No, that's Nassau County, New York. Not the entirety of New York. Says it right there in the article you linked. There's also a lawsuit challenging it, also linked at the end of the article.
To build, you need permitting. To get a permit, you need permission from the municipality. If the neighbors believe they will be adversely affected by the new building, they may petition the municipality to reject the new building or make them alter the plan, at which point it becomes a political issue, not a private home life issue.
I held a portable USB3 Blu-Ray reader in my hand once.
I could have used it, too, but I could not think of anything I wanted to do with it by that time in 2017 -- seven years ago -- despite my proclivity for making backups of films.
BD on a PC has never been common in my world of computing, and by 2017 optical drives in general were becoming very uncommon in everyone's world.
Just at the time Blu-ray would have made sense for computers everything went to downloads. I bought many games that came on CD or DVD but the only ones that ever came on Blu-ray were for console.
They didn't say "Nobody should be allowed to have more than two children". They simply have an opinion that people shouldn't, purposefully, have more than two children. Seems reasonable to me.
Yes, thank you.
I'm not Mao.
People should choose to have either no children
Or ideally one or two children
And not no children.
Ideally, we as a society should support people who choose to have one or two children,
prioritizing these families over people who have half a dozen or more children.
But that's because in my opinion people who have dozens of children have something wrong in their heads.
If you choose to have a dozen children, you better be able to afford to raise them all on your own dime.
That being said, I really dislike means testing of any kind so I'd be ok with a social safety net for the wackos and their unfortunate children.
Davinci Resolve is on par with Premiere. Quark XPress is a great replacement for InDesign. No need to rely on one company for every type of multimedia software.
Have you actually used the products you’re recommending and the Adobe equivalents? I would say that InDesign easily won over then industry-standard Quark nearly two decades ago, and Resolve is okay but not great at most things. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Resolve and its pricing, but like Affinity, it’s not quite on par with the features of Adobe’s products. I’m routinely frustrated by missing features. I have complaints for Adobe products too, but usually missing features aren’t one of them. (Except if your product is named Captivate or was recently changed from a legacy app to a modern Electron app (or something), then I have a lot of missing features to suggest.)
Heck, I am frustrated that Canva didn’t have a layers panel, and now that they do, that it doesn’t behave the way I expect and I can’t pull it up easily… or that Canva makes it impossible to ensure assets match when searching for a matching sequence or set of templates. Or all the ways I can’t just do the thing I’m thinking of by right clicking or modifying layers or something. Canva itself is an exercise in frustration for power users. Affinity ain’t perfect either. Great matchup, really.
I’m less convinced. The text features and even how frames resize images were either annoying or lacking when I last used Publisher. Yes, I used it, and yes, it worked. But it’s no contest that in the details, InDesign has more features that are (in some cases) better thought out or for text rendering, just really good. At the moment the two best ways I know of to render text are (1) any Adobe product with their text engine and (2) LaTeX via something like XeTeX, but Adobe’s still wins for ease of use. Maybe third place would go to the Safari web browser if you use the right CSS and presumably export to PDF, though using it to export PDFs isn’t as user-friendly as iOS Share panel, Chrome or Prince - for PDF export, at least. Note that these statements are subjective on my part, I’d welcome evidence to the contrary as a sign of progress away from the Adobe hegemony. ;-)
Are you sure this is not just learning inertia? Because frames in Affinity work more like css object-fit and are "live". In Indesign you have to "recalculate" fit/fill every time with action. I would argue if you didn't know Indesign way the Affinity way is superior.
Text rendering algorithms are quite known quantity and lifted from LaTeX. Indesign has paragraph (multi-line) composer which in latex equivalent is microtype package. Affinity doesn't have that but paragraph composer is not really used that much in professional setting because when you do final manual fixes/adjustment of typography then with paragraph composer your changes could affect previous changes in paragraph (so people go by line by line). Paradoxically paragraph composer is pretty good for quickly getting OK enough results especially in more budget/non-pro setting.
Other than that i don't think the typography output (for print) is different I've seen some tests and it seems kinda exactly the same. Affinity might render type on screen a bit differently but the output is solid. I was more afraid of the quality of .pdf itself but even highend offset printers didn't see a difference/complained.
