Wolf314159

I've used it. But mostly by the time I had created a deck to study, I didn't need it anymore.

Start using it yourself. Use it in awkward, wrong, uncool ways. They'll drop that shit like, "What the sigma Dad!?!"

I'm not biased and I'm not picking a side, but there is a lot of whataboutism is this thread and I stand by my stance that it is a weak argument and a logical fallacy.

I generally wash they with warm water and soap after I'm done or taking a break. I usually take one of those little dish soap bottles from the hotel when I travel to keep in the truck, cuts right through the grease and grime pretty well even if all you have is a jug of water on hand.

Three is the Magic Number.

Runner up: I'm Just a Bill.

Whataboutism isn't a very convincing argument.

Fair? What's fair about how they hand out Oscars? Seriously. One example, I thought it has been pretty well established that awards are often handed out because of a person's history of work and not only the current thing they are being awarded for this year. I'm sure this could be hotly debated, but I've never heard anyone accuse the Oscars of being fair.

Sports photography is not a cheap hobby. Expect to spend 10 times your budget just to get started. You can save (some) money by shopping used on sites like adorama or B&H. Older models of DSLR can be had for a pretty good deal because all the kids these days are hyped about mirrorless. Expect to do a lot of research and wade through a lot of articles written by gear obsessed people with money to burn. I think you can still browse archives of dpreview.com for some in depth reviews and specs, especially if you're shopping older models.

Pretty much any consumer camera with an interchangeable lens will do the job, it's the lens that will really determine how good a picture you can get. There's a reason you see a lot of HUGE (and expense) lens on the sidelines. Megapixels are much less important these days because pretty much everything has enough. The metrics you'll be looking to maximize will be a fast autofocus system, a fast lens, and a long enough focal length to get your view in close to your subject from a distance. You might be able to find something that is "good enough" in a cheaper range with a camera with a built-in lens. If you get bit by the photography bug though, that might turn out to be a waste of money if you decide you want to upgrade.

It was very different that the other versions and I appreciated it for that. It felt like a Lovecraftian tale with a touch more humanity than standard. The Hellboy wit from the other movies is still there, but it's bone dry in its delivery and I think that worked to the advantage of the tone of this one. It wasn't Hellboy out saving the whole world. But those lower stakes got more personal. This reviewer just seems put off that this movie didn't meet their own expectations for it. The reviewer wanted another boring shocky big budget adventure/action/super hero movie. Instead, they got a spooky slow burn folk horror with an indie feel. I guess that offended them maybe. I think they're just rage baiting click throughs for the ad revenue.

I think we agree here. "A few" is debatable, based on opinion, but also context matters. If I say I need a few minutes to either put on my shoes, prepare dinner, wake up, take a shower, or take dump, those are all different lengths of time. I just feel that conversation and interviews take a lot more time than the edited results we commonly see in print and on TV. Things like pauses to reflect on questions, introductions, and warm up questions never make it to publication. If I was asked to sit for an interview and it ended after 35 minutes, I would absolutely characterise that as "a few minutes". And unless I'd ended it myself, I'd be concerned that it ended too quickly. If it had ended that wuickly, I'd be worried about what insane things I had done in those few minutes to provide them with enough material for a piece or that they had cancelled the piece entirely because they quickly determined I wasn't worth continuing the interview. That is my opinion, but I feel that it's well grounded in my experience and expectations, especially for a sit down interview with a candidate. I can see how calling 35 minutes "a few minutes" could be characterised as exaggerated, but getting incensed over it in a headline (a large font single line intended to grab attention in a few words) is overcompensating a bit.

And what I'm saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.

35 minutes doesn't seem very long for an interview. Is expecting the presidential candidate to remain lucid and coherent for slightly more than a half hour too much to ask?