>>462130

Look at all that noise m8. There's no amount of technique that can fix that.

Taking photos of the moon is unusually annoying, because it looks much bigger in the sky than it actually is. If you take a photo of the moon with the kind of normal-to-wide-angle lens that you find on a smartphone, it'll be a tiny little white blob. To get it to look right you need to crop in really tightly, but older phones have really poor low-light performance so the image will be drenched in (now greatly magnified) noise.

Samsung were recently caught cheating in this specific respect. They had programmed their camera app to automatically detect the moon in photos and replace it with a high-res image.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moon-photos-ai-galaxy-s21-s23-ultra

>>462131
Yeah, but noise is nothing compared to composition. We probably both miss the days of doing work in a dark room.

>>462131
>Look at all that noise m8
I quite liked that, tbh. It's a much more interesting, characteristic picture than had it been crystal sharp. Imagine an image of your sweetheart like so, it's a reminder rather than a representation - spurs your memory into action, filling in the blanks.

>>462130 Turns out I took 13. But yeah, I'm up against the lens and sensor on my phone that's chosen for things other than its low-light photography. But it's what I had to hand, and you can see the moon moves annoyingly fast, there's three minutes between first and last there, there was no time to get back home, I was out with the dog. (intervening time was spent trying to get a panorama, as the sun was the same height, same size, diametrically opposite, and I was out in the fens with a full 360 clear. )
So, still looking for a cheap compact zoomy waterproof camera. Although it's completely pointless, that photo of a moon did what I wanted, and as someone said, the massive noise is just a thing, I'm not trying to produce a definitive image of the moon.

Can't sleep so I've decided to lay down on the sofa to unwind for a bit and hopefully drift off soon. Wasn't banking on the fact the Christmas lights on the house opposite are flickering like mad.

>Comedian Rosie Jones has condemned the “same old ableism” after she was inundated with abuse following an appearance on Channel 4’s Big Fat Quiz of the Year.

>Jones, 33, appeared on the end-of-year comedy panel show alongside host Jimmy Carr and fellow panellists Mo Gilligan, Katherine Ryan, Richard Ayoade, Mel Giedroyc and Kevin Bridges. While the episode aired, a number of viewers shared negative opinions about Jones on social media, branding her “unfunny” and accusing her of “hindering the pacing of the show”.

>Jones, who has cerebral palsy, is a vocal campaigner against ableism and frequently calls out trolls who attack her during TV appearances. “Rinse and repeat,” she posted to X/Twitter on Thursday 28 December. “Different telly show, same old ableism. Thanks for the support, but I’m gonna lie low for a bit and sink into the perineum of Christmas and New Year.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/rosie-jones-big-fat-quiz-reaction-b2470590.html

They're not exactly wrong though. She's very off-putting.

>>462158

Rosie Jones the comedian has got nicer tits than Rosie Jones the glamour model.

>>462158

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAuIO6hFFMI
I'm actually quite interested to watch her documentry 'Am I a Retard?' and really apprieciate her brazen use of 'the R word'. Shame it requires an account to watch.

This trailer and the linked article seem to suggest any opposition to her on TV is distinctly ableist, drowning out any posibility of what might be reasonable arguments regarding her suitability for such TV shows.
I can't recal ever laughing at the content of her jokes and find it difficult to understand and follow her delivery.

Talking about pacing and timing, sometimes it works quite well.
>what would happen if a beached whale
>...
>...
>fucked a crab
Not the funniest joke but the timing is there - something I'd previously complained about.
This other guy, on the other hand, seems genuinely funny, though the ableist it me wonders whether he simply has an easy target. Watching Rosies facial expressions I think she might be quite offended toward the end =/.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_hzvRf4EJ8

And yeah I would. I think she's pretty.

>>462162
How far does ableism go? Should we let someone with Parkinson's undertake brain surgery in the name of inclusiveness?

>>462164
That depends. Does the person with Parkinson's have a current surgical qualification and suitable specialisation?

>>462165

Depends, should we adjust the qualifying criteria and exam guidelines to give an applicant with Parkinson's a fairer shot?

>>462166
Depends, has the chair of the standards panel stopped beating his wife yet?

>>462162



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmbzKsqKQoI

>>462162
>I can't recal ever laughing at the content of her jokes and find it difficult to understand and follow her delivery.
She said on The Last Leg once that she was really happy to see people with cerebral palsy represented in the coverage of the Paralympics, and that it meant so much to her that she would now be happy for everyone with other disabilities to be put into camps and killed. I laughed a lot at that, because you just don't hear that ironic bigotry comedy any more, and she's the only comedian who could get away with it. Nevertheless, the fact that she can barely speak is an unmistakable obstacle to her career as a comedian.

