given those restrictions? Two holes, 20 minutes. 10? 20? 30? 50?

[continue reading…]



Cheap fireworks in slow-mo are oddly compelling

I'll be out of town on the Fourth of July, so the kids and I did our little fireworks celebration last night. This being Oregon, we stuck to what we could legally buy, which basically means nothing that can fly or explode. For grins, I set up my iPhone on a tripod, and shot some of the fireworks in slow-mo mode. The result was much better than I was anticipating…

That's about a minute's worth of one of the larger fireworks. You can download that one (1280x720, 96MB), or if you want, download the full seven-minute version. Be aware: If you're on a metered connection, the big version will set you back 671MB!