Good point. And I should clarify, I’m not a filmmaker and mostly edit screen recordings and home movies. For that, I find that Resolve and Final Cut Pro work equally well and equally poorly. There’s a lot of room in video editing for further innovation, particularly if A.I. or automation can help simplify repetitive tasks. Premiere isn’t the best example of Adobe’s video tools - that title probably belongs to After Effects, an app inexplicably unique in its ease of editing and producing motion video graphics. No need to deal with translating your ideas into Nodes to get it working in Resolve. No need to try to fit within the limitations of titles and effects in FCP, etc. After Effects is Premiere’s killer app.
FCP X’s simple timeline which chains clips together making edits easy, though some would call this an anti-feature.
After Effects simplicity compared to the hellscape that can be node-based VG work. I mean, the programmer in me loves nodes, I even used MaxMSP frequently… and Origami. But the simplicity of After Effects is really nice and it has like every plugin in existence.
Don’t get me wrong, I use DaVinci with the quick editor and have considered buying other gear to make it work better, but… it’s really kinda a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-color-grading app. There’s a lot still to wish for.
I really hope automakers don't start embracing touchscreens even more. Tactile feedback / muscle memory is important for safer operation. At least Mazda seems to get that[1], if only others would get over their minimalism obsession. Would embrace regulations requiring physical controls for most common tasks.
I want the year 2010 car experience with some of the EV benefits. So electric motor/battery/charging/steer and break by wire/classic dials for speed/classic climate control controls/classic signalling and lighting controls/... Maybe Carplay/Android Auto, but no tracking or operating controls that are touch screens. Also, a way to disable the display with a button.
I don't think anything is brake by wire, even that Lexus has a failsafe mode that ultimately is a direct physical connection. No saving parts there yet.
Like the other commentor said, the brake is still connected to the brake pedal and the car mechanically assists for one-pedal mode. You can always still use the brake pedal even with any automation or assistance off.
<thing>-by-wire means there is a control with no physical connection to <thing>.
for example, older tesla cars can steer themselves, but the steering wheel still connects to the front wheels mechanically.
The newer cybertruck has a steer-by-wire. The wheels are turned side to side by motors, but the steering wheel is not mechanically hooked to it, it's just an electronic controller.
The one-pedal though is only a mechanical assistance to the existing connection between the brake pedal and the brake. Maybe we're splitting hairs, but its more akin to power steering.
With [traditional] power-assisted steering, there is always a direct mechanical connection between the wheel and the steering box/rack. It's assisted, usually hydraulically, but it is not isolated by a wire; that direct mechanical connection is always there.
With [traditional] power-assisted brakes, there is always a direct connection between the pedal doing the braking and the wheel cylinders. It's assisted (usually, but not always, by vacuum), but that direct mechanical connection is always there.
With one-pedal driving that only uses exactly one pedal, there is never a direct mechanical connection between that singular pedal and the braking system. That connection is only electrical; there is no direct mechanical (or hydraulic, to split hairs) connection at all. It is entirely brake-by-wire, unless one chooses to place a foot on the brake pedal and thereby do something other than one-pedal driving.
Thus: Unless there's hydraulics connected to the accelerator pedal, then: As long as mechanical braking (pads-on-rotors friction) can be performed in one-pedal mode (and it can be), then one-pedal mode must perform braking-by-wire.
We're already there, I think; people use brake-by-wire every day. (That we also have a functional hydraulic brake pedal as a backup does not mean that brake-by-wire is not a thing that one-pedal-mode provides.)
(If that sounds aggressive, then I apologize. I'm still recovering from a vacation with a 30-hour drive, and I may be up too late, and may also be drinking a bit much tonight.)
So does Teams, and if you want to 1-1 someone just click their name and the call icon. Add more people with two more clicks. Everyone on the bridge will see you’re on hold in the main call, which prevents people dialing you to rejoin and wasting time.
I find that far more often than not, when someone is lamenting the lack of a feature in communication software, the feature actually exists and they’re just not aware of it.
In the Ventrilo scenario you could hear, but not be heard by the parent room. This is the only way Eve online fleets with hundreds of participants could be coordinated for insurance. Your example works for a 1-on-1 but not for hierarchical communication layers.
Interesting, the Eve example. Are the higher-in-command in the root/parent rooms and then it's hierarchial down the line? Or can you just listen in on certain rooms as well as whatever you are talking about on?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-lawsuit-challen...