It's kind of like how there's a woman with one arm who presents the weather sometimes, and a woman (a different one) with a colossal speech impediment who used to do the "You're watching Channel 4" announcements. Why not get a woman with one arm, but who can speak effortlessly, to do announcements, and a woman who can't speak but who can point at a map to do the weather? It's as if the only way to be truly inclusive of disabled people is to welcome them into professions that they are noticeably worse at than me, rather than things they're better than me at. Rosie Jones can write a joke as well as anyone; she just couldn't tell it out loud. I suppose it's good for spazzy kids to see dribbling vegetables flapping around with Jimmy Carr so that they feel like they too could be on Channel 4, but surely there must be another way to tell those kids that they can still be writers.

>>462176

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxvAVJ6C2s

>>462177

If we only include disabled people when their disability is irrelevant, then that's not inclusion - it's tokenism.

Giving people with speech impediments a platform in the media has real value in challenging stereotypes and reducing stigma. Some people who see Rosie Jones on TV are going to harrumph and change the channel, but plenty of other people will listen and learn something. People with severe speech impediments are often treated as if they're learning disabled, which (as you might imagine) is really horrible to be on the receiving end of. Whether or not you find Rosie Jones funny, she's obviously sharp as a tack.

Some of that value is just simple familiarity. A lot of the difficulties that disabled people face aren't really practical problems, nor are they caused by some kind of deep-seated bigotry, they're just rooted in fear - people don't know how to react, they don't want to get it wrong, but they end up acting like an arse because they're too anxious about the situation to just engage on a human level. If you've seen Rosie Jones on a panel show, you're much less likely to make a tit of yourself if you happen to meet someone with a similar disability, because it's no longer in the realm of the unknown.

That kind of thing is precisely the remit of Channel 4. The channel was created with the specific purpose of giving a platform to people who weren't represented by or served by the (then) three other channels. They operate as a commercial broadcaster, but they exist to serve a social purpose.

>>462181
>Giving people with speech impediments a platform in the media has real value in challenging stereotypes and reducing stigma. Some people who see Rosie Jones on TV are going to harrumph and change the channel, but plenty of other people will listen and learn something.

Joey Deacon.

>>462182

>Joey Deacon.

A perfect example of tokenism rather than inclusion. He was wheeled on to Blue Peter as a curio, presented in essentially the same way that they'd present a baby elephant or a statue made of cheese.

CBBC redeemed themselves many years later, with the casting of Lisa Hammond and Francesca Martinez in Grange Hill.

>>462182

Whatever happened to dirty Francesca

'You literally have to tie me up'

>>462185
>>462186
Every time my family have seen Rosie Jones on TV over the Christmas period, my dad has asked me why Francesca Martinez isn't around any more. I have no answer for him, although I do suspect Rosie Jones is slightly funnier than she was.

>>462186

She's a playwright now. She did a bleak but sexy thing about austerity at the National.

>>462186
Eddie Izzard is looking well these days.

I reckon Co-op might be jumping the gun on this one.

>>462190
Christmas I begrudgingly understand the early arrival in shops.
But Easter?

>>462190
How large is that Mini Egg bar for £4.50? I popped into my local Nisa yesterday and they were trying to sell a small Goodfellas pizza for £4.45, with everything else at rip-off prices as well. Do people actually pay that much for things? If so I'm guessing it's one of those traps which keeps poor people poor.

>>462190
Co-op has always been expensive. They're like the WH Smiths of supermarkets. I only use them for John Dwyer bakery stuff.

Went to the panto today, got sat near what I'm assuming were of a group of female Reɗɗitors; they all looked like Olive from On the Buses, they had bad body odour and they kept whooping ridiculously loud at certain moments (e.g. when there was a Marvel reference, when there was something about trans inclusivity).

>>462200

>Olive from On the Buses

Would. She deserved better than Arthur.

>>462201
They were all funny looking on that show.

Last post of the year, chaps.

Happy New Year.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeJXm7Tquk0

The ten second delay on TV via Freesat is always annoying, especially at new years. Is it the same on Freeview?

>>462219

Freeview has a shorter delay because the signal isn't going to space and back, but there's still a delay because of all the digital encoding and decoding gubbins.

>>462225

The distance the signal travels both ways from Earth to geostationary orbit satellites and back is about 50,000 miles. Radio waves that make up the signal travel at the speed of light, which means they take about 0.26 seconds for 50K miles. Most of the delay will be due to the signal being relayed between different terrestrial stations before being beamed up by SES, formerly Astra, from one of their ground stations to their satellites. Those relay stations probably each buffer a few seconds worth of feed before passing it on to ensure there's no interruption, and that's how the delay builds up. Encoding and decoding the signal isn't that time consuming anymore on modern equipment. On its own, it probably accounts for less than four seconds of the ten-second delay.

>>462234
Do you happen to know how radio stations estimate the quanitity of their listeners? I can't imagine there being a device inside my radio set that actually connects to the radio tower, but I can't imagine any other way the operator would record listenership.

>>462237
Surveys.

>>462238
.. surveys justify whether they put money into additional series of X, discontinue Y and focus production on Z?
That must be why Radio4's comedy programming is so dire.

