It's difficult to replace all of Adobe's software. Your needs are varied enough to make it a bit more difficult. Mostly due to your need for animation software and Linux. I completely moved over to the combination of the following software and only rarely come across an edge case scenario where Adobe CC could do something that my configuration could not.
- Photo Mechanic Plus (one0time >$100) (replaced Lightroom and Apple Photos)
- DaVinci Resolve (free and I love this software) (replaced Premiere)
There might be some smaller supplemental softwares I have accumulated over time to add more to my tools, but I don't think they're necessary.
It's so nice to not have CC, the subscription, the bloatware etc. Truly, I advocate against Adobe products to anyone I know who can actually perform professionally with the above substitutes. This is from someone who used to publish tutorials for Adobe's software in the many years past.
After reading his books, I would agree and was hoping someone had posted this. If anyone would vehemently oppose such manipulation, it would be Anthony Bourdain. Is there a disclaimer before this scene is shown? I'll choose not to watch such a documentary created by those with skewed ethics.
There does not seem to be any disclaimer regarding the manipulation, and the OP article questions whether the director would even have mentioned it had it not come up tangentially in the course of this interview.
While journalism was/is the fourth estate, the watchdog of the government, the people as the watchdog of journalists is becoming the rising fifth estate. This fifth estate isn't so organized or always of much quality, but observable signal is emerging. Truly, I've noticed a more substantial signal coming from HN comments questioning the veracity of the fourth estate. It's great to see.
This is true. We were shown Meshes of the Afternoon in our foundational filmmaking courses at AAU. Her use of choreography in combination of camera placement created a truly remarkable effect on the viewer. An example is her running up the stairs swaying back and forth with a slight tilt of the camera which made it seem as though the abode was moving like a ship on the open sea. Techniques like this she poetically used continue to inspire film makers today.
The HN crowd, for the most part, is very good at discerning a quality source from a questionable one. The general public, on the other hand, not so much. I often attempt to trace the source of information in any news article to its source, and more often times than not, one news outlet will use a different news outlet as a source. Eventually, you might get to the original source, but often you'll end up with with vague and roundabout interpretation of hearsay to make a nothing into something. Worse, you might not find the original source at all. There are good journalists out there doing their due-diligence, but the bar for a verified source is really low these days. A simple press release from a company, or a quote from someone adjacent to the topic, can be used, abused, and misconstrued to make the story hit harder. I'd say ethics in journalism tracks closely to trust in media. Incentives for news outlets, and their editors, wear on good journalists with good ethics, resulting in incentive driven content. It's really no surprise people don't trust "media" but trust specific journalists. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and things might change.
I would urge caution with that mindset. The HN crowd is as biased as anybody else. While some may have more curiosity and drive towards alternative viewpoints, they are not less susceptible with siding one source over the other. In fact, I find most people dig alternative sources purposefully to further reason their preconceived conclusions moreso than less. Always think that you're a fool like anybody else. If you think professionally trained journalists are biased, it's more likely your "fool-proof" process will lead to even more. Not a bad thing, simply human nature. (If you check my other post, you'll see I also think the media is extremely biased.)
Ex. there are plenty of prominent scientists who strictly stick to a scientific methodology in doing research, but it never stops them from performing their research with the goal hyping up their hypothesis.
As much I loathe self-aggrandizement, I wish this were true so that people weren't so generally wrong and biased.
Most people end up highly correlating to the beliefs they were brought up in.
Most people suddenly start tuning into politics and immediately think they understand issues like economics way out of their league, and understand better than people whose PhD and job it is. Of course if someone were to come tell them their initial impression of their career is more knowledgeable than them, they would laugh immensely.
In many places I see most people sharing things that are completely one-sided and often easily debunked by elementary critical thinking. HN barely registers on the wave of cruft that is the rest of people's political opinions.
It's just too bad it has to come from both sides of NYT and echo_chamber_rant.blogspot.com.
As much as it pains me to say this, Apple is having much trouble juggling their endeavors. Apple's website is usually pixel perfect, but look at https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index1.html and you'll see it isn't even responsive. Viewed on their own iOS devices renders the desktop nav. No one at Apple even goes to their own flagship desktop marketing page anymore.
Also, this page cannot be navigated with space/pgup/end. If I need to quickly skip the intro and go to page footer, there's only way to do that - click the 7x7 dot in the right, that is not even labeled.
I would love for this all to be one elaborate April Fool's joke and it becomes available on Monday.
On a more technical note, this was a bit surprising to read: "'No one looks at [Electro-Magnetic Interference] until the end.' The FCC rules for wireless charging devices like AirPower are quite strict, and limit exposure at 20 cm (8 in) above the device to 50 mW/cm^2."
Depending at which point was "the end" of the AirPower development cycle, Apple either spent many many months attempting to remedy the problem with small enough breakthroughs to keep the marketing parade going, or Apple discovered something severe last minute. The issues discussed in this article, I would think, were well enough known for some time--still making this a perplexing story.
It's easy to not delete and stop using to serve your purpose. I loathe facebook et al., but some employers (fewer and fewer these days) want to see my online presence. To not have a facebook was considered strange, so for that reason, I keep it around. However, as far as maintaining an identity, or holding on to your custom facebook url, that’s a non-issue. Delete away, and create again—facebook is intelligent enough to reconnect you to all those people if need be. Personal identity is strengthened by other's endorsement. That's easy to get again with FB, especially if you're who you really are. It's difficult to take someone’s identity in that sense and it be valuable to the person doing it.