>>462237
They have started experimenting with voluntary spyware but not in hardware radios.

https://incompass.ipsosmediacell.com/

>>462239
The surveys don't ask whether you like a show or anything besides what you listened to. I doubt you can blame commissioning decisions at R4 on Rajar.

>>462237
A man came to our door to ask us to take part in a survey on radio listening habits. I had to keep a diary for one week, in which I kept a record of every time I listened to any radio during that week. However, this was in 2007 so they might have changed how they do it; I can't imagine they would still use paper diaries like I was given. If you're curious, I listened to Steve Power at Breakfast on Wave 105 for about three hours during the week, plus a bit more because the survey made me more aware of my listening habits and so I kept checking out other radio stations.

>>462240
>The surveys don't ask whether you like a show or anything besides what you listened to. I doubt you can blame commissioning decisions at R4 on Rajar.
You wouldn't be listening to it if you didn't like it, though, right? That's how they decide what you like. I think the survey book might even have included a box for how and why you listened to the radio at that time, so they can remove any "Radio 1 was playing in the gym" or "the taxi driver was listening to Kiss" entries.

>>462237

I got a call from some sort of market research institute a while back that wanted to ask me about my TV and radio viewing and listening habits. I told them to fuck off that it was an inconvenient time for me and hung up.

Most smart TVs spy on you nowadays in one way or another. Some of it is myth, some of it has been proven, but there's technically no stopping somebody from creating a back channel in the TV's software that will transmit data about your viewing habits via your Internet connection.

>>462241

For anyone curious, that survey is called RAJAR. It has more recently been augmented with a smartphone app called MediaCell that continuously monitors what you're listening to, but the paper diaries are still in use. The methodology is quite rigorous, because the RAJAR figures ultimately decide how much advertisers are willing to pay for radio adverts.

>>462239

Radio 4 doesn't really give a toss about RAJAR. It might occasionally get brought up in an argument about who should host Today or PM, but the management generally view popularity as being rather gauche.

>>462246
Are you working as an editor for >>462240?

>>461594
I did bring a book, but there were some shlock pulp fiction books in the waiting area, as well as a couple of puzzles. A couple of plugs to charge devices as well, but they were mildly contested though the overall atmosphere in the waiting area was very friendly and collaborative.

I eventually got sworn in for a rape case. I'm obviously not allowed to talk about what happened during deliberation but suffice to say I now have a much better understanding of why the conviction rate for rapes is so low. I don't disagree with the system, it's working well, but I suppose there is a reason they give you the number for the Samaritans when they discharge you.

>>462337

>I'm obviously not allowed to talk about what happened during deliberation but suffice to say I now have a much better understanding of why the conviction rate for rapes is so low.

I'd be mildly interested to hear you elaborate on this, if you can do so without giving away anything specific enough to be incriminating.

I'm sure I've posted this before but my mate ended up on the jury for a domestic violence case, which was largely "he said, she said". He was the foreman and one of the main reasons he decided he was guilty was because he looked like a wrong 'un.

>>462338
As a jury we were urged to be "finders of fact" (or words to that effect). Cold hard facts. This case was a rape case, it involved withdrawel of consent. A mess.

It took several days, but not more than the estimated two weeks. No one walked away with a good feeling, I think.

Might as well post here seeing as the thread has been bumped. I decided to give my girlfriend the velvetiser for her birthday instead as it's fairly close to Christmas. When she opened it she pulled a face and said "if you're going to spend that much on someone, make sure it's something they actually want." before being a bitch for most of the day; that wasn't because of the present, she always turns into a bit of a monster on her birthday. She used it three times on her birthday and in the evening she apologised and appreciated me getting her such an indulgent treat; she also had a hot chocolate while we were out for the day and said it wasn't as nice as ones made with the velvetiser, so I've probably ruined other hot chocolates for her, and that she was salivating on the way home thinking about using it. I think sometimes knowing what she likes better than she does herself is a bit of a curse, because she may not have a good initial reaction to gifts but will really appreciate them over time.

>>462351

To me that sounds more like she just realised she'd been a cunt and she was over-compensating to make you feel better. At least she has the self awareness to do so though.

Bless you lad. She must know she's got a good 'un deep down.

>>462351
Sounds like she regretted her response. Weirdly I've been like this too before, very quick to dismiss a gift and realise much later it's very good. I'm sure she meant no harm.

How is the hot chocolate in it? Worth buying?

>>462352
She's never been good at apologising. Usually when she knows she's in the wrong she'll start being cuddly and affectionate to make it up, but rarely will she actually say sorry out loud.

Birthdays (and Christmas to a lesser extent) have always been a bit of a nightmare because she behaves as if she expects it to be a special day like when she was a child which never happens in reality, especially as she has a lot of baggage with her family and they'll frequently disappoint her.

>>462358
>How is the hot chocolate in it? Worth buying?

It is very nice, especially compared with what you'd get in a cafe or from instant hot chocolate, but I wouldn't think "holy shit, this was worth paying £70 for the machine and about 50/60p on chocolate flakes and milk per cup."